Forum Settings
Forums
#1
Oct 7, 5:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 265
Do you view anime as generic=bad? Or do you view them differently. If you view them the same way, why??? Its so weird to me....

For me, generic anime are just generic. 5 or 6/10. They aren't bad, just not worth my time.
Bad anime are shit like naruto shippuden in which the writer doesnt know how to be consistent. Introduces random stuff only to change it half way with other things and the story becomes a jumbled mess. For me bad anime = bad writing. But bad anime doesn't necessarily mean low score for me either.

 
#2
Oct 7, 5:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
Bad > Generic

Because at least bad anime have the potential of providing a worthwhile experience.
 
#3
Oct 7, 5:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 20002
Look it's very simple.

There's generic anime

and then there's glasslip
 
#4
Oct 7, 5:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 247
I don't really think "generic". I think "meh, below average".

To me, Drifters is a "meh" show. It wasn't "bad", just boring and route. I dropped it after a few episodes, gave it a 5/10.

A "bad" show has to be actively grating, repulsive, for me to drop it.

To me, Violet Evergarden is a "bad" show. It feels incredibly pretentious. Everything from the sweeping cinematic soundtrack (episode five did have a nice tune), to the drawn out sweeping animations, to the over-dramatic outbursts about "WHAT IS LOVE?" and how Violet has been changing everyone's lives. It feels like blatant Oscar bait. It is hard to get invested in any character when each episode focuses on a new character while Violet and the mains remain in the background, doing very little. My favorite episode was five, which is so far the only one that I would consider legitimately great. Otherwise, it encapsulates all of my problems with KyoAni's work.
 
#5
Oct 7, 6:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 2960
Generic has the potential to be good if it's done right, but it usually doesn't end up that way. The romance in Cross Ange was generic af but I still very much enjoyed it

bad is just bad
'On-Hold' is another way for a completionist to say 'Dropped'


 
#6
Oct 7, 8:55 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5497
TheProblemIsntMe said:
Do you view anime as generic=bad? Or do you view them differently. If you view them the same way, why??? Its so weird to me....
For me:

"generic" is a term I usually only use to describe first impressions, like something "looks generic" in the sense that simply looking at it doesn't show off any particularly distinguishing characteristics from my perspective. But by the time I actually finish anything, it's never still "generic" since I actually know what it's about.

"bad" on the other hand basically means I wanted to enjoy something but couldn't and I feel it's the work's fault.
 
#7
Oct 7, 9:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 341
Generic is always better than bad. Someone who haven't watched much anime can enjoy a generic one but same can't be said for bad.
 
#8
Oct 7, 9:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 425
I'll take bad over generic any day. At least you can make fun of or get genuine enjoyment for the wrong reasons from bad anime. You'll also learn what not to do. Generic anime is just forgettable and mediocre.
 
#9
Oct 7, 9:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 205
cythraul said:
Someone who haven't watched much anime can enjoy a generic one but same can't be said for bad.
You sure bout that? Isn't it presumable that what you claim to be 'bad' might just be 'generic' or even 'good' to others? Isn't 'generic' and 'bad' are subjective terms which therefore you couldn't categorize those who "can enjoy a generic one" and "same can't be said for bad"?
. . .
 
Oct 7, 10:03 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 126
i don't think something 'generic' is inherently and unconditionally 'bad', even if I am having trouble with coming up with something that is generic that i can confidently call 'good'

Valyrian1124 said:
I don't really think "generic". I think "meh, below average".

To me, Violet Evergarden is a "bad" show. It feels incredibly pretentious. Everything from the sweeping cinematic soundtrack (episode five did have a nice tune), to the drawn out sweeping animations, to the over-dramatic outbursts about "WHAT IS LOVE?" and how Violet has been changing everyone's lives. It feels like blatant Oscar bait. It is hard to get invested in any character when each episode focuses on a new character while Violet and the mains remain in the background, doing very little. My favorite episode was five, which is so far the only one that I would consider legitimately great. Otherwise, it encapsulates all of my problems with KyoAni's work.


interesting. I'm not particularly fond of Evergarden either, but I only see the alleged pretentiousness in KyoAni anime when it comes to the ones that are more melodrama based
 
Oct 7, 10:13 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 275
TheProblemIsntMe said:
For me, generic anime are just generic. 5 or 6/10. They aren't bad, just not worth my time.

I don't see how "generic" has anything to do with scores. Generic, to me, is just a lack of originality and/or creativity. A generic show can be good or bad, depending on the execution. I consider both Noragami and Kimetsu no Yaiba generic, but I like Kimetsu and hate Noragami.

Also, I think being generic can be a good thing, too. Many shows today focus on very specific gimmicks to try and set themselves apart and end up forgetting the basics of storytelling. A simple, basic story, when done well, is often much better than a gimmicky and underdeveloped one.
Modified by AnotherGuy, Oct 7, 10:17 PM
 
Oct 7, 10:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 341
Preachee said:
cythraul said:
Someone who haven't watched much anime can enjoy a generic one but same can't be said for bad.
You sure bout that? Isn't it presumable that what you claim to be 'bad' might just be 'generic' or even 'good' to others? Isn't 'generic' and 'bad' are subjective terms which therefore you couldn't categorize those who "can enjoy a generic one" and "same can't be said for bad"?

