Are people hypocrites, or are the people complaining about style vs. substance not the same audience who obviously prefers style over substance?
Bernkastel said: Mischievous said: @Bernkastel: If you want to hold a proper discussion,I am not sure whether you will do that much better in AD. I was told AD was filled with geniuses with profound insight into the very nature of anime culture and literary analysis. I'm sure it will be fine. You must be talking about our magnificent club and not AD. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Bernkastel said: How does the stylistic choice of being ambiguous or not tie into depth?TonyTheme said: It's no vaguer than your praise for Monogatari and your talk of ambiguity. My talk on ambiguity is very simple. If a theme is explored and explained by the author, I do not consider the anime ambiguous. Examples include: 1. Stand Alone Complex in GitS - explained by Motoko and Aoi's dialogue. 2. Aberrations in Monogatari - the true nature of aberrations are constantly explored. Many arcs dedicate a lot of time to explaining this subject. Examples of philosophy/themes explored but not explained: 1. The idea of family and communication in Eva. Explain to me Anno's view on communication and family. 2. The computer/net in Serial Experiments Lain. The latter style without explanation often gives an illusory air of depth. That's why on an intellectual level I praise the works that fall in the former category more - these authors are not afraid to spell their answer out because it is profound enough to not need obfuscation. |
 |
Zergneedsfood said: some Hrvatskan name it seemsmfw emptiness is now bernkastel....wtf kind of name is that what an Ustase |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
Zergneedsfood said: mfw emptiness is now bernkastel....wtf kind of name is that xEmptiness* bernkastel sounds like some rozen maiden shiz |
 |
Bernkastel said: a heretic with feet fetishWho the hell is Olwen? |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
| Well, that's a given. |
| Style can compensate for substance to an extent. Not really a preference over substance. After all if you are a fan of animation well then you will appreciate the style of the animation even if the story is a bit lacking. |
Red_Tuesday said: It's not really a fair conclusion to say people prefer flash over substance based on this. For starters, the season has just begun and any one of those shows can prove to end up having either (or both) by the end. Another problem is that there's far too many variables that need to be accounted for. Popularity of the source material, hype, accessibility, exposure, etc etc. I wasn't familiar with any of these works pre-season, so I don't have any other means of fairly selecting what to watch other than depending on what the hook has to offer. Shomin Sample doesn't look bad, but when I'm trying to keep my seasonal choices down to 6 or 7, I'll only be picking up the ones that pique my interest the most.In related genres: Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry and Asterisk War: around 30K people watching Anti-Magic Academy: 17K watching Shomin Sample: 12K watching As for the actual clash of style vs substance, I don't see the harm in choosing the former exclusively from time to time. Substance is where you find it and most stylistic shows do offer some degree of it if you keep an open mind. I do prefer the best of both worlds, however. It feels like I'm practically advertising this show now, but I recently watched Saraiya Goyou which offers both a fresh and artsy style while providing plenty of substantial depth. |
 |
| if i want substance ill read the source material anime is factually about style |
Milk_is_Special said: Another thread based on opinions, classic MAL. What did you expect? Scientific evidence why one show is better than other? What kind of posts do you even want? It's a forum- a place specifically made for sharing opinions. |
| ''Hayao Miyazaki was a mistake'' -Anime |
Bernkastel said: Why can't that be argued? Was it explicitly stated? I would agree that Serial Experiments Lain is definitely ambiguous and that that ambiguity helps it, but more so with the atmosphere and tone of the show.it cannot be argued that the author didn't intentionally made it confusing to make it appear deeper than it actually is. |
|
Bernkastel said: I was asking how you knew Lain was intentionally ambiguous for the purpose of adding the illusion of depth because it seems like speculation to me. Shrabster said: Why can't that be argued? Was it explicitly stated? I would agree that Serial Experiments Lain is definitely ambiguous and that that ambiguity helps it, but more so with the atmosphere and tone of the show. The point isn't whether this style of narration is effective, but rather because of how relatively easy it is to obfuscate depth it cannot be considered evidence for intelligent storytelling when compared to other equally high quality works that don't work off obfuscation. |
