Baman said: Yes yes, I fully intended the air of superiority it gives off. But looking away from the snobbish feel, I am still serious about the points I raised. There was nothing wrong in your arguments, and I would rather say your post was way more intelligent than snobbish :D It's.... scary to see that intelligent people who use their brains are labeled as "snobs" Quo vadis humanity?... |
Lain666 said: I see the problem here stems from the fact that you have misunderstood one of the purposes of a review. A review is about stating a reviewer’s opinion. If you look for a serious paper that gives some advice how to write a review, you will see that it states that in a review you state your own opinion and it never advises you to present anyone else’s opinion. It’s about how to write a review for a book, but a review of an anime is pretty much the same, apart from the fact that a reviewer has to additionally evaluate animation. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/review.html#2 Purposes are arbitrary. I was saying what I would find ideal. Like I said, if reviews are meant to "conclusively" judge rather than to ideally usefully explain for the purpose of aiding potential viewers then they're not actually as useful as a vote graph along with lists of AniDB categories and tags are to me, and I don't appear to be alone. Of course, as can be found in the article above, a reviewer should point out shortcomings. No one also forbids a reviewer to warn the audience that: There's no magic, the sci-fi is not heavily focused on or exploited in a unique way, none of the characters are "cool as shit", "badass", "sexy" (requires fanservice or a "sexy" personality type), or "moe" (by "normal" standards), and the pacing is not intense, but slow. It's not forbidden, but if you want a good review rating you'd better pander to the dominant audience (often fans), even by reporting bugs as features. There's no room for balance in most people's opinions. The problem would only arise if a reviewer tried to criticize LoGH, for not having moe, fanservice etc. To paraphrase a little what has been written in the article: Review the anime in front of you, not the anime you wish the authors had made. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don't criticize the anime for not being something it was never intended to be. Unfortunately, what something is ostensibly meant to be isn't always what it will be to many people, even if one's review is "good". Expressing what it probably won't be along with what it probably will be caters to everyone as a group better. But the group doesn't matter, just the largest subgroup, weighted for interest in reviews. If you can ideally please them then you automatically get to have your review be the most popular, no matter how unhelpful it may be to others. In case of misunderstanding, I don’t try to say that you would make this mistake, since you have never written that LoGH sucks, because it doesn’t includes “moe” and you admit that it did well at what it meant to do so I don’t think it’s your problem. What I would like to say is that if someone voted your review down, I understand that you don't have motivation to write a review it's just an example, because of such a warning it would be an idiot and I don’t think LoGH fans would do this, especially since such a warning is not a part of your evaluation and doesn’t influence the overall rating. I believe LoGH fans would see a difference between a reasonable argument against LoGH such as this one: In spite of taking place in space, the battles are lead as if they were taking place at sea on Earth. And a half-assed argument against LoGH such as this one: LoGH sucks, because there are no moe girls with incurable diseases and it's not a show full of drama like NANA. "What I would like to say is that if someone voted your review down, I understand that you don't have motivation to write a review it's just an example, because of such a warning it would be an idiot and I don’t think LoGH fans would do this, especially since such a warning is not a part of your evaluation and doesn’t influence the overall rating." is phrased too oddly for me to be clear on, but I am cynical and do doubt that only very few LoGH fans would vote a potential review of mine down for not giving it a good rating, not only expressing the good, or expressing how it can fail to many (who many LoGH fans view as the ones failing), especially since LoGH has the proportional oodles of fanboys and cheaters that any top ten title does. If trying to appeal to everyone was really the most popular thing then politicians wouldn't constantly be trying to paint large swaths of the population as misguided. Baman said: Oh dear. You do agree that most terms need to have a more or less objective definition to be useful, yes? Then consider "depth". It means something has more dimensions to it and is not just what meets the eye initially. It's a objective term. Now, some people might have different ideas of what is enough to constitute as "depth", and might say that Code Geass is deep. Which it is compared to, say, Pokemon. However, it is not by any means deep compared to LoGH, The Count of Monte Cristo or other well written works. This is something anyone who has experienced these works would indubitably agree on. The only reason someone might say CG is deep is because they have not experienced enough deep works, or is comparing it to lesser works. This is not a "minority" interpretation, but merely a educated opinion, a logical conclusion that comes from experience. If the masses that hail CG had read more classics, they would not laud it nearly as much. But the masses are inexorably drawn to flashy, shallow entertainment (The statistics speak for themselves), so they will never be able to properly grasp "quality". It is not about a subjective opinion of the term at all, but a deeper understanding of it that you only get with experience. A child who has only seen Pokemon and Code Geass is no more suited to talk about depth than a student who has read a Wikipedia article about Freud is suited to talk of Psychology. It is the common meaning of a term that defines the objective content of it, but any terms about quality like depth and the like also requires comparison, and thus, experience. Call me elitist all you like, and ignorantly close your eyes to the world's literary history, expectations and standards to genres and tropes, they will be there whether you deny them or not. If you wish to see the world without any sort of guidelines or expectations where absolutely anything can be considered quality because everything is "subjective", there is not much more point for me to discuss this with you. Or for anyone to ever listen to your reviews or opinions for that matter, as they are obviously all nothing but subjective likes and dislikes swayed by whatever is flashy and pretty. Unfortunately, my existence proves your argument false. LoGH didn't present anything beyond what my young teenage self was able to think of, and more importantly presented nothing new or even somewhat unique and thus nothing particularly interesting to my current self. Also, telling instead of showing is more like a bland textbook than a good anime to me. Code Geass' more interesting and controversial themes are more laudable to me. You're also ignorantly closing your eyes to the fact that there has never been consensus on what is best to expect or judge based on, even among snobs. Anyway, it seems more likely that my opinions would be more helpful to most people than yours are (unless you would express a love for moe or shounen action), since I'm not a snob who looks down on everyone else by ignoring their feelings as valid. |
 If you're stingy then click on CLuClu! Please consider supporting the end of disenfranchisement on MAL. Purpose is subjective, therefore quality is subjective. |
Daisuki-chan said: , since I'm not a snob who looks down on everyone else by ignoring their feelings as valid. lol...oh the irony, its killing me... |
| "...our faces marked by toil, by deceptions, by success, by love; our weary eyes looking still, looking always, looking anxiously for something out of life, that while it is expected is already gone – has passed unseen, in a sigh, in a flash – together with the youth, with the strength, with the romance of illusions.” - Joseph Conrad ('Youth') |
Daisuki-chan said: Well, being a fangirl that blatantly ignores the trappings of the things she likes and seem to see nothing but faults in the things she doesn't like (Yes, I'm bringing in the discussion from C&C, go ahead, and shoot me), I don't see how any opinion of yours would ever be helpful to anyone really.Anyway, it seems more likely that my opinions would be more helpful to most people than yours are (unless you would express a love for moe or shounen action), since I'm not a snob who looks down on everyone else by ignoring their feelings as valid. And if anything, it clearly shows that your opinions are not to be taken seriously as far as I am concerned. |