They are subjective but generic is usually used for storylines which are bland aren't innovative with it's quirks, bad is used for something which is just bad or something that doesn't fit user's tastes.
These terms might be subjective but there are plenty of generic anime which have 8+ score here on MAL. The bad I am talking here is something like hachigatsu no cinderella nine which has way too many flaws like bad story, art, animation etc. or even worse there's utsu musume sayuri which is objectively bad and it is definitely worse than anime that are considered as generic by vast amount of people.
 
Oct 7, 10:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 2712
Generic is just another way of saying typical or sharing a lot of similarities/patterns with other previous works, and for some reasons I can't understand, people associate that condition with a negative connotation. Why? What exactly has the quality of a work to do with its degree of originality? To me how good or bad a show is has nothing to do with that.
 
Oct 7, 10:53 PM
Online
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 841
There's practically no such thing as an anime that isn't on some level generic, most ideas have been done already. Generic ideas can still be entertaining if executed well. A generic show or idea does not mean bad, it just means generic. Bad on the other hand can be either generic or unique, but if it's already considered bad then there's no real point which one it is, it's already just bad. At least the generic anime still has a chance.
 
Oct 7, 10:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 205
cythraul said:
Preachee said:
You sure bout that? Isn't it presumable that what you claim to be 'bad' might just be 'generic' or even 'good' to others? Isn't 'generic' and 'bad' are subjective terms which therefore you couldn't categorize those who "can enjoy a generic one" and "same can't be said for bad"?

They are subjective but generic is usually used for storylines which are bland aren't innovative with it's quirks, bad is used for something which is just bad or something that doesn't fit user's tastes.
These terms might be subjective but there are plenty of generic anime which have 8+ score here on MAL. The bad I am talking here is something like hachigatsu no cinderella nine which has way too many flaws like bad story, art, animation etc. or even worse there's utsu musume sayuri which is objectively bad and it is definitely worse than anime that are considered as generic by vast amount of people.

That sounds like some queer prejudice. I don't seem to agree how you can define a 'generic' one with your very own standard for others. If it's really like what you said, you should probably say "a show on MAL with rating of under 7 is generally considered to be bad, while those from 7 to 8 is generally considered to be generic", then it would've at least made more sense despite the obvious flaw in such statement. I understand the 'bad' segment you mentioned, but am not convinced about the 'generic' ones you told, for it seems like you are imposing your ideas into others.

Edit: say do you think Guilty Crown is objectively bad? Well I don't, it's probably considered to be generic by people. But I think it's one of the worst shows I've ever come across (that's when I was watching up to only like 50 anime, and I still think the same as for now)
Modified by Preachee, Oct 7, 11:02 PM
. . .
 
Oct 8, 12:55 AM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 31369
Generic just means 'typical for X' and if I like X I generally don't mind it at all.

Listen, everybody wants change, don't nobody want to change though
don't nobody want to pray, till they got something to pray for
now everybody's gonna die, but don't everybody live though
 
Oct 8, 1:00 AM

Online
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1415
Those things are not mutually exclusive anime can be generic and bad at the same time.

X s t a s y

“I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours”
―Cheshire Cat

 
Oct 8, 1:05 AM
Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 346
Generic would be only viewed as bad if you watch a lot of anime, so its your problem then lol , there are many shows I enjoyed watching which were called generic by others, but I didnt find them generic due to my limited experience in watching anime.
 
Oct 8, 1:12 AM
Online
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 3275
RogertheShrubber said:
Bad > Generic

Because at least bad anime have the potential of providing a worthwhile experience.

Bad anime are at least memorable. They make you feel something. Generic anime are just there, boring you with the same old trash you've seen a million times, and presenting it in the most uninteresting and mechanical way possible.
 
Oct 8, 1:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 41
Kuuchuu Buranko is the only anime I can think of that I wouldn't consider generic in some capacity and I thought it fucking sucked.
This isn't a very forward thinking medium for the most part, creators stick to what works and I'm totally cool with that because what I'm looking for is hardhitting moments and rewatchability. Intellectualism is secondary.
 
Oct 8, 1:44 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 182
Generic = It has been done before. Something typical.
Generic ≠ Bad
Bad = Bad
Someone has to do it. Not a hero, not a God. Just someone
 
Oct 8, 1:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 259
I will always preffer a bad show rather than something that pretends to be something else, or already exists.
 
