| Hi! First post~nice. Pseudo means fake, and I thought it would be fun to discuss anime that try/pretend to be a lot more intelligent than they actually are. Discussion over choices will make it more fun, and please no flaming. Reasons plz. Obviously this is subjective: some people may find an anime deep in meaning and others may find it trite, hackneyed, or just plain garbage. Once again discussion encouraged. ___ Elfen Lied- the show baits you with a very solid opening with classy opera music and what appears to be classical art (I am no expert)...IMO, the actual show is nowhere near as close to intelligent. It's mostly a gore-fest with some poorly explained motivations (kids killing puppies- really?) and some attempt at a message between how humans oppress the diclonii, but it ends up seeming lazy to me. Steins gate- Random scientific jargon does not equal intelligent. The fact that the main characters can be that damn stupid as to let literally everyone know about their time travel antics is infuriating, especially considering they watched movies like Back to the future and should know the consequences of getting too many people involved. Also, letting catgirl send a text back to the past and not being able to see it because it is "a girl's secret" is the stupidest thing ever: she could inadvertently cause World War 3. It just doesn't seem as intelligent as people make it out to be. Any other series? Want to argue with mine? Let's go! Edit: First of all, thanks for all the comments! Secondly, on the issue of how the topic is framed: It's mostly an opinion. It is impossible to gauge whether a work is pseudointellectual for sure unless the author blatantly admits he is trying to appear intelligent. There are some ways you can look at it: How do we measure pseudointellectual? 1. Does the fanbase think the show has deep, intellectual themes? If you look at the reviews for Elfen Lied, many discuss how it is a show with complex symbols, developed characters, and believable conflict. The validity of this is questionable, and is the impetus for potential debate. 2. Does the show obviously try to express a theme? How well does it do it? If it fails, it can fall into pseudointellectual. If we're being picky, I guess you could say we are looking for pseudointellectual ELEMENTS of a show. Obviously there is no objectively correct answer, it's all opinion. |
TheProxySep 20, 2013 7:02 AM
| "you think you're bad, don't cha?" Evangelion is "a commentary on human nature and Japanese culture, particularly otaku and hikikomori, couched in a metaphysical allegory within a Science Fiction background." |
Manderton said: Re watch it there is no supernatural phenomenon. On topic Serial Experiments Lain hands down.A good thread, which is going to see nothing but trolling. Completely agree with your posts. My vote goes to Paranoia Agent, because even though I love Kon as much as the next guy, it's easily his worst work. He basically through a bunch of incomplete ideas he had for other movies and put them together for the show that basically dealt with a supernatural phenomenon wreaking havok across the globe all because |
 |
| What makes a show "intelligent"? You could argue that a lot of sic-fi shows (Elfen Lied, Steins Gate) aren't trying to be "intelligent". They're trying to just be entertaining, and use pseudo-science as a method to enable the story they want to tell. (Keep in mind that I haven't seen either). I mean, take Jurassic Park. It is sic-fi, heavily centered around pseudo-science. I mean, the entire process the dinosaurs are created is not even possible, and on top of that, there's anatomical and functional flaws with the dinosaurs themselves when compared to the actual animals. (Velociraptors had feathers, they were much smaller, their heads were shaped differently, their wrist and finger structure is wrong, etc). But, the point of the story isn't to try and write a documentary on dinosaurs. The author acknowledges himself that, yes, he took some creative liberty and basically pulled some stuff out of his ass to make the story more interesting (like dilophosaurus spitting poison). The point of the story is to be a compelling sic-fi thriller. There are however some legitimate themes that Jurassic Park brings up, such as various theories about evolution, morality, tampering with nature, chaos theory, etc., but those really aren't the main point of the story either. What I'm getting at is that you shouldn't say something is pseudo-"intellectual" if it isn't trying to be something intellectual in the first place. |
 |
| I agree with Steins;Gate, but for a different reason. It's going for a sci-fi thriller thing, but it's really a backdrop to the relationships between the main characters. Sure, I like the characters, but if I knew someone who wanted a good sci-fi anime, I probably wouldn't recommend Steins;Gate. The focus just isn't science, even though it's the reason why the story exists. It's kinda weird. Also, I choose Black Rock Shooter's television series. The OVA was okay, I didn't really have any beef with it. It's the television series that bothered me. The problem I had with the television series was that they tried really, really, REALLY hard to drive home the message of friendship. Now, the CG looks good and the fights are awesome and all, but there were, has been, and are many easier ways to get across the message of friendship. It didn't need the overplayed middle school drama. It didn't need the weird symbolism. Also, it most certainly didn't need a convoluted plot to try and explain why heavily-armed girls in another world are beating the crap out of each other. |
plumiscineres said: I don't know what what the most pseudo-intellectual anime might be, but I did stumble upon a lot of pretentious drivel. A few of the more popular ones are - Kara no Kyoukai. Whenever the films don't deal with the awkward teen romance, they "seem" a lot more "profound" than they actually are, which is, not profound at all. Just refer to any of the dialogues involving the redhead mage lady. They read like purple prose written by a high-schooler who just discovered wikipedia. She makes paper folding look like rocket science, but she churns out explanations in such a way that Kara no Kyoukai fails at even being pedantic. Almost every one of her lines follows the same pattern, where she throws in a lot of jargon from various disciplines as clumsy window dressing for the series' magical teleology and whatnot. The fact that her interlocutor is a blockhead that suffers from high-functioning cretinism and is there basically just to shill for her doesn't help much. That's hilarious because Nasu wrote the novels in high school. plumiscineres said: - Kino no Tabi. This one is lacking for very different reasons. Kino no Tabi's problem isn't vapid excess but the fact is that it's all about the ideas, with almost zero effort put into their execution. It's really bare bones, almost completely eschewing framing and development, opting instead for an almost literal implementation of whatever theme the respective episodes are about. And the problem here is that almost every ideation in Kino no Tabi is in fact an intellectual cliche. The series is starved of much needed context and detail to make its meanderings meaningful beyond just posing a tired question. Well, the real thing is that while Kino's Journey is definitely thoughtful, it tries really hard to make itself seem like it's on a level of its own, especially with stuff like the screen texts and certain events run on convenience or Kino's apparent badassness. It's great stuff, but since the show seems to be made for presenting ideas rather than discussing them, it really had its problems when it tried to actually explain things, which was weird. I can't comment on Rahxephon or Ergo Proxy since I haven't watched them yet, and I'll let Serial Experiments Lain go since while I'd like to defend it, I've never gotten around to try and read into the show, so I wouldn't have any idea what I'd be talking about. caperock said: I love how people label non shonen/school animes pretentious and bad. Personally, I'd rather watch fake intelligent show than a one which constantly flashes the screen with unnecessary fan service. Here's the thing though. Shows that try to be intelligent and fan service shows have different appeals. I watch smart shows 'cause I like expanding my horizons and learning new ways of thinking. I watch perverted shows 'cause I need my weekly dose of flat chests. I'd be frustrated with a perverted show that tries too hard to be serious, just as much as with shows that try too hard to be intelligent but come off as, well, pretentious. I'd much rather watch a shameless fan service show over a "fake intelligent show" since at least the fan service show is honest with both its viewers and itself. Unless you're talking about shows that aren't fan service centered but have 'em anyways, then I got nothing. |
ShockedSep 20, 2013 1:14 AM
TheProxy said: Elfen Lied- the show baits you with a very solid opening with classy opera music and what appears to be classical art (I am no expert)...IMO, the actual show is nowhere near as close to intelligent. It's mostly a gore-fest with some poorly explained motivations (kids killing puppies- really?) and some attempt at a message between how humans oppress the diclonii, but it ends up seeming lazy to me. True. I wanted to say the same until I fully read your comment. |
| Time is money, but money won't turn back the clock. |
| I agree, this is an interesting thread.... BUT....when you start analyzing anime in terms of our real world logic, things get murky very quickly. You will simply not find any anime that obeys our rules and stays consistent throughout the entire process. I mean c'mon.....the whole point of anime is to have a world where our logic does not apply where strange and interesting things happen all the time. |