| This thread is excellent proof why the words "objective" and "subjective" should be sufficient grounds for denying someone any kind of education until they learn to purge these blights from their no doubt inconsiderable vocabulary. I've ranted about it before, but basically the words are senseless, and are just, by now, excuses to believe whatever you wish without actually giving an argument for it. What is objective is true, absolute, invariant over perspectives, not arbitrary, certain, timeless, context-less, physical, inhuman, valueless, not to do with emotion, scientific, logical, possible and recommendable to argue for. What is subjective is incapable of being true or false, relative, variant over perspectives, arbitrary, impossible to attain certainty about, time-dependent, context-dependent, spiritual, human, valued, to do with emotion, ascientific, not about logic, impossible and unnecessary to argue for. Neither is even close to being a complete summation. Look at that, look at all those yucky things glued together despite having no necessary or likely internal relationship! Even if they did, certainly no such has ever been given a case. In a miraculous turn, you can always include some of the countless things "subjective" now stands for in any place, conclude that the matter is subjective, and then you can - free of tax, these are the laissez faire Schengen zones of mind! - include the other ones. No wonder confusion follows. These damned words are good for one thing and one thing only: to destroy good thought and substitute a shrug. For example, do mind it is entirely fallible, since, given that you used the words you did, I have no idea what you really meant, and can only infer from context. Anyone can be a fanboy, and they can just be ignored as an extremist, but a snob tries to justify his or her fanboyism by using faux objectivitygiving reasons to subjectivelyemotionally value things. This is the irritating part to me. If everyone in the world accepted that both their desires and their values all mean absolutely nothing to basically anyone, and that such is only rational, then the world would be a better place. ;p It is essentially false, if we take with "snob" to mean anyone you have insinuated to be such in this thread, to say that we give reasons for our emotions; we give reasons for our value judgments. Do take heed that some, me included, do not see the argument as to why Code Geass is bad as the reason it is bad; the badness is the argument, it is not a conclusion, merely an abbreviation. Many other different ways to use the words are possible, but it is just a single example as to why you are wrong. But it is definitely not true that we give arguments why we felt what we did about it or why others should too; we give arguments on quality, which is another thing. That you have equated them does not necessitate we do. It is essentially false to say it doesn't matter; the values and desires of other people are deeply important to us, since that is the basis of their actions, which will invariably affect us or others. Certainly how we value an obscure Japanese cartoon science fiction show is not to good deal effectual, but a falsehood is a falsehood. Again, if I interpreted your words wrong, pardon then, but I deeply doubt you can at all make that sentence follow. Same kind of argument applies to every other sentence where you used either word, there's really a lot to go through, I hope the basic way it goes is well enough shown here. Daisuki-chan said: Anyway, it seems more likely that my opinions would be more helpful to most people than yours are (unless you would express a love for moe or shounen action), since I'm not a snob who looks down on everyone else by ignoring their feelings as valid. I am a moe fanboi and I like syônen action. This does not make my opinion more worth than that of Baman. The only thing that matters is that the argument is valid and true and therefore sound. And yeah, you are a snob, you seem very given to telling other people what they like or don't, which is pretty snobbish to me. BUT WHO CAAARES~ IT'S JUST SUBJECTIVE~ |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
eyerok said: lol...oh the irony, its killing me... Killing you. :) Baman said: Well, being a fangirl that blatantly ignores the trappings of the things she likes and seem to see nothing but faults in the things she doesn't like (Yes, I'm bringing in the discussion from C&C, go ahead, and shoot me), I don't see how any opinion of yours would ever be helpful to anyone really. And if anything, it clearly shows that your opinions are not to be taken seriously as far as I am concerned. Defining me as a fangirl and defining the "trappings" of things I like for me is just pointless. My opinions can be helpful because I don't treat them like they were facts, which is handy, since they aren't facts to other people. Of course my opinions wouldn't be helpful to you; they don't reek of the brand of superiority you crave. I don't know what you're thinking I find only faults in that I dislike, but it can not be LoGH unless you are being ignorant. Kaiserpingvin said: This thread is excellent proof why the words "objective" and "subjective" should be sufficient grounds for denying someone any kind of education until they learn to purge these blights from their no doubt inconsiderable vocabulary. That's nice, but when people claim something is objective when it's subjective what am I to do? I've ranted about it before, but basically the words are senseless, and are just, by now, excuses to believe whatever you wish without actually giving an argument for it. Never mind that I deeply explain why value judgements are subjective and not objective. What is objective is true, absolute, invariant over perspectives, not arbitrary, certain, timeless, context-less, physical, inhuman, valueless, not to do with emotion, scientific, logical, possible and recommendable to argue for. What is subjective is incapable of being true or false, relative, variant over perspectives, arbitrary, impossible to attain certainty about, time-dependent, context-dependent, spiritual, human, valued, to do with emotion, ascientific, not about logic, impossible and unnecessary to argue for. Quality is said to be bad or good, which are values, so you should agree with me that quality is subjective. If not then you're disagreeing with yourself or are using a definition for quality that implies no value (unlike others) and thus implies...what? Adherence to a subjective ideal? Adherence to an arbitrary ideal? Is there an objective ideal to adhere to, in the sense that it is the one to adhere to and not others? Why would there be independently of values? The only objective states seem to be past existence or nonexistence, current existence or nonexistence, and future existence or nonexistence. But why use the connotation-laden word quality to describe the true or false values of these? Neither is even close to being a complete summation. Look at that, look at all those yucky things glued together despite having no necessary or likely internal relationship! Even if they did, certainly no such has ever been given a case. In a miraculous turn, you can always include some of the countless things "subjective" now stands for in any place, conclude that the matter is subjective, and then you can - free of tax, these are the laissez faire Schengen zones of mind! - include the other ones. Straw man argument. How is me saying that ascribing values to things is subjective and that such ascribers are not objective but are subjective some sort of endless conflation of concepts? Attempting to be objective means attempting to find the truth by recognizing and analyzing only facts. Subjectivity means also or only including personal values, preferences, desires, etc. to determine an opinion, which is not objectively true, only subjectively true to the evaluator and any evaluators who happen to agree with him. No wonder confusion follows. These damned words are good for one thing and one thing only: to destroy good thought and substitute a shrug. For example, do mind it is entirely fallible, since, given that you used the words you did, I have no idea what you really meant, and can only infer from context. But you now appear to be attempting to destroy the truth that value judgements are subjective, no matter their justifications, reasoning, etc. Anyone can be a fanboy, and they can just be ignored as an extremist, but a snob tries to justify his or her fanboyism by using faux objectivitygiving reasons to subjectivelyemotionally value things. This is the irritating part to me. If everyone in the world accepted that both their desires and their values all mean absolutely nothing to basically anyone, and that such is only rational, then the world would be a better place. ;p It is essentially false, if we take with "snob" to mean anyone you have insinuated to be such in this thread, to say that we give reasons for our emotions; we give reasons for our value judgments. Do take heed that some, me included, do not see the argument as to why Code Geass is bad as the reason it is bad; the badness is the argument, it is not a