Oct 8, 1:59 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 3222
I think generic means that the plot or the characters resemble what was already done in other anime many times. Like how SnK is generic: men against monsters, angly kid fights monsters with same monster tech.
Bad is something you can't enjoy, like how I can't enjoy bebop, I find it boring but others may like it. It's still true that if an anime bores a lot of people it may be considered bad. Your shippuuden ex is good but other people watch it just because of the cool flashy magician fights and waifus, they don't care about writing or consistency. Is it a bad anime? Maybe?
"Even if there's a wide world and stories
beyond the main focus, I don't think
it's necessary to end with the protagonist having
been involved in everything." - Yagi Norihiro
 
Oct 8, 12:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 341
Preachee said:
cythraul said:

They are subjective but generic is usually used for storylines which are bland aren't innovative with it's quirks, bad is used for something which is just bad or something that doesn't fit user's tastes.
These terms might be subjective but there are plenty of generic anime which have 8+ score here on MAL. The bad I am talking here is something like hachigatsu no cinderella nine which has way too many flaws like bad story, art, animation etc. or even worse there's utsu musume sayuri which is objectively bad and it is definitely worse than anime that are considered as generic by vast amount of people.

That sounds like some queer prejudice. I don't seem to agree how you can define a 'generic' one with your very own standard for others. If it's really like what you said, you should probably say "a show on MAL with rating of under 7 is generally considered to be bad, while those from 7 to 8 is generally considered to be generic", then it would've at least made more sense despite the obvious flaw in such statement. I understand the 'bad' segment you mentioned, but am not convinced about the 'generic' ones you told, for it seems like you are imposing your ideas into others.

Edit: say do you think Guilty Crown is objectively bad? Well I don't, it's probably considered to be generic by people. But I think it's one of the worst shows I've ever come across (that's when I was watching up to only like 50 anime, and I still think the same as for now)

I am not really imposing anything here. I was just generalizing the concept of generic which is used for something that is lackluster and less innovative. If generic isn't what I said it is, then just explain it to me.
About guilty crown, you probably hated it because of your own preferences which I said it is a subjective thing. I haven't watched that show so I don't know a thing about it.

Edit: You went too far with generalizing the score. There are plenty good anime in 7-8 range which are great and kinda original. There are probably anime with score less than 7 which are considered good by some people. When I gave an example about hachigatsu no cinderella nine, I wasn't implying it's score but rather how that anime is bad because of its very basic flaws.
Modified by cythraul, Oct 8, 12:26 PM
 
Oct 8, 1:34 PM
VMC President

Offline
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 382
Generic shows are generally pretty lazy and safe shows that don't try to do much on their own but I don't really see it as being inherently bad and sometimes there is a sense of confort in the familiarity. Asobi ni iku yo is generic as hell but I still enjoyed it for what it was.

Whereas a bad show is just bad and I also have met very few shows that I would qualify as so bad it's good
 
Oct 9, 4:23 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 205
cythraul said:
Preachee said:

That sounds like some queer prejudice. I don't seem to agree how you can define a 'generic' one with your very own standard for others. If it's really like what you said, you should probably say "a show on MAL with rating of under 7 is generally considered to be bad, while those from 7 to 8 is generally considered to be generic", then it would've at least made more sense despite the obvious flaw in such statement. I understand the 'bad' segment you mentioned, but am not convinced about the 'generic' ones you told, for it seems like you are imposing your ideas into others.

Edit: say do you think Guilty Crown is objectively bad? Well I don't, it's probably considered to be generic by people. But I think it's one of the worst shows I've ever come across (that's when I was watching up to only like 50 anime, and I still think the same as for now)

I am not really imposing anything here. I was just generalizing the concept of generic which is used for something that is lackluster and less innovative. If generic isn't what I said it is, then just explain it to me.
About guilty crown, you probably hated it because of your own preferences which I said it is a subjective thing. I haven't watched that show so I don't know a thing about it.

Edit: You went too far with generalizing the score. There are plenty good anime in 7-8 range which are great and kinda original. There are probably anime with score less than 7 which are considered good by some people. When I gave an example about hachigatsu no cinderella nine, I wasn't implying it's score but rather how that anime is bad because of its very basic flaws.

As you see, "bland" itself is a subjective term, therefore ideas tagged with such word are most definitely subjective. And "it is definitely worse than anime that are considered as generic by vast amount of people" is what I thought to be imposing. I could definitely find myself equally hating a 'generic show that is considered by vast amount of people' as a so-called "objectively bad" show. Do you think that's not possible? On top of that, I wouldn't think you should be saying "a lot of 8+ anime are generic..." because that's a bit too subjective as well.