Red_Keys said: What makes a show "intelligent"? You could argue that a lot of sic-fi shows (Elfen Lied, Steins Gate) aren't trying to be "intelligent". They're trying to just be entertaining, and use pseudo-science as a method to enable the story they want to tell. (Keep in mind that I haven't seen either). I mean, take Jurassic Park. It is sic-fi, heavily centered around pseudo-science. I mean, the entire process the dinosaurs are created is not even possible, and on top of that, there's anatomical and functional flaws with the dinosaurs themselves when compared to the actual animals. (Velociraptors had feathers, they were much smaller, their heads were shaped differently, their wrist and finger structure is wrong, etc). But, the point of the story isn't to try and write a documentary on dinosaurs. The author acknowledges himself that, yes, he took some creative liberty and basically pulled some stuff out of his ass to make the story more interesting (like dilophosaurus spitting poison). The point of the story is to be a compelling sic-fi thriller. There are however some legitimate themes that Jurassic Park brings up, such as various theories about evolution, morality, tampering with nature, chaos theory, etc., but those really aren't the main point of the story either. What I'm getting at is that you shouldn't say something is pseudo-"intellectual" if it isn't trying to be something intellectual in the first place. I agree with this. You people just get butthurt because you expect too much or you probably simply didn't like it & now you have to go on rampages criticizing an anime for something it wasn't even going for, it's basically the same thing as criticizing a hentai for having no plot, I mean c'mon. |
 |
| Well Elfen Lied is definitely a bunch of ad misericordiam bullshit, but I'm pretty sure the authors are well aware of that. The audience however.... |
Red_Keys said: Pretty much this. As interesting as i find the topic of this thread, but the above argument just makes any discussion somewhat pointless though i still want to hear what ppl thinkWhat makes a show "intelligent"? You could argue that a lot of sic-fi shows (Elfen Lied, Steins Gate) aren't trying to be "intelligent". They're trying to just be entertaining, and use pseudo-science as a method to enable the story they want to tell. (Keep in mind that I haven't seen either). I mean, take Jurassic Park. It is sic-fi, heavily centered around pseudo-science. I mean, the entire process the dinosaurs are created is not even possible, and on top of that, there's anatomical and functional flaws with the dinosaurs themselves when compared to the actual animals. (Velociraptors had feathers, they were much smaller, their heads were shaped differently, their wrist and finger structure is wrong, etc). But, the point of the story isn't to try and write a documentary on dinosaurs. The author acknowledges himself that, yes, he took some creative liberty and basically pulled some stuff out of his ass to make the story more interesting (like dilophosaurus spitting poison). The point of the story is to be a compelling sic-fi thriller. There are however some legitimate themes that Jurassic Park brings up, such as various theories about evolution, morality, tampering with nature, chaos theory, etc., but those really aren't the main point of the story either. What I'm getting at is that you shouldn't say something is pseudo-"intellectual" if it isn't trying to be something intellectual in the first place. |
| What, no Eva yet? |
grandy_UiD said: What, no Eva yet? Well I mean EVA is the epitome of convoluted, illogical, nonsensical jargon all mixed together to try to seem like there is some deep and sophisticated meaning going on....but it's still entertaining in it's own right. |
plumiscineres said: It's not about avoiding discussion.If all you want to do is avoid discussion, why bother. It's about avoiding useless discussion, about a series that simply doesn't apply to the topic. My response isn't an end all be all /thread post. I'm just trying to make people become a little bit more aware of the shows they are watching and criticizing, and think twice about what series they decide to post as to whether or not it pertains to the subject at hand. |
|
plumiscineres said: -Sloth- said: I agree with this. You people just get butthurt because you expect too much or you probably simply didn't like it & now you have to go on rampages criticizing an anime for something it wasn't even going for, it's basically the same thing as criticizing a hentai for having no plot, I mean c'mon. I didn't see anyone getting butthurt. And you're just dodging the topic. This is arguably true for Elfen Lied who isn't really trying to be a "thinking man's anime", but how is it also true of Lain, Kino no Tabi, Ergo Proxy and Evangelion, for example? If all you want to do is avoid discussion, why bother. I admit I had Elfen Lied in mind & by "the butthurt people" I wasn't referring to anyone in here. You say Evangelion is pretensious then I'll say no it isn't. Listing is nice but reasons as to why you think so are nice too. |