conclusion, merely an abbreviation. Many other different ways to use the words are possible, but it is just a single example as to why you are wrong. But it is definitely not true that we give arguments why we felt what we did about it or why others should too; we give arguments on quality, which is another thing. The badness is the argument... Do you mean that the badness is created through the acceptance of the argument? That can make sense, but it doesn't mean that the argument is true and should be accepted, which is what snobs want me to believe. "A snob is someone who adopts the worldview of snobbery — that some people are inherently inferior to him or her for any one of a variety of reasons, including real or supposed intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, beauty, etcetera. Often, the form of snobbery reflects the snob's personal attributes. For example, a common snobbery of the affluent is the belief that wealth is either the cause or result of superiority, or both, and a common snobbery of the physically attractive is that beauty is paramount." Differing but equally arbitrary values, preferences, desires, etc. aren't inherently inferior in any objective sense. You can say that they are, but then you would be a snob. That you have equated them does not necessitate we do. If quality is a value judgement (good and bad are value judgements) then it is indeed the case that you're just explaining how you felt, just like me, except that I don't put down your values as "objectively" wrong or bad. If quality is a truth state then everyone has been doing a very, very poor job of expressing that. Why combine subjective words into objective statements? It only destroys the ostensible objectivity that could've been expressed. Just leave it at "Code Geass has characteristics that don't conform to an ideal that I favor.", for example. Then you default to being a reasonably accepting person, instead of a snob. Instead saying "Code Geass is bad, and I am right for everyone!" is just garbage. Just leave it as a personal value judgement. Don't attempt to define it as the only "true" quality state it can have. That's just saying that others do not like quality (something with a positive connotation), which is just calling them bad, while you call yourself good. Good > bad, so you thus are claiming superiority and are being a snob under such conditions. It is essentially false to say it doesn't matter; the values and desires of other people are deeply important to us, since that is the basis of their actions, which will invariably affect us or others. Certainly how we value an obscure Japanese cartoon science fiction show is not to good deal effectual, but a falsehood is a falsehood. Again, if I interpreted your words wrong, pardon then, but I deeply doubt you can at all make that sentence follow. Of course other people's values can matter, but when people evaluate things as good or bad they generally don't factor them in much at all unless they significantly value the people holding them, and that is especially the case for snobs. I was being hyperbolic, which would make sense if the ostensibly held assumption that I can believe anything, no matter how extreme, wasn't held. It's false if taken literally, but my meaning was emphatic, so it's apparently not false. Same kind of argument applies to every other sentence where you used either word, there's really a lot to go through, I hope the basic way it goes is well enough shown here. If you won't use commonly accepted definitions but instead merge different things into them then it's hardly my fault. Quality and objectivity aren't whatever suits you. I'm open to you giving your definition of quality (something that various "objectivists" refuse to do), but you'll have to ask yourself "Why?" repeatedly until you get down to "I don't know", "I just think/feel/want that", or "These things exist independently of any observers of them" if you want to save time. If you evade the question of why before then then you either don't know or refuse to have a useful conversation with me for whatever reason, in which case you can hardly expect to convince or enlighten me. I am a moe fanboi and I like syônen action. This does not make my opinion more worth than that of Baman. The only thing that matters is that the argument is valid and true and therefore sound. It does make it worth more to people looking for such recommendations, since you ostensibly actually share and thus also understand their values. All opinions have no objective worth, though, which is rather my point. Snobs keep demanding that I change my mind because I'm wrong or otherwise bad, but the latter clause is not objectively the case. Anyway, if you'd never argue that moe and/or shounen action had quality then you have to explain either why no one should like it (also a value judgement) or how that is objectively true. And yeah, you are a snob, you seem very given to telling other people what they like or don't, which is pretty snobbish to me. BUT WHO CAAARES~ IT'S JUST SUBJECTIVE~ Well, I do operate under the assumption that motivations come from values, which come from emotions. I don't see why something should be done in any scenario if there was no net value in doing so. Other than that I'm only saying that snobs just keep being insulting from a very popular perspective of others (being called inferior for subjective or uncontrollable reasons is commonly considered mean) and technically dishonest, even if they don't know it. Anyway, being a snob can be considered subjective on some level, but even negative valuation itself can, too. I can't even confirm beyond any possible doubt that any axioms are true, or that truth even exists, since I need to rely on axioms (which are ultimately assumptions) to do so. |
If you're stingy then click on CLuClu! Please consider supporting the end of disenfranchisement on MAL. Purpose is subjective, therefore quality is subjective. |
Daisuki-chan said: No, you are a fangirl. You don't even attempt to be critical of something you like, that retarded discussion in C&C clearly shows that. Ergo, your opinions will be worthless for others, as they will only see the good sides of whatever you like, no matter how shallow other finds it and despite all their relevant and solid criticism and arguments.Defining me as a fangirl and defining the "trappings" of things I like for me is just pointless. My opinions can be helpful because I don't treat them like they were facts, which is handy, since they aren't facts to other people. Of course my opinions wouldn't be helpful to you; they don't reek of the brand of superiority you crave. Again with your laughable tactic of labeling everyone else as elitists.Now, repeat after me; Being critical is not elitism Being critical is not elitism Being critical is not elitism Do you get it now? Honestly, talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't want to critique the things you like and ignore any flaws they may have as being irrelevant. Who's the elitist here, huh? I don't know what you're thinking I find only faults in that I dislike, but it can not be LoGH unless you are being ignorant. Uh, what? You give LoGH a 5 and CG R3 a 9, and have been circlespamming your "arguments" here, all the while implying LoGH is overrated and only liked by elitists, while defending Lelouch by retarded Ad populum arguments and brushing off all the critique as being irrelevant.Do I need to say more? Now, I'm sure everyone here (if there are some who doesn't) would see your fangirlism and thus, the worthlessness of your opinions, if they had read the brain-cell killing thread in C&C. But I'm not going to post all this here, and frankly, I don't see the point of discussing with you at all anymore. If you want to continue running in circles and ignoring every form of critique with your trite "LOL SUBJECTIVITY" rambles, then be my guest, but I'm not going to waste more time reading this shit. If you change your mind and want to actually discuss and critique LoGH (Or your beloved Lulu-sama for that matter), feel free to give me a shout and I'll try to pick up where I left off. |
Baman said: Now, I'm sure everyone here (if there are some who doesn't) would see your fangirlism and thus, the worthlessness of your opinions, if they had read the brain-cell killing thread in C&C. OH SHIIII- I've read this thread from C&C and now MAH BRAIN IZ MISSING! :O srsly. :< |