When we talk about something being generic, it will bring about these common criticisms: 1. (mainly) lack of innovation or creativity stated based on what is the standard of art, thus it is simply forgettable for lacking idiosyncrasy; 2. using bait-worthy tropes such as twists existing only for the sake of being surprising or etc.. But does 'lacking innovation' automatically mean 'bland' or 'generic', vice versa? When I asked some friends about their thoughts on the movie called "Brazil", one of them said it was so sparse in contrivance for it was basically using the concepts of 1984 and 8 1/2, which I certainly have to agree with. He said "it was an ideological mess, it looks grandiloquent but it's actually a generic dystopian movie that has little to no refreshing ideas". I then told him "Well, if you consider Brazil to be generic just because it was kind of loosely based on those two works, then you are probably missing a lot of points. It has its own identity, and such was transparent via the two influencers... There were this pipeline artistic choice which indicates..." At this point, arguing about this felt so personal and subjective. When I brought up a meticulous idea, he thought it was "grandiose" and "crafted the world way too artificially, but not philosophically". These statements of liking or disdaining are all subjective, I believe there's no existence of objectivity the deeper we discuss about what makes an artwork 'generic'.

About the Guilty Crown argument that I brought up, that is exactly what I was trying to tell you. The fact that you said "generic" was more enjoyable is simply subjective. Guilty Crown is generally thought to be generic and certainly not objectively bad, but what about in my case for instance? I thought that show was worse than an indisputably bad show like the Ghost Stories dub. I can't deceive myself that I enjoy the so-called "mediocrity" of Guilty Crown more.

And yes the generalization is obviously exaggerating, forgive me.
Modified by Preachee, Oct 9, 4:28 AM
. . .
 
Oct 9, 4:26 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 4001
Ferien said:
Generic is just another way of saying typical or sharing a lot of similarities/patterns with other previous works, and for some reasons I can't understand, people associate that condition with a negative connotation. Why? What exactly has the quality of a work to do with its degree of originality? To me how good or bad a show is has nothing to do with that.


I think "conventional" is a more fitting term. The think the reason why people associate "generic" with bad, is when an anime is extremely conventional, but isn't good.
"You don't need a reason to live, you just live"
-Nero Vanetti, 91 Days



 
Oct 9, 6:18 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 839
RogertheShrubber said:
Bad > Generic

Because at least bad anime have the potential of providing a worthwhile experience.

That's like saying "at least bad tasting food has the potential to taste good".

The ability for something to provide a worthwhile experience is the exact metric people using to define the scale of how good art is.
Lastest Blog Post: Haganai: How an Ecchi Harem Romcom Became my Favorite Anime

Girl: Anna Fugo (Granbelm)
Watching: 3ep-ruling potential weeklies
Reading: Axanael (VN)
Recently Finished: HenSuki (3), Takagi-san 2 (7), Machikado Mazoku (5), Stargazer (VN)(8), Kanata no Astra (7), High Score Girl: Extra Stage (8), UchiMusume (6), Granbelm (9)

Complicate Your Life With Violence
 
Oct 9, 6:37 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 83
I find a lot more generic anime than I find bad anime. Generic doesn't mean the same as bad for me. Generic to me is the definition of generic: not standing out from the rest or being similar to all the rest. Bad can be something unique but it was done terribly.
 
Oct 9, 8:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
YossaRedMage said:
RogertheShrubber said:
Bad > Generic

Because at least bad anime have the potential of providing a worthwhile experience.

That's like saying "at least bad tasting food has the potential to taste good".

The ability for something to provide a worthwhile experience is the exact metric people using to define the scale of how good art is.


That would definitely be a false equivalency, what I am actually saying is that at least bad tasting food has the potential of leaving the individual with a memorable dining experience, whereas a mediocre meal will leave no lasting impression whatsoever.

If a memorable experience is all that is required for you to rate something highly be my guest but that seems incredibly shallow to me. Particularly if you don't even make the effort to differentiate between incidental and intentional pleasure, and this is to say nothing of intellectual stimulation something which to me is vastly more important.
 
Oct 9, 9:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 467
I think I'm OK with generic shows from certain genres and not others. For example, I like generic romance (that use the same old tropes) but don't particularly enjoy generic battle shounen.
 
Oct 9, 12:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 839
RogertheShrubber said:
this is to say nothing of intellectual stimulation something which to me is vastly more important.

I'm sorry professor, you are clearly a much more enlightened individual and I will do my best to ignore my instinct to enjoy things so that I may also learn complex algebraic functions through watching anime.

Your forum avatar is some grade A irony by the way. Considering the amount of intellectual masturbation on display in your comment.

Your horrificly snobbish attitude aside, I'll point out that I said 'worthwhile experience', not 'memorable experience', which is also what you said originally.

I'm curious to hear more of this 'incidental vs. intentional' pleasure' theory of yours though. I'm pretty sure it's bullshit and you're just puking out words without much nuanced thought behind them but if you can prove me wrong pease do so.
Lastest Blog Post: Haganai: How an Ecchi Harem Romcom Became my Favorite Anime

Girl: Anna Fugo (Granbelm)
Watching: 3ep-ruling potential weeklies
Reading: Axanael (VN)
Recently Finished: HenSuki (3), Takagi-san 2 (7), Machikado Mazoku (5), Stargazer (VN)(8), Kanata no Astra (7), High Score Girl: Extra Stage (8), UchiMusume (6), Granbelm (9)

Complicate Your Life With Violence
 
Oct 9, 1:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
Complex algebra? You can't possibly think that's what I meant. Surely you understand there is more that can be obtained from art than facts or skills (or enjoyment for that matter). It is not enough to say that you have enjoyed a thing and to what degree. In my mind enjoyment also exists on a value spectrum. The value of the pleasure derived from a good game of chess is greater than that of a pig rolling in mud. This was the motivation for my claim that intellectual stimulation is of greater value.