|
| This thread is going to be fun to read once highly regarded anime starts being mentioned. |
grandy_UiD said: The only right answerWhat, no Eva yet? |
 |
Ntaig said: Cause Steins;Gate, Lain, Kino no tabi, and Ergo Proxy aren't highly regarded?This thread is going to be fun to read once highly regarded anime starts being mentioned. |
RLinksoul said: inb4 Gen Urobuchi bad writer.No mention of Psycho-Pass yet? The anime that constantly made references to famous works of literature for absolutely no reason. I don't get why people think that some anime are trying to be "pseudo-intellectual," I mean do they come in to these anime with ridiculous expectations? |
This topic has not been locked and is still available for discussion. |
RLinksoul said: I haven't seen PP, so I don't have a definitive answer to this question.No mention of Psycho-Pass yet? The anime that constantly made references to famous works of literature for absolutely no reason. But do you think that, perhaps, these references to other works of literature did have a purpose? Allusions to other works is a common writing tool, and is used for a variety of purposes. For example, if you read "A Worn Path" by Eudora Welty, the story is about, to quote wikipedia: "an elderly African-American woman undertakes a familiar journey on a road in a rural area to acquire medicine for her grandson. She expresses herself, both to her surroundings and in short spurts of spoken monologue, warning away animals and expressing the pain she feels in her weary bones." On the surface, it's a story about an old black woman walking through the woods, talking to herself. But the entire short story is an allegory to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There is a plethora of symbolism, such as thorns, death, rebirth, selflessness, sacrifice, satan, etc. Is there really a purpose to the references? When reading, you see the allusions, understand what they imply, the emotions that they inflict, the and then apply it to the story being told. Basically, it serves the purpose of accentuating the "Jesus-like" traits of the main character. This is writing 101. Perhaps you should analyze the references, and try and determine what purpose they serve in the narrative. I highly doubt a reference to a famous work of literature would be shoehorned in there because, "hey! let's just shove this here for the hell of it!" But like I said, I haven't seen Psycho Pass, so I really don't know. But as an aside, I don't really think that allusions or references are really something that makes a show "intelligent", or something used to try and make something more intelligent, whether they were used correctly or not. |
Red_KeysSep 20, 2013 4:14 AM
|
| For me, it's Mawaru Penguindrum. (WARNING: BITCHFEST INSIDE) I think after I finished that I watched Kino's Journey, which was actually smart and thought-provoking, or at least more so than Penguindrum, and all the naysayers in this thread can go fuck themselves (Okay, not really. I respect your opinions. Honest.) |
RLinksoul said: No mention of Psycho-Pass yet? The anime that constantly made references to famous works of literature for absolutely no reason. I was just going to mention that. But I don't begrudge it because I do a similar thing in real life. I mean, honestly, the real overall story was fairly straightforward. But I would say that dressing gives a sort of, tone, that I really like. Related: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible |
Mogu-samaSep 20, 2013 5:18 AM
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
| On Kino no Tabi... plumiscineres said: - Kino no Tabi. This one is lacking for very different reasons. Kino no Tabi's problem isn't vapid excess but the fact is that it's all about the ideas, with almost zero effort put into their execution. It's really bare bones, almost completely eschewing framing and development, opting instead for an almost literal implementation of whatever theme the respective episodes are about. And the problem here is that almost every ideation in Kino no Tabi is in fact an intellectual cliche. The series is starved of much needed context and detail to make its meanderings meaningful beyond just posing a tired question. Is that anyway a problem of pseudo-intellectuality, or rather an issue brought by the premise? To sum it up, this series is: -A slice of life: When something is defined as a slice of life it means that it will take fragments of the main character's life, meaning that there is a lot of stuff that we don't watch, and only a few selected scenes are shown. -About a teen (or maybe young adult, but no more) girl who is a wandering traveller: She is not a philosophical genius. Her views and reflections come from direct experience. -And additionally, with a rule of not spending more than three days in each place: Hence the reason why we don't know about the different places in depth and the ideas are very straightforward. Taking these three points into account, is this series actually pseudo-intellectual? It may be in the content (which is up to each mind), but I think the way to introduce and develop it doesn't really have anything to do. The development it lacks is the kind of development that Plato's cave allegory and other contrived, straight-to-the-point philosophical examples lack. Just because it chooses to narrate through parables doesn't make it more or less intelligent. I would rather call it artsy than pseudo-intellectual, due to the presence of intertitles, silent scenes and little gimmicks of the sort that aren't really necessary, and that are quite frequent in the work of Ryutaro Nakamura (not that I dislike it for that, in fact I tend to love it). For example, Serial experiments Lain is plenty of them. On the case of SEL by the way, I think I agree with you but it really doesn't have anything to do with pseudo-intellectuality. It's true that the series is ambiguous, deliberately confusing and tries to be a burden to the audience (which is a perfectly fine narrative device, often played by filmmakers like David Lynch or Satoshi Kon), but in the end it focuses on one single point (Lain's identity), which I at least find satisfying enough with some minor complaints. It would be pseudo-intellectual if it tried to embrace more than what it's able to, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, I tend to be kind of skeptical about the use of this expression. Many times it comes from a mere misunderstanding of the real objectives of the show, and many others I don't feel qualified to say that something is pseudo-intellectual simply due to ignorance. It is true that some shows seem to be using this intellectual excuse to bring something more simple (for example, Elfen Lied), but I can't figure out how much of this is actually intentional and artificially brought to build an atmosphere. Because creating an atmosphere of false or apparently impenetrable depth is also a narrative device that can be used well. The audience can be tricked into thinking about something that isn't really given much thought in the series or isn't the main point. |
jal90Sep 20, 2013 5:39 AM
KiraMustDie said: For me, it's Mawaru Penguindrum. (WARNING: BITCHFEST INSIDE) ) I agree with you on almost everything you said, even though I gave it a relatively high score (7). There was symbolism for the sake of symbolism, the plot was incoherent and frankly just stupid. Nothing is actually explained or even attempted to be explained, it is just there with no logical reason behind it. And the romance if you can call it one was atrocious and was just used for cheap plot twists and pseudo incest. |
 |
| This is sort of a general statement, not really pertaining to this thread exclusively (if at all). But I really wish people would grow up, and realize that criticism, in an academic sense, is mostly analyzing and forming your own interpretations about a work. Trying to figure out what it means, why it was written, the main themes, symbols, how they all relate, how it makes you feel, why it makes you feel that way, how it's supposed to make you feel, the writing strategies, etc. It is not sitting down with a notepad and checking off every flaw it has. That to me is pseudo-intellectual. |
|
| You can't say a work of fiction is pseudo-intellectual. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
plumiscineres said: azzuRe said: You can't say a work of fiction is pseudo-intellectual. Why not. Why should it be intellectual in the first place? |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
plumiscineres said: jal90 said: Taking these three points into account, is this series actually pseudo-intellectual? It may be in the content (which is up to each mind), but I think the way to introduce and develop it doesn't really have anything to do. The development it lacks is the kind of development that Plato's cave allegory and other contrived, straight-to-the-point philosophical examples lack. Just because it chooses to narrate through parables doesn't make it more or less intelligent. Can't agree. The thing is, Plato's cave allegory is just a rhetorical device that is part of a much broader discourse. It's not suspended in vacuum. Nor is it a narrative in the same sense that Kino no Tabi is. The "development" it lack it doesn't even need in the first place. Another difference is originality. The average Kino no Tabi episode is the same as me making a story about Schroedinger's dead cat in a box thought experiment in which I would simply narrate the experiment with my own cat, scientists and devices. That's just insipid staging of preexisting content. You can view the three points you brought up as much as an explanation as you can an excuse. Not that I disagree with your first comment, with some minor issues; yes, Plato's cave allegory is part of a much broader discourse, but it is still used to bring an idea to the reader using extremes as examples, so that way I don't need to read the whole work of Plato but rather this example to understand the point he is trying to make, because regardless of how it is associated to a bigger text it still holds a communicative ability by itself and is able to inspire thought on the matter as well as exposing the theory. But on the bolded part I can't say I agree. On one hand because I don't think that the problem of Kino no Tabi, if there ever is, comes with the supposed lack of a significant contribution in the matters it deals with. It could very well be an exact, word-by-word summary of every current philosophic trend about whatever issue and that still wouldn't say anything about its quality. This show tries to bring a series of "what ifs" that are related to common aspects; I think that if it cared about bringing something new it would be simply fooling itself because these topics have been beaten to death, and the alternatives introduced maybe hundreds of ways in previous works. But this alone doesn't make it less evocative for reflection, which is the main purpose it has (and I would disagree, to me it's more of an emotional than reflective experience). So it comes again to the content, not the presentation. The three points I brought up are part of the premise, which means I can never see them as excuses. As incomplete explanations, maybe. That would be a nice focus of discussion. But an excuse implies trying to make up for a lack of foresight. I can't assume that from a premise. |
Nerolunar said: Probably Madoka Magica. Correct me all you like. Madoka isn't all that intellectual in the first place, why you think it is considered as such beats me too. |
|
plumiscineres said: azzuRe said: Why should it be intellectual in the first place? It doesn't need to but it can be intellectual. How does that answer my question though. So, how you can determine something is a piece of intellectual work, and some are 'pseudo-intellectual'? If it is a scientific journal that doesn't have a scientific ground to prove on building up its argument, you can say that is unscientific and pseudo-intellectual garbage. How can you say so in a work of fiction? What are the necessary requirement and on what ground shall we call a fiction is 'intellectual' ? |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| I edited my first post to address the "how can we measure pseudointellectual" questions etc. Thanks for the discussion! Unfortunately, I haven't watched certain anime like Kino no Tabi, Lain, etc. but the discussion seems interesting. I'd like to argue the opposite side on two anime: 1. Evangelion (yes, the debate was inevitable). While I agree that some elements seem a bit random and some symbols are forced, I still think there is honest character analysis based Hideaki Anno's own life. "Dood omfg there is a cross dude adam is on a cross when the evas blow up the explosion is in shape of cross that is so deep dood omg bible reference" No. Fail. One example of why I like Eva is the relationship between Shinji and Misato. Throughout the series, their affection for each other grows, and yet their own personal character flaws hold them back. For example, when Shinji and Misato are at their most vulnerable (they each have a sever breaking point in the series) the other does not help them. In most anime, a son/mother figure would help each other, but Evangelion deconstructs this by having the character's own personality traits hold them back. Shinji's "I can't do anything. I'm just a kid" in response to why he didn't comfort a crying misato seems honest and thought provoking. 2. Rahxephon. This is my favorite anime, so obviously I have to disagree about it being pretentious (yes, I love these mecha deconstruction anime). The beauty of Rahxephon is that all the details are actually there. Watching it one time a viewer can get a solid idea of what is happening, and repeated viewing can help you understand more about the idea of "spirited forth" and Bahbem's true goals. Also I would say that the series isn't pseudointellectual. There are very few symbols and forced speeches. The only morality speech I can think of is in distinguishing the difference between Mulians and humans, and that only occurs near the end of the series and it was pretty much built up through the entire show. One possibly symbol could be the egg, and how it hatches and awakens the Rahxephons, but that isn't too egregious. It's mostly a romance series with cool action and music. |
| "you think you're bad, don't cha?" Evangelion is "a commentary on human nature and Japanese culture, particularly otaku and hikikomori, couched in a metaphysical allegory within a Science Fiction background." |
plumiscineres said: jal90 said: It could very well be an exact, word-by-word summary of every current philosophic trend about whatever issue and that still wouldn't say anything about its quality. This show tries to bring a series of "what ifs" that are related to common aspects; I think that if it cared about bringing something new it would be simply fooling itself because these topics have been beaten to death, and the alternatives introduced maybe hundreds of ways in previous works. But this alone doesn't make it less evocative for reflection, which is the main purpose it has (and I would disagree, to me it's more of an emotional than reflective experience). So it comes again to the content, not the presentation. I see where you're coming from but can't really swallow it. I don't like the dichotomy you're operating under. Content and presentation are not isolated compartments in a narrative. The presentation in Kino no Tabi is lacking because it is little more than a delivery system for its contents. What value does a set-up that just frames a question like "can robots be sentient?" have when I can get more out of a random wiki walk starting with the "Artificial Intelligence" article? There is too little in it besides "raising the question". Compare that to Philip K. Dick's novel that does more than just ask "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". Well, despite this dichotomy indeed doesn't exist and the presentation is part of the content, we have already described in the thread which content are we discussing, which is the intellectual, reflective or philosophical one. They are not isolated departments in a narrative but they are isolated departments in this discussion. Which is the point I'm trying to argue with you, and I guess it in the end is more of a matter of wording than anything. To me Kino no Tabi is not pseudo-intellectual just because it chose to narrate with parables. It would be pseudo-intellectual, if anything, as related to how it deals with these parables and how it introduces them in relation with the topic at hand. plumiscineres said: jal90 said: But an excuse implies trying to make up for a lack of foresight. I can't assume that from a premise. Not a lack of foresight. A lack of effort in general. For all the thinking Kino no Tabi seems to be trying to arouse in its audience, it seems to put very little thought into it. It's ultimately superficial. And I guess this part of the discussion is a dead end, we can't go further than a mutual disagreement. At least in the part of the premise. What does it mean that it puts very little thought into it? Would it be more worthy in that sense if it had made whatever other choice? You say yes, I say no. In the end what I wanted to tell you here is that a premise is something that is planned to be brought in a certain way before the show (and therefore the execution of the idea) even exists. Which is why I don't think it qualifies as an excuse. |
JustALEX said: grandy_UiD said: What, no Eva yet? Well I mean EVA is the epitome of convoluted, illogical, nonsensical jargon all mixed together to try to seem like there is some deep and sophisticated meaning going on....but it's still entertaining in it's own right. Well Eva taught everybody out there that you could fap to someone in a coma. |
 |
caperock said: That is exactly why I don't trust people that do say that something is pretentious, either because what of what you say or because people read way too deep into a show that doesn't present the themes as significantly as they say it needed to be.Shows can only be as deep as the watcher. Most people are just unable or don't have the patience to think about the themes/ideas that are being presented to them and thus create the label pretentious. |
This topic has not been locked and is still available for discussion. |
TheProxy said: Secondly, on the issue of how the topic is framed: It's mostly an opinion. It is impossible to gauge whether a work is pseudointellectual for sure unless the author blatantly admits he is trying to appear intelligent. So it is just an opinion then. TheProxy said: There are some ways you can look at it: How do we measure pseudointellectual? 1. Does the fanbase think the show has deep, intellectual themes? If you look at the reviews for Elfen Lied, many discuss how it is a show with complex symbols, developed characters, and believable conflict. The validity of this is questionable, and is the impetus for potential debate. Someone claiming that an simple show is intelligent doesn't makes the show itself intelligent or pseudo-intelligent. Its a matter of perception, and like what you pointed earlier, its just an opinion. Let us be objective here to separate between the show itself and its audience perception. TheProxy said: 2. Does the show obviously try to express a theme? How well does it do it? If it fails, it can fall into pseudointellectual. I don't think so. If it fails, it simply fails. If a show does not deliver something you implied it was trying to, then how do you know it was trying to deliver something that you implied it was trying to be? Maybe you misunderstood its purpose from the first place. TheProxy said: If we're being picky, I guess you could say we are looking for pseudointellectual ELEMENTS of a show. Obviously there is no objectively correct answer, it's all opinion. Thank you for your opinion. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
gamer2710 said: caperock said: That is exactly why I don't trust people that do say that something is pretentious, either because what of what you say or because people read way too deep into a show that doesn't present the themes as significantly as they say it needed to be.Shows can only be as deep as the watcher. Most people are just unable or don't have the patience to think about the themes/ideas that are being presented to them and thus create the label pretentious. I agree, it could go either way. And both sides conflict with each other because it's either something like "you just don't get it" or "you're being arrogant." The ambiguity placed in a lot of these types of series really irks a lot of people, even when throughout everything you need has been presented somewhere, some want it given to them directly. I prefer stuff that is more subtle or nuanced, or just executed well actually, it could slap me in the face but it better give me goosebumps. I don't mind things being ambiguous though especially in favor of style or wonder. I think a lot of people might say it's a cop out and honestly sometimes it is but eh it depends, again, on how well executed things are overall. I happen to love Eva, I mean say what you want but it's still being talked about so heavily until today. I can't believe someone hasn't mentioned Haruhi yet. I don't agree with this theory but I think there's the one about how it's really slice of life in disguise or something. |
chrysalibun said: There's nothing much to say about it. It was animated by KyoAni, it is a random slice of life, and it got popular.I can't believe someone hasn't mentioned Haruhi yet. I don't agree with this theory but I think there's the one about how it's really slice of life in disguise or something. The movie is good, but not because it tried to be "intellectual" or anything. |
This topic has not been locked and is still available for discussion. |
azzuRe said: plumiscineres said: azzuRe said: You can't say a work of fiction is pseudo-intellectual. Why not. Why should it be intellectual in the first place? Because some people take their cartoons a bit too seriously and like to think there's highbrow content there. |
 |
corbenic said: azzuRe said: plumiscineres said: azzuRe said: You can't say a work of fiction is pseudo-intellectual. Why not. Why should it be intellectual in the first place? Because some people take their cartoons a bit too seriously and like to think there's highbrow content there. Implying there isn't? |
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
| Wait, since when a form of entertainment tried to be "intelligent"? The main concern here is to be entertaining, and that's what matters. Also, referring to Sci-Fi, the genre itself should be not even considered intelligent. What it does is mixing in some tangible facts to fantasy settings and ideas, often completely misleading and purely imaginary. Also, let's not get into time travel with idea that we know everything about it. First of all, if we count in quantum mechanics, the whole time travel factor can have many other solutions. Since all we can do is speculate, the grandfather paradox as well is just another speculation with no clear answer. Steins;Gate doesn't try to be intelligent, it tries to entertain the viewer with a concept that involves time traveling. Where's the pretentiousness in that? Anything can be pretentious, it's called science FICTION for a reason. |
| Aliis si licet, tibi non licet. |
More topics from this board
» Riddle me this: If anime really is mainstream... ( 1 2 )thewiru - Oct 6 |
51 |
by LifelineByNature
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» When did you first realize your favorite anime is going to be your favorite__Arkham__ - Oct 4 |
37 |
by Cmonth
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Best anime of 2025?RealClutch - Oct 6 |
26 |
by Cmonth
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Waifu War V5 (Anniversary-Edition!) (Round 1) ( 1 2 3 4 5 )TheMinkalex - Sep 28 |
218 |
by Adnash
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» non horror anime plots that would be a nightmare to have to go throughTheBlockernator - 8 hours ago |
16 |
by Cmonth
»»
19 minutes ago |