Vasilivros's Profile

Statistics

Anime Stats
Days: 15.1
Mean Score: 7.16
  • Total Entries194
  • Rewatched0
  • Episodes879
Anime History Last Anime Updates
Serial Experiments Lain
Serial Experiments Lain
Dec 6, 1:55 PM
Watching 4/13 · Scored -
Michiko to Hatchin
Michiko to Hatchin
Dec 4, 2:57 PM
Dropped 2/22 · Scored -
Mahoutsukai no Yome
Mahoutsukai no Yome
Dec 4, 1:36 PM
Watching 1/24 · Scored -
Manga Stats
Days: 5.4
Mean Score: 6.00
  • Total Entries57
  • Reread0
  • Chapters673
  • Volumes108
Manga History Last Manga Updates
Death Note
Death Note
Dec 10, 8:10 AM
Reading 6/108 · Scored -
Otoyomegatari
Otoyomegatari
Dec 4, 12:32 PM
Reading 35/? · Scored 10
Murciélago
Murciélago
Dec 4, 12:30 PM
Reading 9/? · Scored -

Favorites

All Comments (33) Comments

Would you like to post a comment? Please login or sign up first!
Fvlminatvs Nov 27, 5:33 AM
1) I don't recall the scene in episode 21 in detail because it has been months since I saw the show. However, what I am trying to say is that during specific scenes--particularly action scenes--the animation quality hits what it was in the original short film. Everything else is pretty standard-issue for anime.

You are right that Kill la Kill did it for comedic effect. I have no problem with that. What I disagree with is your use of Kill la Kill as a counter-example of high-quality animation but Kill la Kill (if I recall--it's been over a year since I've seen it) by-and-large had the same level of quality as LWA. It just utilized poor animation as a comedic gimmick whereas LWA doesn't. That doesn't mean that Kill la Kill gets a pass--they both use high-level animation when it counts. Kill la Kill just uses poor animation better.

2) The lightsaber wasn't satire. It was an homage. They WANTED you to get the reference. The entire point is for the viewer to make the connection.

3) Yep, it was good. GREAT? No. And yes, the original 1977 film. Empire was great but it was written by award-winning science-fiction author Leigh Brackett. Lucas doesn't have the writing chops beyond penning a "high budget Flash Gordon knockoff" and the prequels prove it.

4) Cool.

5) I'm not telling you not to question. Far from it. I'm just saying, be careful in critiquing something that hits that level. Things like Eva are easier to praise than they are to criticize. People who usually hate them do so for the wrong reasons, didn't get them, misunderstood them, or don't have the background, etc., to appreciate them. I'm not just talking Eva but a whole slew of shows.

That being said, I went through a phase where I didn't like Eva as much as I had when I first saw it (between ages of 17 and 20). I was probably around 25 or 26. Then, about a decade later, I started rewatching it and was floored. I picked up so many things I had missed when I was younger.

Going back to your original question for #5, was Shinji's dad a good character? Absolutely. He had motivation, he had goals, he was absorbed by them to the exclusion of all else, including his son. The theme of parents is profoundly important in Eva. Pay attention to it next time you watch it. Ask yourself about how the characters were shaped by their parents and how they, themselves, behave toward the children (and the children toward each other). Consider Misato's father and Ritsuko's mother and how they influenced the characters' perceptions, attitudes, and even relationships. Eva delves into the influence parents have over their children's development and how the relationships people had with their parents while growing up determines how they will develop relationships with others.

As to the scene in the train station, which one are you referring to?
mruize85 Nov 25, 9:57 AM
About LWA, I won't tell you are wrong because I don't really know. I don't analyze rationally how good or bad was history, animation, character development, world building, etc. I just rate shows according how much I enjoyed them. 100% subjective. For me a 10 is a show I rewatched many times enjoying every second of every time. A 9 is something I rewatched at least once, normally fast-forwarding to interesting parts. An 8 is a show I enjoyed but probably I never will watch it again (if I do I will promote it to 9). Everything bellow are shows I watched because I had enough free time... I enjoyed LWA, not so much to watch it again, but enough to consider it above average.
mruize85 Nov 23, 10:26 AM
I don't know if they are my favorite shows or not. All I know is that I can see them again without skipping/fast-forwarding and I can enjoy them as much or more than the first time. I see that we have more than a few matches on our lists. Nice to see somebody with similar tastes. =)
Fvlminatvs Nov 22, 8:29 AM
Sorry for the late reply. I've been busy.

1) Firstly, I thought I made it clear that LWA's animation is top-notch WHEN IT COUNTS. Outside of film, I've not seen a single anime that has consistently "GREAT" animation. However, I found that the animation during those moments to be specifically expressive, energetic, full of motion. The style that evokes Disney enhances the animation, complete with the color palette choice that DOESN'T (it is softer than much of Disney and most anime and borders on pastel).

Also, you mention Kill la Kill but don't see the flash-animation-level quality of specific scenes as a flaw (like when someone is kicked off of a cliff or rooftop).