"Your forum avatar is some grade A irony by the way."

That's the joke

As far as incidental vs intentional pleasure goes it's fairly straightforward, a thing which is accidentally entertaining is of lesser value than a thing which was made entertaining on purpose.

I am perhaps optimistic in believing that you will find both claims self-evident if you were to give them even a small amount of thought.
 
Oct 9, 1:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 70
if its bad then it aint gon be boring like a trash ass generic ass anime
 
Oct 9, 2:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2771
RogertheShrubber said:
Complex algebra? You can't possibly think that's what I meant. Surely you understand there is more that can be obtained from art than facts or skills (or enjoyment for that matter). It is not enough to say that you have enjoyed a thing and to what degree. In my mind enjoyment also exists on a value spectrum. The value of the pleasure derived from a good game of chess is greater than that of a pig rolling in mud. This was the motivation for my claim that intellectual stimulation is of greater value.

"Your forum avatar is some grade A irony by the way."

That's the joke

As far as incidental vs intentional pleasure goes it's fairly straightforward, a thing which is accidentally entertaining is of lesser value than a thing which was made entertaining on purpose.

I am perhaps optimistic in believing that you will find both claims self-evident if you were to give them even a small amount of thought.


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.
 
Oct 9, 3:32 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 862
Hrybami said:
RogertheShrubber said:
Complex algebra? You can't possibly think that's what I meant. Surely you understand there is more that can be obtained from art than facts or skills (or enjoyment for that matter). It is not enough to say that you have enjoyed a thing and to what degree. In my mind enjoyment also exists on a value spectrum. The value of the pleasure derived from a good game of chess is greater than that of a pig rolling in mud. This was the motivation for my claim that intellectual stimulation is of greater value.

"Your forum avatar is some grade A irony by the way."

That's the joke

As far as incidental vs intentional pleasure goes it's fairly straightforward, a thing which is accidentally entertaining is of lesser value than a thing which was made entertaining on purpose.

I am perhaps optimistic in believing that you will find both claims self-evident if you were to give them even a small amount of thought.


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.


It's almost as if there are more ways than one to derive pleasure from something... both of you seem so fragile and eager to shut him down for having different ideas. Ever heard of cringe compilations? Berserk 16/17? Women football? You can easily be fascinated by how bad these things are, they can stir up emotions and thoughts that don't necessarily have something to do with them being ''good''.
 
Oct 9, 3:32 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
Hrybami said:
RogertheShrubber said:
Complex algebra? You can't possibly think that's what I meant. Surely you understand there is more that can be obtained from art than facts or skills (or enjoyment for that matter). It is not enough to say that you have enjoyed a thing and to what degree. In my mind enjoyment also exists on a value spectrum. The value of the pleasure derived from a good game of chess is greater than that of a pig rolling in mud. This was the motivation for my claim that intellectual stimulation is of greater value.

"Your forum avatar is some grade A irony by the way."

That's the joke

As far as incidental vs intentional pleasure goes it's fairly straightforward, a thing which is accidentally entertaining is of lesser value than a thing which was made entertaining on purpose.

I am perhaps optimistic in believing that you will find both claims self-evident if you were to give them even a small amount of thought.


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.


I would only call something I unironically enjoyed bad if that enjoyment were of a type that I do not value in art. For example I could enjoy a hentai for purely carnal reasons and I could genuinely enjoy it for that reason but I do not value that form of enjoyment highly in my appraisal of art and therefore I could very comfortably say that it was bad (this is assuming it had no other redeeming qualities).

I think we may be simply getting hung up regarding what we consider to be the cutoff for what constitutes "bad". Maybe it would be better to instead say that a show whose pleasure is of lesser value is worse than a show whose pleasure is of higher value but that neither are necessarily "bad". In that case I would imagine one would tend to rate only using the upper end of the ratings (7 or higher for example) but regardless this is simply a difference in naming conventions and not a meaningful difference in reviewing philosophy.
 
Oct 9, 3:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 12
Hrybami said:
RogertheShrubber said:
Complex algebra? You can't possibly think that's what I meant. Surely you understand there is more that can be obtained from art than facts or skills (or enjoyment for that matter). It is not enough to say that you have enjoyed a thing and to what degree. In my mind enjoyment also exists on a value spectrum. The value of the pleasure derived from a good game of chess is greater than that of a pig rolling in mud. This was the motivation for my claim that intellectual stimulation is of greater value.

"Your forum avatar is some grade A irony by the way."

That's the joke

As far as incidental vs intentional pleasure goes it's fairly straightforward, a thing which is accidentally entertaining is of lesser value than a thing which was made entertaining on purpose.