Daisuki-chan said: My opinions can be helpful because I don't treat them like they were facts OH NOES!!! more irony haha Baman said: Again with your laughable tactic of labeling everyone else as elitists. Now, repeat after me; Being critical is not elitism Being critical is not elitism Being critical is not elitism Do you get it now? Honestly, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Now, I'm sure everyone here (if there are some who doesn't) would see your fangirlism and thus, the worthlessness of your opinions... If you want to continue running in circles and ignoring every form of critique with your trite "LOL SUBJECTIVITY" rambles, then be my guest, but I'm not going to waste more time reading this shit. I second. The sad part is that she actually believes so much in the rightness of her own stance, she's so sure that she's saying the truth, that nothing anybody else says hold any value...hell she isn't even listening to anybody seriously, bombing us with walls of biased fangirl bullshit and cloaking it in the guise of 'objectivity'; i really is laughable honestly. For a while back I actually gave her the benefit of doubt. There are three kinds of trolls on MAL: 1. the ones who post 4 word lines of hate, resorting to name-calling and flaming at every opportunity. Easy to ignore. harmless 2. the ones who post paragraphs of biased trolling hate BS directed mostly at the series that is considered a rival of their own favorite manga/anime (like those bleach fans on the naruto manga discussion. Easy to handle with reasonable disucssion, once you prove them wrong they just disappear. And then there's the third kind. Rare. Wild. Self-righteous ones, who accuse others of having a biased opinion and acting like they don't; all the while shoving their opinions down the other peoples throats. Theirs is the ultimate truth. And they always find a way around to go in circles just to have the satisfaction of pretending that they 'got back' and 'proved' themselves right. If I didn't have an exam next week I'd be dissecting each and every sentence of hers and replying to it, even though I know that wouldn't do any good. The argument will be going in circles and we'd all be wasting our time. I'm out of this discussion. No need to reply Daisuki. And if you do...don't expect me to post a response. |
eyerokMay 29, 2010 1:30 PM
| "...our faces marked by toil, by deceptions, by success, by love; our weary eyes looking still, looking always, looking anxiously for something out of life, that while it is expected is already gone – has passed unseen, in a sigh, in a flash – together with the youth, with the strength, with the romance of illusions.” - Joseph Conrad ('Youth') |
orzel286 said: My brain density seems to ave dropped by 13% already and I can't even recall my mothers' birthday anymore ;__;OH SHIIII- I've read this thread from C&C and now MAH BRAIN IZ MISSING! :O srsly. :< |
Baman said: I don't remember their ages, at all. Their birthdays on the other hand is easy for me since both of them have the exact same day but one month away from each other. I blame forums.orzel286 said: My brain density seems to ave dropped by 13% already and I can't even recall my mothers' birthday anymore ;__;OH SHIIII- I've read this thread from C&C and now MAH BRAIN IZ MISSING! :O srsly. :< |
Tachii said: Wow. So, did your dad use the "We're born on the same day..." pickup line?I don't remember their ages, at all. Their birthdays on the other hand is easy for me since both of them have the exact same day but one month away from each other. I blame forums. It may be corny but it's not often you get the chance to use it so definitely worth it. |
Baman said: Daisuki-chan said: No, you are a fangirl. You don't even attempt to be critical of something you like, that retarded discussion in C&C clearly shows that. Ergo, your opinions will be worthless for others, as they will only see the good sides of whatever you like, no matter how shallow other finds it and despite all their relevant and solid criticism and arguments.Defining me as a fangirl and defining the "trappings" of things I like for me is just pointless. My opinions can be helpful because I don't treat them like they were facts, which is handy, since they aren't facts to other people. Of course my opinions wouldn't be helpful to you; they don't reek of the brand of superiority you crave. Again with your laughable tactic of labeling everyone else as elitists.Now, repeat after me; Being critical is not elitism Being critical is not elitism Being critical is not elitism Do you get it now? Honestly, talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't want to critique the things you like and ignore any flaws they may have as being irrelevant. Who's the elitist here, huh? I don't know what you're thinking I find only faults in that I dislike, but it can not be LoGH unless you are being ignorant. Uh, what? You give LoGH a 5 and CG R3 a 9, and have been circlespamming your "arguments" here, all the while implying LoGH is overrated and only liked by elitists, while defending Lelouch by retarded Ad populum arguments and brushing off all the critique as being irrelevant.Do I need to say more? Now, I'm sure everyone here (if there are some who doesn't) would see your fangirlism and thus, the worthlessness of your opinions, if they had read the brain-cell killing thread in C&C. But I'm not going to post all this here, and frankly, I don't see the point of discussing with you at all anymore. If you want to continue running in circles and ignoring every form of critique with your trite "LOL SUBJECTIVITY" rambles, then be my guest, but I'm not going to waste more time reading this shit. If you change your mind and want to actually discuss and critique LoGH (Or your beloved Lulu-sama for that matter), feel free to give me a shout and I'll try to pick up where I left off. Finally...someone has finally said it to Daisuku...... I mean I like both Code Geass and LotGH and it pains me to see that both of the animes I like are being are being hated by both sides.....can't we all just get along >.> hahaha....joking set aside.......I like reading arguements....it's kinda entertaining ^^.....and I've been following this thread for quite some time now....and I can see that Daisuku is just a fangril trying to force her opinion on other people and at the same time ignoring their opinon....and honestly she isn't even making sense anymore....and it's starting to get annoying.....so to Daisuku I don't mean any harm, but seriously your not making sense anymore.....and what's up with posting reply's that long?....I mean I get a headache from reading them sometimes....... oh and basically you said that LotGH is an over-rated anime only like by etilists right?......well, what about me?....I'm just your average otaku who likes watching shonen, mecha...sometimes watches moe, loli etc.....and I say LotGH is a pretty damn good anime....and does that not make my opinion count? ...rNr... |
| "In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same." |
JP_rNr said: oh and basically you said that LotGH is an over-rated anime only like by etilists right?......well, what about me?....I'm just your average otaku who likes watching shonen, mecha...sometimes watches moe, loli etc.....and I say LotGH is a pretty damn good anime....and does that not make my opinion count? ...rNr... Yeah, one would think LoGH fans don't watch anything that belongs to shonen, mecha, shoujo etc, which is not true. Personally, I enjoy reading Pandora Hearts and Skip Beat and I also enjoyed a lot Higurashi no Naku Koro ni and the first season of Code Geass. |
Lain666May 30, 2010 1:35 AM
| "The moment one sits down to think, one becomes all nose, or all forehead, or something horrid. Look at the successful men in any of the learned professions. How perfectly hideous they are! Except, of course, in the Church. But then in the Church they don't think. A bishop keeps on saying at the age of eighty what he was told to say when he was a boy of eighteen, and as a natural consequence he always looks absolutely delightful." |
| Condensation via linking to statements via the use of labels which I give to them: 1. Decide what quality is: 1A. Quality is a value judgement, which is subjective. Quality is thus subjective. (my decision) 1B. Quality is an intrinsic property of things that exists independently of any evaluators or life forms in general. It has no value; it simply is, and using non-quantitative or more generally non-logical values to describe it is not objective, as such values are not objective. Because it is, it has the potential to respond to events, and there are actual events that can be affected by it without requiring the existence of any evaluators or life forms. Because of this it is an objective part of our reality and is thus a scientific hypothesis, which must be supported with scientific evidence in order for there to be an expectation of others accepting or agreeing with it. 2. There is the presence of a lot of emotion and misunderstanding and/or at least one conclusion about how I am or what I want or try to do that is currently unsupported by facts. 3. People often disagree on the truth states of different things of various ostensible parts of reality, such as religion, morality, or even supposedly more commonly accepted things such as scientific methods and theories (which are often at odds with the former two things). As long as it doesn't relate to the discussion there is no reason to declare the person wrong about x because he is wrong about y. It is possible to be right about some things and wrong about others. From my perspective supernaturalism, including theism/religion and free will (I don't see how determinism or chance are freedom), is about as unlikely to be true as anything can be, but I don't throw almost everyone away because they think otherwise. 4. This conclusion doesn't appear to follow what came before it, what is in it, or otherwise make sense to me. It probably needs restatement, clarification, and/or expansion for me to be able to understand it or why it supposedly should be believed to be true. A focus on repeatedly asking "Why?" until you reach "I don't know", "I just think/feel/want this", or "this exists independently of the existence of evaluators or life forms" could be helpful. Stopping before then can make it much harder to understand or accept any arguments, as the axioms they rely upon will be assumed instead of stated. Baman said: [various things] 2. By the way, I liked LoGH. Ignore that if you wish. orzel286 said: OH SHIIII- I've read this thread from C&C and now MAH BRAIN IZ MISSING! :O srsly. :< :B eyerok said: OH NOES!!! more irony haha :) Baman said: ... I second. The sad part is that she actually believes so much in the rightness of her own stance, she's so sure that she's saying the truth, that nothing anybody else says hold any value...hell she isn't even listening to anybody seriously, bombing us with walls of biased fangirl bullshit and cloaking it in the guise of 'objectivity'; i really is laughable honestly. For a while back I actually gave her the benefit of doubt. There are three kinds of trolls on MAL: 1. the ones who post 4 word lines of hate, resorting to name-calling and flaming at every opportunity. Easy to ignore. harmless 2. the ones who post paragraphs of biased trolling hate BS directed mostly at the series that is considered a rival of their own favorite manga/anime (like those bleach fans on the naruto manga discussion. Easy to handle with reasonable disucssion, once you prove them wrong they just disappear. And then there's the third kind. Rare. Wild. Self-righteous ones, who accuse others of having a biased opinion and acting like they don't; all the while shoving their opinions down the other peoples throats. Theirs is the ultimate truth. And they always find a way around to go in circles just to have the satisfaction of pretending that they 'got back' and 'proved' themselves right. If I didn't have an exam next week I'd be dissecting each and every sentence of hers and replying to it, even though I know that wouldn't do any good. The argument will be going in circles and we'd all be wasting our time. I'm out of this discussion. No need to reply Daisuki. And if you do...don't expect me to post a response. Massive, massive, 2. By the way, how am I thinking that my opinion on LoGH is objective? I'm basically just saying that it lacks general appeal and that many of its vocal fans are snobs. Other things can follow from those, but attributing your ideas to me is silly. Baman said: My brain density seems to ave dropped by 13% already and I can't even recall my mothers' birthday anymore ;__; ;p JP_rNr said: Finally...someone has finally said it to Daisuku...... I mean I like both Code Geass and LotGH and it pains me to see that both of the animes I like are being are being hated by both sides.....can't we all just get along >.> 2; I don't hate LoGH. hahaha....joking set aside.......I like reading arguements....it's kinda entertaining ^^.....and I've been following this thread for quite some time now....and I can see that Daisuku is just a fangril trying to force her opinion on other people and at the same time ignoring their opinon....and honestly she isn't even making sense anymore....and it's starting to get annoying.....so to Daisuku I don't mean any harm, but seriously your not making sense anymore.....and what's up with posting reply's that long?....I mean I get a headache from reading them sometimes....... 2. Snobs are the ones denying that LoGH and any other anime don't have objective quality. 1 for them. oh and basically you said that LotGH is an over-rated anime only like by etilists right?......well, what about me?....I'm just your average otaku who likes watching shonen, mecha...sometimes watches moe, loli etc.....and I say LotGH is a pretty damn good anime....and does that not make my opinion count? ...rNr... 2. Saying that LoGH doesn't have commonly appealing elements isn't the same as saying that people that value those elements can't also value LoGH's elements. As for opinions not counting, apparently my opinion that LoGH is not a great anime doesn't count, according to snobs. Lain666 said: Yeah, one would think LoGH fans don't watch anything that belongs to shonen, mecha, shoujo etc, which is not true. Personally I enjoy reading Pandora Hearts and Skip Beat and I also enjoyed a lot Higurashi no Naku Koro ni and the first season of Code Geass. 2... It's sad that 2 is so common here. Apparently nothing I say matters, only the emotionally negative concept of me that others have in their minds. Maybe people would understand me better if they meaningfully responded to things I said instead of insulting me and calling me this or that. |
If you're stingy then click on CLuClu! Please consider supporting the end of disenfranchisement on MAL. Purpose is subjective, therefore quality is subjective. |
Daisuki-chan said: Maybe people would understand me better if they meaningfully responded to things I said instead of insulting me and calling me this or that. Why would anyone treat you with as much respect as you think you deserve when you call everyone else here a 'snob' in every other sentence. How can you possibly complain about being insulted after that. Respect goes both ways. If you don't give it to others, why should they give it to you? It's not meant as a personal shot at you, but saying that is a bit hypocritical as I see it. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Lain666 said: Heh, well I loved Utena and Nana as well as HnK and the original Gundam.Yeah, one would think LoGH fans don't watch anything that belongs to shonen, mecha, shoujo etc, which is not true. Personally, I enjoy reading Pandora Hearts and Skip Beat and I also enjoyed a lot Higurashi no Naku Koro ni and the first season of Code Geass. And what do you know, i also liked CG's first season at first. |
| Yeah Nana was good, what a pity that the events in the latest chapters are unnecessarily dragged on. Utena is great, though I don’t think it is a typical shoujo, anti-shoujo suites this series more. After all, there are not many likeable male characters there. |
Lain666May 30, 2010 6:48 AM
| "The moment one sits down to think, one becomes all nose, or all forehead, or something horrid. Look at the successful men in any of the learned professions. How perfectly hideous they are! Except, of course, in the Church. But then in the Church they don't think. A bishop keeps on saying at the age of eighty what he was told to say when he was a boy of eighteen, and as a natural consequence he always looks absolutely delightful." |
Baman said: Lain666 said: Heh, well I loved Utena and Nana as well as HnK and the original Gundam.Yeah, one would think LoGH fans don't watch anything that belongs to shonen, mecha, shoujo etc, which is not true. Personally, I enjoy reading Pandora Hearts and Skip Beat and I also enjoyed a lot Higurashi no Naku Koro ni and the first season of Code Geass. And what do you know, i also liked CG's first season at first. What's so wrong about the original Gundam?:{ IT'S THE ANIMATION ISN'T IT!??! |
Baman said: lmao, dude. This isn't anime. Ahaha. It's the boring-friend-introduction thing then a couple of dates then 2 years then marriage and got a random kid type. That's parents in a nutshell.Tachii said: Wow. So, did your dad use the "We're born on the same day..." pickup line?I don't remember their ages, at all. Their birthdays on the other hand is easy for me since both of them have the exact same day but one month away from each other. I blame forums. It may be corny but it's not often you get the chance to use it so definitely worth it. |
| Could anyone point me to this "C&C" thread? This entire thing has been a great read (though I skimmed some to conserve time) and I'd like the back story for some of this, but I really don't know what that's referring to. Also, poor Daisuki. I know what it's like to feel as though everyone is ganging up on you in an argument (happened to me about a year and a half ago, give or take. Not anime related, mind you). Don't worry, I'm actually finding your side of this argument more convincing (don't flame me, guys, it's just the way I think), though I can't join in because I don't feel I've seen enough LoGH. Also, you remind me of an acquaintance from another forum I visit with your use of the word "indeed." |
| Don't know if non-members can read it but have a go and see. Long story short; our critique of Lelouch's failures at strategy apparently wasn't a flaw worth considering and somehow also subjective, despite being readily apparent in the series, and even though it is a club for "critics" she somehow felt that biased fangirlism and no attempt at critique was called for. When you see it in comparison to some character spotlight from Monster, whom she apparently disliked subjectively and voted no for despite not providing any tangible arguments for her being a bad character, and the "All hail Lelouch" part of the first post, it's pretty clear we're talking about a fangirl who denies any flaw in what she likes and is only capable of spotting them in things she doesn't like. And again, It's not a matter of likes or dislikes when it's a critique. And there are after all objective criterias to critique by, unless you somehow feel Pikachu could be considered a Byronic Hero and Texhnolyze a romcom. |