|
Bernkastel said: So it can be argued...Shrabster said: I was asking how you knew Lain was intentionally ambiguous for the purpose of adding the illusion of depth because it seems like speculation to me. All deductions of motives are always speculations. I don't believe this inference is unreasonable however. |
|
Bernkastel said: You could have said that when I first asked you instead of giving me the run around. If you say so. It's not like I don't understand what you are saying (a lot of people mistake ambiguity for depth) but the way you are wording things makes it sounds like any story that has ambiguous aspects is simply doing so to appear "deep" which would be a silly assertion when any depth seen in ambiguity alone is solely the viewers doing.Shrabster said: So it can be argued... Please, it's a figure of speech. |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 1:37 AM
|
Bernkastel said: TonyTheme said: It's no vaguer than your praise for Monogatari and your talk of ambiguity. My talk on ambiguity is very simple. If a theme is explored and explained by the author, I do not consider the anime ambiguous. Examples include: 1. Stand Alone Complex in GitS - explained by Motoko and Aoi's dialogue. 2. Aberrations in Monogatari - the true nature of aberrations are constantly explored. Many arcs dedicate a lot of time to explaining this subject. Examples of philosophy/themes explored but not explained: 1. The idea of family and communication in Eva. Explain to me Anno's view on communication and family. 2. The computer/net in Serial Experiments Lain. The latter style without explanation often gives an illusory air of depth. That's why on an intellectual level I praise the works that fall in the former category more - these authors are not afraid to spell their answer out because it is profound enough to not need obfuscation. A theme doesn't have to be explained in order to be there. No one talks about killing themselves in Digimon Tamers, but look at the D-Reaper: The D-Reaper assumes everything is bad. Hate makes us hurt others. Love makes us too reliant. His decision is that everything should be destroyed. Doesn't this sound like suicide? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| I've probably repeated something similar to this a over a thousand times already, but I've found that "deep" usually relates more to style than substance. I've gotta watch this Monogatari show though. It isn't my genre of choice by a long shot, but the way its described is very intriguing, and Shaft art is love. |
 |
FloatingIdiot said: Why is this?I've probably repeated something similar to this a over a thousand times already, but I've found that "deep" usually relates more to style than substance. |
| Honestly I want a bit of both in shows. Style is substance a lot of the time tbh. |
 Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
Mischievous said: How your point related to the idea that "deep" relates more to style?Because people often can not discern between what is "deep" and actually deep. |
| Do you not believe that style, in and of itself, can be deep? |
| Alright, let us for the sake of discussing on common ground, accept that style is merely how you present the substance. There is a video on Satoshi Kon that I thought was very informative. It showcases how Kon cut and edited his films using interesting and quick matching scene transitions that could not be done without animation. I think it demonstrates that Kon had a very complex understanding of the sort of visual imagery he wanted. The style that he used to present his films could be considered "deep." Inio Asano also has a very interesting technique that he uses to create backgrounds. It was posted in one of the clubs I belong to, but I do not remember the name unfortunately. If you read any of Asano's manga like Solanin or Oyasumi Punpun, you will notice his incredibly detailed backgrounds. The way Asano makes them however, is to take pictures of real scenes and then, using photoshop, re-edit the photos to make them appear as if they could have been drawn by hand and then adding additional intricate details that were lost during the photoshop process. It is a very interesting technique, and I would say that it showcases Asano's deep understanding of his medium and how he wants to best present his background and set pieces. These are just two examples, but I think people often overlook style as something that merely presents stuff that is deeper. But, more often than we realize, style, whether it be in writing or in directing or in drawing, can have a profound implications. I have a great respect for people who can utilize style in ways that have not been seen before. |