I am perhaps optimistic in believing that you will find both claims self-evident if you were to give them even a small amount of thought.


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.


I get where they're coming from. They place a lot of value on a show having a greater meaning than just being fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it is exasperating when someone has a positive experience but refuses to call it "good" just because it wasn't also a meaningful experience.

Although, on the other hand, some people are the opposite and place almost no value on how meaningful a show is. I don't agree with that either. Non-meaningful enjoyment is good, but it's not the end-all-be-all. How "good" it is - how much value one places on meaning and fun - varies from person to person, but both extremes deny fundamental parts of the human experience.

edit:

RogertheShrubber said:
Hrybami said:


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.


I would only call something I unironically enjoyed bad if that enjoyment were of a type that I do not value in art. For example I could enjoy a hentai for purely carnal reasons and I could genuinely enjoy it for that reason but I do not value that form of enjoyment highly in my appraisal of art and therefore I could very comfortably say that it was bad (this is assuming it had no other redeeming qualities).


Yeah that's what I'm talking about. Why call it bad if you genuinely enjoyed it? There's nothing wrong with saying it's of lesser value and less good than something more meaningful, but to deny it being good at all outright seems, for lack of a better word, pretentious.

Why does art need to be meaningful to be good?
Modified by cryptier, Oct 9, 3:41 PM
 
Oct 9, 3:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
Esquirtit said:
Hrybami said:


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.


It's almost as if there are more ways than one to derive pleasure from something... both of you seem so fragile and eager to shut him down for having different ideas. Ever heard of cringe compilations? Berserk 16/17? Women football? You can easily be fascinated by how bad these things are, they can stir up emotions and thoughts that don't necessarily have something to do with them being ''good''.


I was never intending to shut anyone down, I was responding to a comment on my original post.

Clearly there are more than one way to derive pleasure, my point was different forms of pleasure should hold different value in critical review. In any case I'm fairly sure I agree with you although I think it may be for different reasons.
 
Oct 9, 3:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 862
RogertheShrubber said:
I was never intending to shut anyone down, I was responding to a comment on my original post.

Clearly there are more than one way to derive pleasure, my point was different forms of pleasure should hold different value in critical review. In any case I'm fairly sure I agree with you although I think it may be for different reasons.


Yeah I meant Hrybami and Yossa not you lol. Imo they went too far with the accusations.
 
Oct 9, 3:52 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 821
I don't view generic as bad, most anime by definition is generic.

Look at every shounen, down to the barebones they're all basically the same.

Same with shoujo romances.

So many anime are generic.

Doesn't mean they're bad.
Being generic has absolutely nothing to do with being bad.
 
Oct 9, 3:54 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
cryptier said:
Hrybami said:


I get that you may enjoy something that stimulates your brain (I do too.) But in that case I can't call the show bad if it stimulated some pleasures. Yet, you still want to call something you unnironically enjoyed "bad" because you decided so? I never understood this twisted logic and to me the people who hold this argument either are dishonest with their own taste and actually like the show. Or they just pretend they enjoyed something about it in order to feel something while bragging they got a "worthwile experience while watching a bad show" on internet.


I get where they're coming from. They place a lot of value on a show having a greater meaning than just being fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it is exasperating when someone has a positive experience but refuses to call it "good" just because it wasn't also a meaningful experience.

Although, on the other hand, some people are the opposite and place almost no value on how meaningful a show is. I don't agree with that either. Non-meaningful enjoyment is good, but it's not the end-all-be-all. How "good" it is - how much value one places on meaning and fun - varies from person to person, but both extremes deny fundamental parts of the human experience.

edit:

RogertheShrubber said:


I would only call something I unironically enjoyed bad if that enjoyment were of a type that I do not value in art. For example I could enjoy a hentai for purely carnal reasons and I could genuinely enjoy it for that reason but I do not value that form of enjoyment highly in my appraisal of art and therefore I could very comfortably say that it was bad (this is assuming it had no other redeeming qualities).


Yeah that's what I'm talking about. Why call it bad if you genuinely enjoyed it? There's nothing wrong with saying it's of lesser value and less good than something more meaningful, but to deny it being good at all outright seems, for lack of a better word, pretentious.

Why does art need to be meaningful to be good?


I don't think we disagree fundamentally in our reviewing philosophy but rather our differences lie in our naming conventions. When I say that something is bad I do not mean that it is utterly worthless, rather I simply mean that it is less worthwhile than something which is mediocre or good. Something which is bad can still have redeeming qualities and I would never deny their existence (assuming they did indeed exist).

To give an analogy it would be as if we were comparing our opinions of temperatures, I might only consider temperatures 30 degrees of lower to be cold while you might maintain that 60 degrees is the true cutoff for what constitutes cold weather. Ultimately we are considering the same information in our assessment and it is simply a difference in where we center our scale.

For me art *needs* to be meaningful to be good because I value meaning so much more than any other quality. All other qualities of a piece of media are largely insignificant compared to meaningfulness.
 
Oct 9, 4:15 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2771
RogertheShrubber said:
cryptier said:


I get where they're coming from. They place a lot of value on a show having a greater meaning than just being fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it is exasperating when someone has a positive experience but refuses to call it "good" just because it wasn't also a meaningful experience.

Although, on the other hand, some people are the opposite and place almost no value on how meaningful a show is. I don't agree with that either. Non-meaningful enjoyment is good, but it's not the end-all-be-all. How "good" it is - how much value one places on meaning and fun - varies from person to person, but both extremes deny fundamental parts of the human experience.

edit:



Yeah that's what I'm talking about. Why call it bad if you genuinely enjoyed it? There's nothing wrong with saying it's of lesser value and less good than something more meaningful, but to deny it being good at all outright seems, for lack of a better word, pretentious.

Why does art need to be meaningful to be good?


I don't think we disagree fundamentally in our reviewing philosophy but rather our differences lie in our naming conventions. When I say that something is bad I do not mean that it is utterly worthless, rather I simply mean that it is less worthwhile than something which is mediocre or good. Something which is bad can still have redeeming qualities and I would never deny their existence (assuming they did indeed exist).

To give an analogy it would be as if we were comparing our opinions of temperatures, I might only consider temperatures 30 degrees of lower to be cold while you might maintain that 60 degrees is the true cutoff for what constitutes cold weather. Ultimately we are considering the same information in our assessment and it is simply a difference in where we center our scale.

For me art *needs* to be meaningful to be good because I value meaning so much more than any other quality. All other qualities of a piece of media are largely insignificant compared to meaningfulness.


It's not exactly a difference of perspective from both sides on the matter. I agree we have different taste and different standard of what bad means. However, I can't comprehend how you could set up a convention in which art is favoured and need to be meaningful in order for you to enjoy something while at the same time it doesn't influence how you perceive how good or bad it is. That seems more like you review things based on things you don't particularly care and your list ought to not represent what you exactly enjoyed watching. I mean, sure you still can rate anything based on whatever you feel like. But shouldn't it be better to set a standard and rate our things based on how we enjoyed them?


@Esquirtit Eh? Why are you so aggressive out of nowhere?
 
Oct 9, 4:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 12
RogertheShrubber said:
cryptier said:


I get where they're coming from. They place a lot of value on a show having a greater meaning than just being fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it is exasperating when someone has a positive experience but refuses to call it "good" just because it wasn't also a meaningful experience.

Although, on the other hand, some people are the opposite and place almost no value on how meaningful a show is. I don't agree with that either. Non-meaningful enjoyment is good, but it's not the end-all-be-all. How "good" it is - how much value one places on meaning and fun - varies from person to person, but both extremes deny fundamental parts of the human experience.

edit:



Yeah that's what I'm talking about. Why call it bad if you genuinely enjoyed it? There's nothing wrong with saying it's of lesser value and less good than something more meaningful, but to deny it being good at all outright seems, for lack of a better word, pretentious.

Why does art need to be meaningful to be good?


I don't think we disagree fundamentally in our reviewing philosophy but rather our differences lie in our naming conventions. When I say that something is bad I do not mean that it is utterly worthless, rather I simply mean that it is less worthwhile than something which is mediocre or good. Something which is bad can still have redeeming qualities and I would never deny their existence (assuming they did indeed exist).

To give an analogy it would be as if we were comparing our opinions of temperatures, I might only consider temperatures 30 degrees of lower to be cold while you might maintain that 60 degrees is the true cutoff for what constitutes cold weather. Ultimately we are considering the same information in our assessment and it is simply a difference in where we center our scale.

For me art *needs* to be meaningful to be good because I value meaning so much more than any other quality. All other qualities of a piece of media are largely insignificant compared to meaningfulness.


Yeah, that makes sense. Although, to clarify - I think it's less that we have a different cutoff for what counts as "bad," but rather we weight fun and meaning differently. Theoretically we could completely agree on how fun and how meaningful a given show is, but rate it differently because we place more/less value on different aspects.
 
Oct 9, 4:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
Hrybami said:
RogertheShrubber said:


I don't think we disagree fundamentally in our reviewing philosophy but rather our differences lie in our naming conventions. When I say that something is bad I do not mean that it is utterly worthless, rather I simply mean that it is less worthwhile than something which is mediocre or good. Something which is bad can still have redeeming qualities and I would never deny their existence (assuming they did indeed exist).

To give an analogy it would be as if we were comparing our opinions of temperatures, I might only consider temperatures 30 degrees of lower to be cold while you might maintain that 60 degrees is the true cutoff for what constitutes cold weather. Ultimately we are considering the same information in our assessment and it is simply a difference in where we center our scale.

For me art *needs* to be meaningful to be good because I value meaning so much more than any other quality. All other qualities of a piece of media are largely insignificant compared to meaningfulness.


It's not exactly a difference of perspective from both sides on the matter. I agree we have different taste and different standard of what bad means. However, I can't comprehend how you could set up a convention in which art is favoured and need to be meaningful in order for you to enjoy something while at the same time it doesn't influence how you perceive how good or bad it is. That seems more like you review things based on things you don't particularly care and your list ought to not represent what you exactly enjoyed watching. I mean, sure you still can rate anything based on whatever you feel like. But shouldn't it be better to set a standard and rate our things based on how we enjoyed them?


@Esquirtit Eh? Why are you so aggressive out of nowhere?


I don't think so no, I think approaching things that way leads to flawed ratings. You might end up rating an artistic masterpiece as if it were terrible simply because it didn't correspond to your sensibilities or likewise rate a trashy piece of nonsense as a masterpiece because it appealed to your basal urges.

"need to be meaningful in order for you to enjoy something" this is not actually what I mean, something can lack meaning and I can still enjoy it it is simply that I do not value enjoyment derived in this manner as highly.

One thing you said does hold true though, I will occasionally rate a work highly which does not appeal to me specifically because I am able to appreciate its artistic value.

I think ones list should reflect their review philosophy (in that sense I don't really have a problem with your rating style it's just that I don't think I could get much out of your ratings or reviews)
 
Oct 9, 4:49 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
cryptier said:
RogertheShrubber said:


I don't think we disagree fundamentally in our reviewing philosophy but rather our differences lie in our naming conventions. When I say that something is bad I do not mean that it is utterly worthless, rather I simply mean that it is less worthwhile than something which is mediocre or good. Something which is bad can still have redeeming qualities and I would never deny their existence (assuming they did indeed exist).

To give an analogy it would be as if we were comparing our opinions of temperatures, I might only consider temperatures 30 degrees of lower to be cold while you might maintain that 60 degrees is the true cutoff for what constitutes cold weather. Ultimately we are considering the same information in our assessment and it is simply a difference in where we center our scale.

For me art *needs* to be meaningful to be good because I value meaning so much more than any other quality. All other qualities of a piece of media are largely insignificant compared to meaningfulness.


Yeah, that makes sense. Although, to clarify - I think it's less that we have a different cutoff for what counts as "bad," but rather we weight fun and meaning differently. Theoretically we could completely agree on how fun and how meaningful a given show is, but rate it differently because we place more/less value on different aspects.


I think that's exactly what it is yeah, different value metrics is all. I don't really have an issue with your metric although much like you I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you can think the way you do. The idea of giving a 10 rating to both an artistic masterpiece and a schlocky spoof seems so foreign to me.
 
Oct 9, 4:58 PM
Offline
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 900
Yes. Truth be told, anime never been good to begin with
 
Oct 9, 5:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 12
RogertheShrubber said:
cryptier said:


Yeah, that makes sense. Although, to clarify - I think it's less that we have a different cutoff for what counts as "bad," but rather we weight fun and meaning differently. Theoretically we could completely agree on how fun and how meaningful a given show is, but rate it differently because we place more/less value on different aspects.


I think that's exactly what it is yeah, different value metrics is all. I don't really have an issue with your metric although much like you I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you can think the way you do. The idea of giving a 10 rating to both an artistic masterpiece and a schlocky spoof seems so foreign to me.


Well, I wouldn't give a schlocky spoof a 10, unless it was also significantly meaningful in some way (which at that point, is it really a schlocky spoof?). As I said before but probably didn't explain well enough, I think there should be a balance. Something ridiculously fun but shallow would be a 7 or 8 to me (I haven't actually settled on a rating scale yet). Likewise, something artistically/intellectually/philosophically amazing but not particularly "fun" would be a 7 or 8 as well.

...we got pretty off topic lol
 
Oct 9, 5:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 291
cryptier said:
RogertheShrubber said:


I think that's exactly what it is yeah, different value metrics is all. I don't really have an issue with your metric although much like you I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you can think the way you do. The idea of giving a 10 rating to both an artistic masterpiece and a schlocky spoof seems so foreign to me.


Well, I wouldn't give a schlocky spoof a 10, unless it was also significantly meaningful in some way (which at that point, is it really a schlocky spoof?). As I said before but probably didn't explain well enough, I think there should be a balance. Something ridiculously fun but shallow would be a 7 or 8 to me (I haven't actually settled on a rating scale yet). Likewise, something artistically/intellectually/philosophically amazing but not particularly "fun" would be a 7 or 8 as well.

...we got pretty off topic lol


Yeah still though that seems like you're trying to conflate two things which are almost unrelated. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have 2 separate lists which have different metrics?

Lol I mean kinda I guess, I think it's still tangential though
 
Oct 9, 5:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 195
Hot-ish take? I can't stand generic. I'd rather the anime tries to do something new and fails than be solid enough but it still feels like I've seen it all before - that's boring to me. I wanna be entertained!
#PrayForKyoAni
 
Top
Pages (2) [1] 2 »