Lelouch is simply a man caught in the shadow of Reinhard von Lohengramm and will never find his way out without sparkles, rainbows, and all things fabulous. A guaranteed no in my case. Oh good God that quote made me give out and then some. The truth can be freaking hilarious sometimes even though you can't even really compare the two characters Oh and edit: From what I've seen so far, the argument of Oberstein coming up with all the ideas is absurd. Oberstein is the demonstration of Machiavellian politics and how to rule a principality, one most have all authority which goes against the ideas, political ideals and actions that Reinhard was striving for. Look at the whole nuking incident. Reinhard was going to have it stopped but Oberstein beat him to the punch and moved out before Reinhard could counter the nuke thus letting it happen just to reap political and propaganda benefits. But in reality, having an adviser that suggests political strategy while you're busy being out there to the people and commanding the military isn't him not coming up with his ideas. In fact, it's smart. Is the president or any leader stupid for having an army of advisers guide them in decision making? No, because political decisions, no matter how intelligent the leader is, relies on viewing everything possible ramification and part of a decision from a multitude of perspectives that one man, no matter how smart can have. It'd be a beyond stupid move to not have at least one man to play a devil's advocate when it comes to making such decisions. I really don't recall an internal political struggle with conflicting views on how to deal with human lives for political gain to that magnitude and depth, if so, then by all means, enlighten us in under 300-500 words |
martin03345May 30, 2010 7:40 PM
Baman said: Don't know if non-members can read it but have a go and see. I can read, just not respond. Thanks. Long story short; our critique of Lelouch's failures at strategy apparently wasn't a flaw worth considering and somehow also subjective, despite being readily apparent in the series, and even though it is a club for "critics" she somehow felt that biased fangirlism and no attempt at critique was called for. When you see it in comparison to some character spotlight from Monster, whom she apparently disliked subjectively and voted no for despite not providing any tangible arguments for her being a bad character, and the "All hail Lelouch" part of the first post, it's pretty clear we're talking about a fangirl who denies any flaw in what she likes and is only capable of spotting them in things she doesn't like. No offense, but I'd prefer to read it and form an opinion myself (though I'll keep your summary in mind while reading). The problem now is that I've started scanning and it appears there might be LoGH spoilers, which, seeing as I'm in the middle of watching it, I'd rather avoid. And again, It's not a matter of likes or dislikes when it's a critique. And there are after all objective criterias to critique by, unless you somehow feel Pikachu could be considered a Byronic Hero and Texhnolyze a romcom. I agree, at least to a certain extent. There are other things I'd respond with but again, I'd rather not join this thing completely until I've actually finished LoGH, or at least seen enough to feel like I know enough. |
to daisuki....long story short...... there.....I could not have state it any simpler than that..... ...rNr... |
| "In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same." |
| That C&C thread had gotta be one of the most ridiculous threads on MAL I ever attempted to read. Jebus. |
Tachii said: That C&C thread had gotta be one of the most ridiculous threads on MAL I ever attempted to read. Jebus. hahaha....agreed....my jaws were like dropping, after I finished reading all of it....but it was fun...you guys at C&C are so entertaining XD ...rNr... |
| "In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same." |
SanderRX said: It didn't have even the minimum amount of general appeal needed to be worth airing on TV, I imagine its producers believed. And here I thought that churning out an unprecedented number of 110 OVA episodes actually implied pumping in loads of cash rather than playing safe... In Japan anime producers actually pay stations to air their anime as an advertisement for the purchasable copies. OVAs are often advertised with the original work, which reaches out to current fans but no one new. Of course TV series are advertised with their original works, too, but paying to be aired on TV is much more expensive. If LoGH was judged to have greater general appeal it would have been aired on TV to advertise to new potential fans so that they would also buy its purchasable copies. It making it through the end with 110 episodes only implies that enough fans were loyally purchasing it to continue its production, not that it was "pumping in loads of cash". Ketuekigami said: Why would anyone treat you with as much respect as you think you deserve when you call everyone else here a 'snob' in every other sentence. How can you possibly complain about being insulted after that. Respect goes both ways. If you don't give it to others, why should they give it to you? It's not meant as a personal shot at you, but saying that is a bit hypocritical as I see it. Snob was defined (not even by me, but by consensus!) and further explained. If some don't like the connotations that being a snob as it was defined implies then I can hardly feel sorry for them, as they enjoy feeling superior to others for arbitrary or uncontrollable reasons. At least I respond to what people write, and not to ideas that I invent and then attribute to my opponents, so I'm actually being more respectful, when you consider that being called snobs is canceled out by snobs calling me inferior or wrong (without even proving that quality objectively exists, that LoGH has general appeal (i.e. that its elements are ones commonly focused on in popular anime, for one example of what can be meaningful evidence), etc.). Redfoxoffire said: Could anyone point me to this "C&C" thread? This entire thing has been a great read (though I skimmed some to conserve time) and I'd like the back story for some of this, but I really don't know what that's referring to. Also, poor Daisuki. I know what it's like to feel as though everyone is ganging up on you in an argument (happened to me about a year and a half ago, give or take. Not anime related, mind you). Don't worry, I'm actually finding your side of this argument more convincing (don't flame me, guys, it's just the way I think), though I can't join in because I don't feel I've seen enough LoGH. Also, you remind me of an acquaintance from another forum I visit with your use of the word "indeed." It's probably more convincing because my "review" of LoGH actually made some sense to you, despite apparently being trash to vocal LoGH fans. Well, maybe other parts made sense for less directly useful reasons, too. Indeed, that may be the case. Baman said: Don't know if non-members can read it but have a go and see. Long story short; our critique of Lelouch's failures at strategy apparently wasn't a flaw worth considering and somehow also subjective, despite being readily apparent in the series, and even though it is a club for "critics" she somehow felt that biased fangirlism and no attempt at critique was called for. When you see it in comparison to some character spotlight from Monster, whom she apparently disliked subjectively and voted no for despite not providing any tangible arguments for her being a bad character, and the "All hail Lelouch" part of the first post, it's pretty clear we're talking about a fangirl who denies any flaw in what she likes and is only capable of spotting them in things she doesn't like. And again, It's not a matter of likes or dislikes when it's a critique. And there are after all objective criterias to critique by, unless you somehow feel Pikachu could be considered a Byronic Hero and Texhnolyze a romcom. Long story short, you and other "critics" declared me wrong, labeled me bad things, and attributed contrived-by-them ideas or states to me without ever proving the objectivity of quality according to 1B. Until 1B is proven 1A is the only useful definition, and any mention of facts (although my opponents often distorted or oversimplified them) does not force a certain objective result, as the valuations of those facts are subjective. They claim that the claim I just made implies that facts themselves are subjective according to me, because they are just that screwed up. These objective criteria are what? What is the purpose of something mostly accepted (uh...I'll briefly ignore this) to be in a certain category? And how is everyone going to be able to interpret the accuracy (not goodness; this is a value judgement and thus subjective) of the implementations of these things equally? In any case, why does categorization affect the quality states of things? Doesn't this lead to me being able to categorize something like Mars of Destruction as being in the "inconclusive plot" category and then claiming its quality is high? If not then who decides which categories are valid? I certainly won't accept self-serving answers like "Baman" or "Baman and his allies". Even if the categories are defined the interpretational accuracy problem appears a second time. Also, how is quality good or bad when goodness and badness are value judgements and thus subjective when quality is supposedly objective? Additionally, why is objective truth not only determinable under fields such as science, mathematics, and logic, which produce disprovable predictions and disprovable explanations instead of merely producing concepts (*cough* philosophy *cough* religion)? If objective truth is only determinable under such fields then why is it not already proven by people smarter than us and this proof not accepted under peer review? martin03345 said: Lelouch is simply a man caught in the shadow of Reinhard von Lohengramm and will never find his way out without sparkles, rainbows, and all things fabulous. A guaranteed no in my case. Oh good God that quote made me give out and then some. The truth can be freaking hilarious sometimes even though you can't even really compare the two characters Oh and edit: From what I've seen so far, the argument of Oberstein coming up with all the ideas is absurd. Oberstein is the demonstration of Machiavellian politics and how to rule a principality, one most have all authority which goes against the ideas, political ideals and actions that Reinhard was striving for. Look at the whole nuking incident. Reinhard was going to have it stopped but Oberstein beat him to the punch and moved out before Reinhard could counter the nuke thus letting it happen just to reap political and propaganda benefits. But in reality, having an adviser that suggests political strategy while you're busy being out there to the people and commanding the military isn't him not coming up with his ideas. In fact, it's smart. Is the president or any leader stupid for having an army of advisers guide them in decision making? No, because political decisions, no matter how intelligent the leader is, relies on viewing everything possible ramification and part of a decision from a multitude of perspectives that one man, no matter how smart can have. It'd be a beyond stupid move to not have at least one man to play a devil's advocate when it comes to making such decisions. I really don't recall an internal political struggle with conflicting views on how to deal with human lives for political gain to that magnitude and depth, if so, then by all means, enlighten us in under 300-500 words That's nice, but Oberstein made war strategy suggestions (supposedly Reinhard's forte) which Reinhard accepted without modification, too. And the "Reinhard not having time to prevent the nuking idea" is silly, as any genius who was also focused on both political power and on morality (for the sake of making the right decisions with such power) would have already considered such scenarios and have come to a conclusion by the time they were in their twenties. I could've decided before Oberstein (who fully notified Reinhard of the situation and did not prevent him from deciding what to do in response) at the age of 15, and I'm ostensibly not both highly driven and a genius that rarely appears throughout history. Therefore, Reinhard appears to be dumb and morally weak when compared to me, which hardly enables me see him as a genius at all, even if I were to declare that I was an ubergenius under some standards of my choosing. In short, Reinhard is lame to me in various ways for acceptable reasons (1B...), and LoGH would have been a better story if Oberstein was the ruler and Reinhard was the figurehead, which would have continued to give his bishounen looks a good use. |
If you're stingy then click on CLuClu! Please consider supporting the end of disenfranchisement on MAL. Purpose is subjective, therefore quality is subjective. |
Tachii said: Hell, I even ended up throwing poop at that Dozer kid. It's not often I lose my patience like that, but trying to talk sense to a brick who keeps posting the same posts over and over and then some uneducated moralfag kid can get quite annoying.That C&C thread had gotta be one of the most ridiculous threads on MAL I ever attempted to read. Jebus. |
| Not quite the right answer there. Reinhard's struggle to make a quick decision has nothing to do with being a genius, it has to do with inner conflict. He knows it's wrong and goes against his morals, but he also knows it would be a great tool to use to finally wipe out the nobles that he greatly despises. Oberstein brings up the great and fair point that to achieve power, one needs to sacrifice and use the lives of other people to further pursue that power. This struggle to make a decision did not allow him to act quickly enough to prevent it. And bullshit to you being able to make such a quick decision. You can sit here and claim that oh you would know how to act if put in that same position, absolute bullshit. Again, his intellectual ability has nothing to do with his indecisiveness here but it's the overall moral quandary on whether or not it is right to let people die to further his own goals of becoming a ruler. As you have in other posts, you completely IGNORED the fact that all political issues have multiple sides, perspectives that need to be examined carefully and at times can push people to make tough decisions that go against their own morals and views just to have a chance at a better future. Anyway like the others I'm done here. |
martin03345May 31, 2010 9:58 AM
| This one from C&C was extremely hilarious: Dozer said: *sigh*Once again, you steal my lines. What you just called me accurately describes you, and only you. Well, whatever. Just know that if ever reply to any post I make, ever again, I will report you for harassment. I won't take any shit from dangerous, psychotic atheists. |
| I know I'm breaking my word by posting this reply, but I cant help it. Its my last (hopefully) Daisuki-chan said: when you consider that being called snobs is canceled out by snobs calling me inferior or wrong (without even proving that quality objectively exists, that LoGH has general appeal (i.e. that its elements are ones commonly focused on in popular anime, for one example of what can be meaningful evidence), etc.). If I were to add my opinion, we cant know for sure if that is true. Why? because lotghs popularity has only begun to increase when it was subbed recently, which I believe cant be more than three years. But if you look at the growth of its popularity,you cannot say for sure that it doesn't appeal to anime fans as much or more or less than Gundam. We can only find that out if a couple of thousand more people tried it on this series (currently only 2299 or so members have it completed in their list, 330 dropped, 1395 watching (with numbers increasing every week), 3543 plan to watch ). Its not like Lotgh fans don't like mainstream shows like CG, CLannad, FMA, haruhi, death note etc...they don't really have a 'niche' taste. In fact in most cases I've noted its the complete opposite. Sure if you take an averagre moe comedy loving anime fan who doesnt like Gundam or monster or Macross, there'd be a high probability that they wouldn't like lotgh either. But we cant know for sure that lotgh wont be loved as much as, say, as Gundam or FMA unless more people watch it. but that's my two cents against yours. Lets just agree to disagree and just drop this already (its been going for 4 pages for Gods sake. FOUR PAGES for a shitty argument like this) as for lotgh fans being snobs - I and others have already given a reply that should be more than satisfactory. Again its my two cents against yours. Everybody has a different opinion. The best we can do is agree to disagree and walk away. Daisuki-chan said: And the "Reinhard not having time to prevent the nuking idea" is silly, as any genius who was also focused on both political power and on morality (for the sake of making the right decisions with such power) would have already considered such scenarios and have come to a conclusion by the time they were in their twenties.. adding to martin's point: you'd be right, but only if lotgh was a 'third rate TV anime' (and no this is not a reference to CG, I swear!) Also, anyone who's read the C&C discussion would know why you're here. Its so obvious really...no matter what you say on the outside or even believe, you just cant 'forgive' the 'vocal snobs' who 'look down' on your favorite anime. This is what all this is about: "lotgh does not have mass appeal" (basically another way of dissing lotgh but trying not to give the appearance of it) and "lotgh fanboys are snobbish elitist" (being spiteful because they have completely opposite opinon(s) ). SanderRX said: You seem to be missing the fact that OVAs tend to have a tad bigger budgets than the TV series.If they kept pumping in OVA budgets for 110 episodes,for the duration 1988-1997,they were not playing it safe.A possible cost of full-fledged 110 OVA episodes far eclipses anything a TV company would demand for airing it. Not only that,but you seem to be fogetting that LotGH started in the late 80's.Now remember what else was in the 80's,that's right,the great OVA craze that then died down somewhere in the later half of the 90's!You see,back then OVA format was far from the nerfed secondary support status of today.Direct-to-video market was a tad bit more important back then you know. I'd also like to add that its quite unusual for TV channels to air shows that have an unorthodox structure AND are so long in lenght. everything has to be tailor made and planned out into convenient 'slots'. Lotgh looks more like a show with an unorthodox structure,probably because the production team needed more flexibility in planning out and releasing the seasons, rather than be restricted by the demands of the TV stations. I might be wrong about this though. |
eyerokMay 31, 2010 12:03 PM
| "...our faces marked by toil, by deceptions, by success, by love; our weary eyes looking still, looking always, looking anxiously for something out of life, that while it is expected is already gone – has passed unseen, in a sigh, in a flash – together with the youth, with the strength, with the romance of illusions.” - Joseph Conrad ('Youth') |
SanderRX said: Where Can I find thic C&C thread. Baman linked it in the last page you can delete your double post yourself by clicking the edit button |
| "...our faces marked by toil, by deceptions, by success, by love; our weary eyes looking still, looking always, looking anxiously for something out of life, that while it is expected is already gone – has passed unseen, in a sigh, in a flash – together with the youth, with the strength, with the romance of illusions.” - Joseph Conrad ('Youth') |
| forum's been messing up on me too, recently |
| "...our faces marked by toil, by deceptions, by success, by love; our weary eyes looking still, looking always, looking anxiously for something out of life, that while it is expected is already gone – has passed unseen, in a sigh, in a flash – together with the youth, with the strength, with the romance of illusions.” - Joseph Conrad ('Youth') |
eyerok said: I might have agreed to the niche statement some years ago, but now, more and more people is starting to watch it just like you say. I've seen plenty of people with loads of high rated "mainstream" series on their list starting LoGH and ending up in the ep.110 discussion thread claiming it was one of the best they've seen.Its not like Lotgh fans don't like mainstream shows like CG, CLannad, FMA, haruhi, death note etc...they don't really have a 'niche' taste. In fact in most cases I've noted its the complete opposite. Sure if you take an average moe comedy loving anime fan who doesn't like Gundam or monster or Macross, there'd be a high probability that they wouldn't like lotgh either. But we cant know for sure that lotgh wont be loved as much as, say, Gundam or FMA unless more people watch it. |
SanderRX said: Question. Out of average complaints about this OVA series,how much of it is "OMG!It's so old!!!"? too much to even count..... ...rNr... |
| "In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same." |
SanderRX said: It's about the same as "it's boring" stuff.Question. Out of average complaints about this OVA series,how much of it is "OMG!It's so old!!!"? |
| I just started the series but I have some thoughts on why people may drop it / hate it after only seeing 10-20 episodes or so. 1. Seeing the Movies (expect probably Golden Wings) beforehand makes it easier to enjoy the beginning of the series. I don't know how I would have experienced it without watching the movies, but I think it really did help me to get a better entrance to to series, because after the movies you already know the main characters a bit and that makes it easier to put the many other characters, that appear from the beginning on, in order. I have only watched 13 episodes so far, and as mentioned it seems a little bit draggy so far, but I would probably be more demotivated if it wasnt for the movies. 2. Still the major downer for me so far is the quality of the subs. Meaning especially the timing and the fact that paragraph endings and sentece endings are not linked whatsoever and this in combination with the timing makes it difficult to figure out who exactly said what, and when one persons speech ends and the next one begins, if there are multiple persons speaking. So far I really enjoy the series, not to the extent of giving it a ten, but I'm looking forward to the rest because it is supposed to really "get started" after ~25 episodes. So if there is one reason that makes watching a pain sometimes it is the quality of the subs. Question: Are there more/different subs out there for this series? Or is the crappy sub something you have to take with the package? |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Higashi_no_Kaze said: I just started the series but I have some thoughts on why people may drop it / hate it after only seeing 10-20 episodes or so. 1. Seeing the Movies (expect probably Golden Wings) beforehand makes it easier to enjoy the beginning of the series. I don't know how I would have experienced it without watching the movies, but I think it really did help me to get a better entrance to to series, because after the movies you already know the main characters a bit and that makes it easier to put the many other characters, that appear from the beginning on, in order. I have only watched 13 episodes so far, and as mentioned it seems a little bit draggy so far, but I would probably be more demotivated if it wasnt for the movies. 2. Still the major downer for me so far is the quality of the subs. Meaning especially the timing and the fact that paragraph endings and sentece endings are not linked whatsoever and this in combination with the timing makes it difficult to figure out who exactly said what, and when one persons speech ends and the next one begins, if there are multiple persons speaking. So far I really enjoy the series, not to the extent of giving it a ten, but I'm looking forward to the rest because it is supposed to really "get started" after ~25 episodes. So if there is one reason that makes watching a pain sometimes it is the quality of the subs. Question: Are there more/different subs out there for this series? Or is the crappy sub something you have to take with the package? Central Anime does an amazing job subbing it. Easy to read and follow and accurately translated. Try that out |
| Thanks for the tipp. I just peeked and was overjoyed by the quality. Unfortunately I only found their subs from episode 29 ongoing, but now I have something to look forward to while watching the remaing episodes with low quality subs ^^ Thx again. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| I had to lol, I went to that C&C thread, and it was a pretty good read. I searched and Daisuki-chan said the word "Subjective" more than 20 times on one page. I really wanted to be on Daisuki's side, since I can kind of understand what she is saying. But after one post she doesn't have much of an argument, just repeats the same thing over and over again. |
Higashi_no_Kaze said: Thanks for the tipp. I just peeked and was overjoyed by the quality. Unfortunately I only found their subs from episode 29 ongoing, but now I have something to look forward to while watching the remaing episodes with low quality subs ^^ Thx again. I can give you a link that has all of the eps subbed and they're linked to megaupload for direct downloads in AVI format |
Higashi_no_Kaze said: Thanks for the tipp. I just peeked and was overjoyed by the quality. Unfortunately I only found their subs from episode 29 ongoing, but now I have something to look forward to while watching the remaing episodes with low quality subs ^^ Thx again. And for your viewing pleasure, remember to NEVER watch the next episode previews. |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Legend of the Galactic Heroes Episode 83 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )tainteddonut - Jun 2, 2008 |
112 |
by ELuck42
»»
Jun 24, 8:42 PM |
|
Poll: » Legend of the Galactic Heroes Episode 72 Discussion ( 1 2 )tainteddonut - Jun 1, 2008 |
88 |
by ELuck42
»»
Jun 13, 12:20 PM |
|
Poll: » Legend of the Galactic Heroes Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )tainteddonut - May 25, 2008 |
262 |
by bubba460z
»»
Jun 12, 9:24 PM |
|
Poll: » Legend of the Galactic Heroes Episode 66 Discussiontainteddonut - Jun 1, 2008 |
45 |
by ELuck42
»»
Jun 7, 12:59 PM |
|
Poll: » Legend of the Galactic Heroes Episode 60 Discussion ( 1 2 )tainteddonut - May 31, 2008 |
59 |
by ELuck42
»»
Jun 1, 8:31 PM |