2) I'm not certain what you were expecting. When I watch a Trigger show, I anticipate callbacks and references to other works both within and outside of Trigger's own oeuvre. The unironic drawing of a lightsaber puzzles me as to why you would think this demonstrates LWA has illusions as to what it is. I think it is plainly obvious that this show aims to be a) very fun and feisty, b) unconcerned with a thoroughly consistent world that could potentially exist because this is fairy-tale adventure we're talking about here, and c) a place where anything and everything can happen and where dreams can come true. If anything, it is a sincere homage to all sorts of things, from Harry Potter to Star Wars to Akira (the scene where Lotte is getting absorbed in Sucy's dream, for example) to Disney itself. It wears its influences on its sleeve unironically. Irony would result in this being some sort of postmodern satire, a sophomoric tongue-in-cheek parody of these influences instead of an earnest attempt to revel in what they represent.

If that is not your cup of coffee, that's fine. But that refusal to engage in ironic satire with a wink and a nod isn't a flaw.

3) You're right, the plot is simple. So is the plot to the original Star Wars. So is are the plots to some of Shakespeare's plays. On the other hand, shows with complex plots aren't necessarily good--their plots become so convoluted that they descend into being utterly contrived. Plot complexity that is done extremely well is always a bonus but having a simple plot that is predictable isn't necessarily a flaw. It is when something is FORMULAIC to the point of being able to time story beats with a stopwatch that things become an issue.

4) Yes, Akko is dense. She is also pretty selfish but the show makes it obvious that she's a good person at heart. She doesn't hate Diana.
She doesn't want to defeat Diana. But she DOES see Diana as a rival to surpass. She wants to overtake Diana in prestige and skill. It isn't a "you're my rival, I must defeat you in battle" type of rivalry. It is competitive. She wants to show Diana up, not rub her nose in the mud. She wants to win fair-and-square by being the better witch--or at least THOUGHT OF as the better witch. All of her trials and difficulties give her hope while simultaneously teaching her humility and to start considering the needs of others. She has an arc.

5) When you asked, I jumped on the "character psychology" because that is most often perceived as a flaw.

Evangelion is one of those works that is too big, too important, and too influential to criticize without revealing your own biases. I frankly compare it to works like Citizen Kane, The Seventh Seal, M, Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, 2001, etc. Criticizing them all too often results in the critic revealing their own limitations, failings, biases, and assumptions more often than not. I have yet to read any criticism of these films that does anything more than reveal the critic's flaws instead.

That sounds like a cop-out, and perhaps it is. I can think of some things that I'm not altogether a fan of with Evangelion. In the end, though, I have to ask myself, "Is this the show's failure or is it actually MINE?" The only thing I can really say is that I think it deserved more consistent animation and that the two final episodes were weak, especially in comparison to End of Evangelion.
Clebardman Nov 22, 5:21 AM
I caught your discussion with Fvlminatvs, and I'll just try to answer quickly regarding Rei. I think Rei acts like a robot because she's not asking herself the traditionnal questions that have been present in the back of the human mind since ages. Why am I here? Is there any goal? Why me? etc...

Rei has a purpose in life. She knows why she's been created. She doesn't need to interact with other human being because she's a "complete" individual in a sense that she doesn't have any ambition to fulfill or will of her own. I think she serves the same purpose than the AutoReiv of Ergo proxy, giving another point of view on the struggle of the other human characters, who have their own free wills but are looking for a purpose to their lives. When the AutoReiv and Rei gain a free will, something terrible happens and they turn homicidal or suicidal because both aspects conflict greatly wich each other.

In a sense, she's once again the polar opposite of Asuka, who seeks her worth in other's eyes, while Rei instantly rebels in a terrible way as soon as she starts to understand her own will and wishes. She might look placid, but she rekts her creator and turns into a god for Shinji. It's pretty safe to say she's more savage than all the Evas and Asuka bundled together at this point (^:
Fvlminatvs Nov 13, 8:16 AM
I'll do LWA first.

Little Witch Academia does everything it sets out to do and does it extremely well. It has no illusions as to what it is. It's structure is tight, deliberate, with great animation when the animation NEEDS to be great. It isn't trying to be Citizen Kane and it doesn't have high-level deep ruminations on the human condition. However, it does count as "Very Good," because it checks all the boxes and does it well. It has well-established characters and Akko has a definite arc where she begins to grow as a person and overcome her flaws as well as realize that her rivals (like Diana) are actual, real people with actual, real problems and obstacles themselves.

As for Evangelion, what most people think is a flaw actually isn't and that is character likeability. If you like or relate to Alex from A Clockwork Orange, go see a therapist. You aren't supposed to like Alex but you are supposed to understand him. Similarly, you don't have to like or relate to Shinji or Asuka or Misato. Their psychological states, however, are well-developed and thoroughly believable. They're far more interesting than, say, Kirito-clones because Kirito-clones are cardboard cut-outs and Shinji and Misato are far more like real, actual people with real, actual psychologies. Yeah, