- Last OnlineJan 9, 2022 10:42 PM
- JoinedJan 3, 2019
RSS Feeds
|
![]()
Apr 25, 2020
The writer very much bashes you over the head with exposition about the world, characters, plot, even minor details like weapon characteristics in the guise of dialogue. The dialogue therefore does nothing to serve character-building. The characters are malleable, ill-defined stock characters held hostage by the exposition and plot. You can't say the characters drive the plot, but that a loose connection of cases (episodic format) move the characters.
There is nothing subtle about the 500 times the MC declares he wants to be a hero, every character declares the supremacy of a third generation fire-starter, and flashbacks appear in every episode where he's called
...
a devil. It's not only unnatural but repetitive.
Beyond that the animation is full of still shots and recycled establishing shots. The same images are used throughout different episodes and most of the show is actually still dialogue. It's as if they blew all their budget on 1min worth of combat per episode while the rest is just still frames with one character's mouth moving.
The final point I have is pacing. The pacing and editing detracts from any form of tension the show could've had. Flashbacks appear mid-combat, characters stand still for 20 seconds mid-combat, and characters hold 2 minutes speeches while the infernal waits for them to finish, again, mid-combat. For example, in episode two, the alarm sounds and Maki runs in to urgently alert the team. But when they get there, the captain spends 1 minute relating exposition outside the house accompanied with a still frame. Then he walks the recruits behind the house and takes another 4 minutes to explain. It's impossible for the audience to care about the world, characters, and combat like this. The pacing is completely uneven and there's no tension.
Reviewer’s Rating: 5
What did you think of this review?
Nice
 0
Love it
 0
Funny
 0
Confusing
 0
Well-written
 0
Creative
 0Show all
![]()
Nov 19, 2019
While it isn't the worst series I've seen, it doesn't take risks or depart from the traditional shonen formula. It markets itself as a seinen, but it isn't any darker or edgier than the typical tale about revenge-driven, over-zealous shonen protagonist who later develops a religious devotion to pacifism. The art, music, characters, and world-building are fairly conventional and the story as a whole doesn't have much new to contribute to the conversation.
The anime seems to confuse peace with impracticality and irresponsibility. It's particularly jarring as the story is set in the context of Viking culture. If anything the setting is only surface-level and characters
...
are confusingly Japanese with no real impact from the culture it takes inspiration from. You can tell because take the characters and clothe them in any other costume and the story wouldn't have to make any changes. This disconnect makes it difficult to believe the setting of the story, which in turn makes the world and its conflicts flat and carry less weight. It's like listening to a witness tell a tale about a long-dead historical figure, like we're viewing the story from the third-person, not from Thorfinn's perspective.
We believe in Nanashi's refusal to draw his sword in Sword of the Stranger and Kenshin's pact because we're traveling with them on their journey and coping with their failings in real time, but we're meant to idolize the current Thor as a cross-section in time. Of course we can enjoy grand stories of Zeus and Chronos, but we root for characters that remind us of ourselves and the people who know.
So how could it be improved? First of all, the direction is the key issue. Right now it's in third person. It's easier to overlook the cultural disconnect if the story was told compellingly in first-person.
Let's start with how heavily telegraphed and drawn-out the prologue was. Because of the third-person perspective, we see the plotting take place for the assassination. Though we could've guessed it would happen otherwise, we now know exactly what, how, and when it would happen, removing all tension and surprise. The narrative relies heavily on telling not showing. There was a good moment in the show when Helga says "I'll tell him" when Thor can't voice his parting words to Thorfinn. It should expand on this type of subtle storytelling.
Instead, let's have the story trust its audience and instead open episode one in media res with shots of Thorfinn fighting on a battlefield split with shots of his father fighting in the past. Then we discover his grand dreams are only in his mind, as we see him get beaten in the snow in the playfights he has with the village children. What does this change? We implicitly know that his father was a great warrior without the villagers and Leif telling us repeatedly that he is. We also know that Thor wants to be like his father, that maybe he is embarrassed that the village kids underestimate him, especially as he is (in visual language with the use of split screen) compared with his father. Now we're viewing the story from Thor's perspective.
Cut the scene of the slave escaping. Thor wouldn't have seen him running in the night, so why should the audience know? Exposition should only be used when the potential confusion disrupts the story experience. Instead let's have Thor be the one to discover him as he lies in the snow after being defeated, AGAIN. The direction should show the fight from 1st person perspective, shot with weight to the movements so the stakes feel real. We feel his frustration as he almost beats the older village kid, kicks the snow in anger, and finds the slave. He inspects him while his friend would rather leave the body alone, showing us that he is curious about the outside world, rather than have him shout and verbally express his interest during Leif's stories. Now the audience is curious too. Where did the man come from? How did he get here? We're in his shoes and thinking about what to do. We also get a comparison between the stakes of this playfight and the coming fights we know he's going to have to face. This also sets up an early conflict. He needs to beat the village kid. Without it, we and Thorfinn are passive spectators in his father's superhuman story.
Next step is adding complexity to the characters. We do this by cutting down on trope reliance. The father is strong and kind, Leif is playful but internally serious, the mother is quietly resilient, the sister is shallow and headstrong, and Thorfinn is bold and rash. Instead let's add some opposing traits to make the characters appear more human. Maybe Ylva finds Thorfinn and instantly knows what to do, because she's very practical. She might be called selfish (which is what is simply portrayed in the show) but with this change we can guess it's because neither of her parents are and she's the one who has to look out for their interests. She instantly decides to hide and bury his body because she knows whoever owns him will come looking for him. It might be brutal but is not unrealistic for the times, which grounds the show more. Thorfinn objects because he wants to hear this outsider's story and takes a compass off his body. He's still rash, but now we see he's capable of subtlety. Their father finds them as they're arguing and we get to see his altruism like in the original storyline. Ylva objects but her mother silences her. Now the mother isn't just quiet and resilient, but also very much submissive to her husband's will. Every trait can be both positive and negative in either extreme. This also makes Ylva more relatable as a character, whereas she's squandered as ineffective comedic relief.
When the owner comes to retrieve the slave, have Thorfinn present and watching as Ari faces off. In the show itself we lost focus on the MC at this point and went to the third-person narration. This places him front and center. At this point, Leif can be cut completely. His only value is to serve as a narrator. He interjects to explain the story to us, but has no material impact to the plot. If he were removed at this point, would anything have to change? If no, we don't need to dedicate time to his narration, which reduces tension from the conflict build-up. Instead have the compass Thorfinn steals off the body have a map inside it and be connected to Leif and make that a mystery and goal for him to find the owner as a central conflict of the first arc.
Without him, Ari and Thorfinn get more screentime. Rather than the narrator/Leif seem like the wise one stopping Ari and verbally explaining the entire scene to the audience, we'd get to see him attempting to be like Thor and defending the village in his absence. We also get the chance to guess that his heroics stem from wanting to impress Ylva rather than having Thor straight up telling the audience later on. Ylva should be there too, showing concern for Ari so we guess at their relationship.
She can still step in to explain why they have the slave, but instead of being portrayed as comedic relief, we can understand her trying to defend her family because her dad may be heroic, but also narrow-minded and inflexible and she may be selfish, but also practical and protective. Characters come to life when we're not focused on the big moments but the details. For example if after the ewes are given away, she tells Ari she only likes warriors because as far as she knows their village never fights in wars and now their family has no dowry even though there's mutual interest. Ari now has a more complex motivation than "brash youth likes fighting," and Ylva gets more character development because of course a character as practical and responsible as her would assume others would require the dowry. Including moments like these shows us that the world keeps moving without the MC, the ensemble are fleshed out characters with complex motivations, and that even heroic, commendable choices have their consequences.
For the resolution of Thorfinn's first conflict, let's have him use the chain whip technique he sees the slave-owner use on his man once he is knocked down by the stronger, older boy once again. The way the show is portrayed now is he has natural talent that magically allows him to beat a boy 2x his age and physically much stronger, that brashness can overcome reality, a notion that heavily detracts from the stakes and tension of all fight scenes. He uses a ship's rope to trip the stronger boy and wins, giving us something to root for, and characterizing him as more than an irritating child, but one capable of tactical fighting and fast learning. We're also keeping the first-person perspective and MC in focus.
Until the prologue's resolution, retain tension build-up by removing moments like unnecessary dialogue between his father and his old comrade, because Thor wouldn't have been able to realistically eavesdrop on everything. Let us know only what we need to know, develop complexity, and keep the focus on the MC so we can be surprised and experience the story with him.
Now let's zoom out a little bit and focus on bigger picture themes. I'd like to compare the way the show deals with death and conflict to a stand-out anime from this season, Kimetsu no Yaiba, where the protagonist understands that to protect innocent lives, he has to take lives. But that doesn't make him any less moral or compassionate.
Shows that deal with the gray area are noticeably more mature than those that see in black in white. Sure, characters can be black and white, but the show's attitude shouldn't be. Where this show fails is when it takes a heavy-handed approach in dealing with morality. We're told what is right and wrong and that our perspective on events doesn't matter because the show is telling us what to think. This detracts from audience involvement and investment. Instead, it would be great if the audience were given the freedom to interpret at will, which happens more often through storytelling that shows more than it tells. Vinland Saga can also become more mature by developing Thorfinn as a character that sees the nuances of violence and war and can straddle the line between mercy and naivety and sees the consequences of taking a stance as immovable as his father.
Reviewer’s Rating: 4
What did you think of this review?
Nice
0
Love it
0
Funny
0
Confusing
0
Well-written
0
Creative
0Show all
![]()
Jan 4, 2019
A non-linear storyline is a risky move. In general, traditional linear storytelling suits a character drama better while non-linear storytelling can create a compelling thematic story. Where Baccano! fell flat was primarily trying to tell an interesting character drama using an ensemble cast with this technque. There simply wasn't enough time devoted to each character to create satisfying build-ups and payoffs.
The screentime was split between too many characters I simply didn't care about. I liked the theme of not having a main character revealed in the dialogue between the Vice-President and Carol, but unfortunately that only works when each of the ensemble cast members
...
are genuinely endearing. Only when each character feels human can you prove that "everyone is the main character in their own story." The anime ended up proving the opposite, because the most compelling characters were clearly Firo, Maiza, Ennis, and Czeslaw. No wonder, because they were the only ones who received some form of character development or epiphany. And this isn't simply the matter of screentime. Numerous other anime, like Death Parade are capable of creating convincing build-up/payoff tradeoffs in a very short amount of time, and this is one aspect Baccano! really struggled in.
The others were absolute characters with flat personalities, or had payoffs that didn't feel earned, like Chane's resolution. The story would've been much improved if it really had just focused on a few compelling characters and took the time to flesh them out. Perhaps a small gripe of mine is that one of the biggest advantages of non-linear storytelling is creating and breaking down an initial impression of a character or situation, letting you believe one thing but betraying that expectation. For example, switching between perspectives and timelines to have you believe a murderous character is a villain but revealing later on that it was done out of revenge to make a character sympathetic. But Baccano did not take the opportunity to do this, and instead it was mostly used for shock factor. It was an interesting experiment, but for me it was unsuccessful.
Reviewer’s Rating: 5
What did you think of this review?
Nice
0
Love it
0
Funny
0
Confusing
0
Well-written
0
Creative
0Show all
|