Mischievous said: masterofgo said: Do you not believe that style, in and of itself, can be deep? Is style not more of a presentation of the substance? Could be,can not rule out the possibility. They can be way more heavily related. One of the things people usually point about, for instance, Makoto Shinkai's films is that they are style over substance, basically because the characters are secondary to the visual representation, their stories feel simple or incomplete compared with the gorgeous and detailed scenario designs. The thing is that most of the emotional strength of his works comes from the visuals. It's the creation of scenarios, the beauty of the environment and the mood that is recreated with them the main element that catalyzes the audience's attachment. In cases like this, differentiating between style and substance is futile. It's the style, the visual presentation, what conditions and creates the substance for the viewer. |
Mischievous said: jal90 said: They can be way more heavily related. One of the things people usually point about, for instance, Makoto Shinkai's films is that they are style over substance, basically because the characters are secondary to the visual representation, their stories feel simple or incomplete compared with the gorgeous and detailed scenario designs. The thing is that most of the emotional strength of his works comes from the visuals. It's the creation of scenarios, the beauty of the environment and the mood that is recreated with them the main element that catalyzes the audience's attachment. In cases like this, differentiating between style and substance is futile. It's the style, the visual presentation, what conditions and creates the substance for the viewer. I have only seen Garden of The Words from him,but I'd argue that the style may change the impact on the viewer,but the substance stays the same. The love story does not get any different,but the way you react does,as a result of good presentation. I guess that depends on what you define as substance. The problem I have with making a difference between "substance" and "impact" is that impact not only refers to how strongly you relate to something. It also conditions how much and how detailed your attachment is. You can have the same love story, with the same set of events and the same kind of progress, and yet, that one of them evokes stronger and more lasting thoughts on you, that one makes you reflect further or represents better a state of mind. It's the same story in both cases, but the amount of stuff you can extract from each is different, not only in intensity but also in diversity. One will reasonably feel deeper and more substanceful (¿?) to the viewer, even if the basic structure of the plot is the same. |
Bernkastel said: TheBrainintheJar said: A theme doesn't have to be explained in order to be there. No one talks about killing themselves in Digimon Tamers, but look at the D-Reaper: The D-Reaper assumes everything is bad. Hate makes us hurt others. Love makes us too reliant. His decision is that everything should be destroyed. Doesn't this sound like suicide? I'm not saying a theme needs to be explained for it to exist or be effective, but rather a true demonstration of intelligence by the author means they inevitably have to show us reasoning rather than ask a bunch of vague questions. I agree. Vagueness can go so far it's meaningless. The series needs to ask questions about the theme, but if it's too vague it's hard to find a theme to question. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Bernkastel said: I'm still failing to see how a story with multiple interpretations is automatically less intelligent than one with a single interpretation if we both agree that ambiguity has nothing to do with depth. What you seem to have a problem with is not so much multiple interpretations in and of themselves but multiple interpretations that spawn from the lack of exploration of the themes due to the writer having nothing to really say about them to begin with, which I would agree with you on that point at least. Though Serial Experiments Lain is a far cry from that and is pretty clear by the end of the series.There are two types of stories that can be interpreted multiple ways:
The first category is indeed less intelligent when compared to an equally sophisticated story with only one interpretation. The latter category is equal to one interpretation because the central theme (meta) is not ambiguous. In some contexts, the latter category can even be considered intellectually superior to their simple interpretation counterparts because meta-concepts are generally far more advanced. |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 5:44 PM
|
Bernkastel said: But surely you understand that not every anime that's ambiguous or has multiple interpretations is like that, right? If you do then once again my issue is the wording/phrasing of your argument which comes off as "any anime with multiple interpretations is just covering for its lack of depth by being vague and ambiguous and is automatically less intelligent than their single interpretation counterparts" when that's simply not true and it comes down to a case by case basis. Also, I've never seen anyone argue that the depth in Lain or Eva comes from their ambiguity, but rather the characters, interactions, and etc.Shrabster said: What you seem to have a problem with is not so much multiple interpretations in and of themselves but multiple interpretations that spawn from the lack of exploration of the themes due to the writer having nothing to really say about them to begin with, You pretty much answered your own question. That kind of anime tend to have very little direct author input into the themes and consists entirely of putting 1000 philosophies into a blender. They're vague because the author never truly wanted to say anything about those themes anyway, they just wanted to hide their shallow story behind the authority of past philosophers. |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 6:52 PM
|
Bernkastel said: This is where you lose me, the depth of the characters, interactions, and etc. doesn't change regardless of the ambiguity. Ambiguity being able to give off the illusion of depth doesn't take away from what's there, and there is a lot more to both series than just ambiguity.One cannot deny however that character - interaction - etc depth in those shows are largely thanks to ambiguity giving them the benefit of doubt to mystify the themes. |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 7:27 PM
|
| Bakemonogatari is a fan service anime you retards. Its sole purpose is to entertain, and did it do that? Yes. When rating an anime, purpose must be considered. |
| Well if i judged parasyte by it's cover i would have never experienced that magnificent show. I was almost going to pass on it just from looking at it's cover art. So glad i didn't though and that showed me that i should never judge a book by it's cover when it comes to this medium. |
This is it!, are you ready? |
Bernkastel said: Having universal themes that can be related to automatically makes a show less intelligent? You could literally argue every story does this in some way or another. It's what the writer does with them and how he presents them that elevates it above other works. Many critiques I've seen of Ghost in the Shell revolve around all the info dumping and exposition the series has where it's seen as hand holding, especially when dealing with the most basic of philosophical concepts (similar to the rambling you were complaining about in Lain). Of course I would disagree, being that Ghost in the Shell is one of two series that I've rated 10/10. That being said, I don't see Ghost in the Shell as more intelligent than Lain because it goes off on long tangents to explain the more technical aspects of the series to the viewer, it's simply the stylistic choice that works in its favor as with the more ambiguous approach that works for Lain. Shrabster said: This is where you lose me, the depth of the characters, interactions, and etc. doesn't change regardless of the ambiguity. Ambiguity being able give off the illusion of depth doesn't take away what's there, and there is a lot more to both series than just ambiguity. There are themes that can be considered common to every anime, such as: Category 1: Family, friendship, communication, growing up/overcoming challenges To a lesser extent: Category 2: Love, trust/betrayal, benevolence/malice, etc. What makes these themes ubiquitous is not because every anime author deliberately inserts them. What makes these themes ubiquitous is because they are naturally congruent with human experience. No matter what the story is like, as long as there are human characters these themes will always systematically pop up. Almost every article justifying the depth of shows like Eva or FLCL (apart from the ones that look like overanalysis and borderline conspiracy theories) explain the themes using category 1 themes listed above. Category 1 themes (and to a lesser degree category 2) unless explicitly explored by the author in a unique way cannot constitute an intelligent work. The reason for this is because no matter what you write, these themes can always be indirectly felt by the viewer. Their congruence to human experience means viewer self-insertion of their own experience fill the narration gaps and plot weaknesses. This is why obfuscated works should be directly penalized from an intellectual perspective. Much of why they feel profound is due to viewer self-insertion and the Barnum effect rather than the author actually putting intelligent ideas in. One must therefore accept that works that express these themes only cannot possibly be considered both unambiguous and intelligent. You either consider them unambiguous but shallow because these themes are cliched and ubiquitous, or you consider them deep but ambiguous. In the case of the latter, they cannot be considered equally intelligent to similar but unambiguous works. I consider the word "deep" to have a component of intelligence and emotion to them. This is why I will not claim these shows cannot be deep, because by being congruent to human experience they already proved a high level of emotional depth. Lain differs by having a large variety of technological and psychological themes instead of relying on universal themes which in my books automatically puts it above Eva in intelligence. However, when compared to works like GitS which is equally found on philosophy, the difference in level of analysis is night and day. Despite borrowing several ideas like Jung's collective unconsciousness, several psychoanalytical ideas, digital communication, theology, etc, the sociological/philosophical insight of how technology will explicitly change human society is at best vague and at worst incomprehensible. The two central themes in GitS:SAC for example (i.e. Ghost and Stand Alone Complex) offer explicit insight into the most realistic and convincing cyberpunk setting I've ever seen in anime. SAC gives us a clear and intelligent message. Lain puts various connected ideas into a blender and gives us a vague borderline horror experience. Both offers us the future, why is one so much more explicit? It takes no intelligence to blabber about collective unconsciousness and Schumann resonance in a borderline incomprehensible episode. It does take a lot of intelligence to write the script for Motoko talking to Aoi about Stand Alone Complex. I gave both SEL and SAC 10/10, but if asked which work is more intelligent I always say SAC. Hands down. You see ambiguity as a handicap that shallow shows use to seem deeper(which it certainly can be), I see it as a stylistic choice that's compliments a stories tone and atmosphere (which I'd argue is the case for Lain and to a lesser extent Eva). |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 9:23 PM
|
skudoops said: ryuuji_xvii said: Can someone tell me what is style and substance? Just to be clear what is the meaning by most people here. Style = Flashy action sequences, great art/animation, nice OST.. mostly focusing on production values Substance = The writing in general, plot, characters, themes and how consistent, complex and thoroughly explored they are. In my opinion at least. Hmm. both of them are important then. Style+Substance will do! But if a show doesn't have both, then I prefer substance>style. Style is the decoration for the story and characters anyway. Not interesting story/chars, meh. |
 |
Bernkastel said: So then I take it you agree that it's what a show does with its themes that make it intelligent. No you're looking at this the wrong way. Universal themes are found in all works, that's why they're universal right? This means these themes cannot be justification for intelligence, for they are also explored in the same way in unintelligent shows. It's not that having evidence of their existence makes a show unintelligent, but rather when discussing intelligence these themes must be crossed out and ignored on both sides. Sure Eva explores family, communication, adolescence, etc, but guess what? Anything from LSD-induced Penguindrum to Sword Art Online share these themes. Unless you can explicitly compare the family values between Anno's Eva and SAO and convincingly tell me Anno has more developed ideas, I can't even justify Eva being smarter than SAO. And you really can't, because Anno didn't actually say much about his family values except hint at simple things like Schopenhauer's Hedgehog dilemma. Bernkastel said: An intro to ethics would be just that, an introduction so I wouldn't expect it to be as advanced or deep as the other. In any case I don't see how this ties into GitS and Lain, I don't see one asking or answering more profound questions over the other. Believe it or not, being able to ask the right questions and answer them properly is exactly what intelligence is. Do you consider a class in "intro to ethics" as deep as Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? The former asks you a lot of interesting questions and explores a wide range of ideas, but is ultimately not a demonstration of intelligence. Kant's long tangent on deontological principles however has profound implications to modern ethical theory. Sure you might disagree with Kant, but so what? He's still intelligent. Bernkastel said: So by that logic if Lain tied more into real world situations (which it does, though it's not as political as GitS) it would be just as intelligent? In which case, it has nothing to do with ambiguity. While I have yet to find any real application or implication of Lain's philosophy, Stand Alone Complex alone offers interesting insights into the real life phenomenon of Anonymous, ISIS and School Shootings for example. The way "Ghosts" are played in SAC goes beyond basic Cartesian dualism and again offers interesting moral and legal implications to a futuristic society. Among the many other interesting social parallels (satires?) we could explore in GitS in an unambiguous fashion. Sure you might disagree with those ideas, but so what? They're still intelligent. Bernkastel said: Again, I just don't see how the stylistic choice of being ambiguous automatically bars something from being intelligent, especially when it's highly dependent on what is exactly ambiguous about the story. Lain's an abstract soft cyber punk horror told in an ambiguous fashion (which I enjoy for the unsettling creepy atmosphere and tone it provides), but the themes are pretty straight forward and developed I don't think they are ambiguous at all. Ghost in the Shell is a cyber punk police political thriller with more action. Both deal with basic philosophical concepts such as existentialism and have themes of identity and technology.No, this is a misconception. I do not see ambiguity as a handicap or in negative light. Ambiguity when used properly can be very effective. However, ambiguous things don't demonstrate any intelligence. |
|
Bernkastel said: Ambiguous =/= poorly explained/explored themes, again it depends largely on what is ambiguous about the story. What... of course? Isn't that the whole reason I consider unambiguous shows deeper? Because they explore and explain themes well. Bernkastel said: Even if we were to assume this is the case the problem is the lack of exploration of themes, not ambiguity in and of itself. Themes can be unambiguous but not explored. Which, if you are asserting that Lain doesn't explore it's themes then I would disagree. It certainly doesn't do so in the same way Ghost in the Shell does, but that hardly makes it less intelligent. Part of being smart is not only knowing what to say but how and when to say it right? Compared to GitS, Lain is closer to an intro to ethics course. Lain gives a basic summary about several themes, and that's about it. Bernkastel said: Lain provides a look at our rapidly expanding technology and the ethical questions that come along with it. It's on a much smaller scale than GitS, and thus doesn't have the political aspect (you could make an argument for the Knights I suppose) or the interesting world building going on but in terms of the philosophical aspects it explores much of the same things as GitS. The reason Lain logic is largely inapplicable is precisely because it's ambiguous and doesn't have much meaning. Any intelligent analysis will tie into many RL situations. Do you want to give me an example of how Lain philosophy helps us understand the internet? Or any other relevance to society in general? Bernkastel said: So you do see it as a handicap? Ambiguous =/= lack of explored themes. If you want to argue Lain is ambiguous about/doesn't explore it's theme and is therefore less intelligent than GitS or that ambiguity is inherently a handicap then I guess we have no choice but to agree to disagree. It has been a fun conversation however. It's a handicap but does not bar you. All you have to do is be even more profound. For example, not many would argue that Clannad is more intelligent than Lain right? Even though Clannad isn't very ambiguous. |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 11:23 PM
|
| Thematic depth isn't always tantamount to exploring the human condition in an original, shocking, or weird way. Just saying. |
 |
Bernkastel said: Lain ends up rejecting the idea of converting everything and everyone to Wired in favor of humanity. The need for human contact/human connection is one of the central themes throughout the series. The series cautions us against to enveloped in technology and the isolation that comes along with it. This is pretty clear and unambiguous by end of the series.Shrabster said: Ambiguous =/= poorly explained/explored themes, again it depends largely on what is ambiguous about the story. That's why I talked about the difference between straight up juicer treatment and things like unreliable narration before right? Lain provides a look at our rapidly expanding technology and the ethical questions that come along with it. Which is? For example, even analyzing ghosts on a very superficial level we know GitS refers to ghosts using the definition similar to the phrase "ghost in the machine" coined by a philosopher I forgot the name of to criticize Cartesian systems. Clearly GitS drew inspiration from that philosophy and rejected the common notion that the soul and body are dual aspects equal and on different planes of existence. Technology like ghost duping in GitS clearly demonstrates that the soul could be considered an organic part of the holistic machine. Obviously this interpretation of "soul" has huge differences to Cartesian interpretations and impact anything from basic definitions of an individual to the impact mechanical augmentation has on a person's soul/thinking. That is completely unambiguous and represents a very clear attitude towards morality and individuality. So want to explain how Lain views humans? If you want to argue Lain is ambiguous about/doesn't explore it's theme Pretty much this. Unless you want to tell me exactly how Lain views morality or rapid expanding technology, then it really doesn't explore any themes lol. |
ShrabsterOct 17, 2015 11:53 PM
|
Bernkastel said: I was editing my previous post but I don't think Lain advises us to smash our computers at all. It does warn us against rushing into technology at too fast a pace and poses moral and ethical questions if we were to do so which it ultimately rejects in favor a human connection. And yes, I find that both interesting and relevant and the show presents it in an intelligent way. Shrabster said: Lain ends up rejecting the idea of converting everything and everyone to Wired in favor of humanity. This is pretty clear by end of the series. If the philosophy behind Lain is we should smash all our computers and go back to nature... uhh? Is that really what you would consider intelligent? At least can you explain why the authors of Lain would think this is a good idea? |
|
Bernkastel said: Giving up the physical body, individuality, and what makes us human in order be one with the Wired. The personal and intimate connection people share when they are face to face, these are all the things that would be lost if Lain had merged everything with the Wired which the show unambiguously rejects in favor of humanity. You don't have to agree with the shows decision, but it clearly makes one.Shrabster said: It does warn us against rushing into technology at too fast a pace and poses moral and ethical questions if we were to do so which it ultimately rejects in favor a human connection. Which moral questions are those? Which aspect of human connection is affected by technological advancement? Why is this a bad thing? |
|
Bernkastel said: Presentation, subtlety, tonal consistency, and overall delivery and thoughtfulness. If we strip everything down to the bare themes then nothing is going stand out.Shrabster said: Giving up the physical body, individuality, and what makes us human in order be one with the Wired. The personal and intimate connection people share when they are face to face, these are all the things that would be lost if Lain had merged everything with the Wired which the show unambiguously rejects in favor of humanity. You don't have to agree with the shows decision, but it clearly makes one. Yea, I know that much, but the point is it goes back to the dilemma we talked about before. I either accept that this is unambiguous but shallow or deep but ambiguous as the deeper themes we can't articulate well in words. Even shounen anime like Naruto which nobody would consider intelligent or deep shows the importance of human connection, intimacy and reject the Moon hypnosis thingy that gives up everything that makes us human for a better world. How is Lain deeper than Naruto? |
|
Bernkastel said: You can draw parallels to anything if you try hard enough. Kuze wanted to merge and become one with all the refuges did he not? Lain delivered its themes with settings and characters that are relevant to us and that we can relate to. The ambiguous way the story unfolds creates interest and keeps you watching while adding an engrossing, dark, cold, and unsettling (much like how it presents technology and the wired) atmosphere and tone that enhances the themes of isolation we see through Lain as do the bleak aesthetics. The subtlety and lack of contrived humor help it keep a tonal consistency that not many anime have and keeps distractions to a minimum.Shrabster said: Presentation, subtlety, tonal consistency, and overall delivery and thoughtfulness. If we strip everything down to the bare themes then nothing is going stand out. That's exactly what I'm asking - explain how Lain delivered these themes well... If your explanation for Lain theme is so vague that I can draw direct parallel to Naruto, you're not exactly thinking about it hard enough. |
ShrabsterOct 18, 2015 12:56 AM
|
More topics from this board
» Which, out of all your favorites, would you be least inclined to recommend to others?WatchTillTandava - 6 hours ago |
27 |
by mentalmondai
»»
23 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » can anime influence your dark side?deg - 8 hours ago |
19 |
by IpreferEcchi
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Women tend to have superior anime preferences compared to men? ( 1 2 3 )Alpha_1_Zero - Apr 23 |
115 |
by Voila_
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Do you have any favorite opening or ending animations?RobertBobert - 56 minutes ago |
7 |
by Paul
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite characters you think are Sadist, Masochist, or SwitchIpreferEcchi - Yesterday |
7 |
by IpreferEcchi
»»
11 minutes ago |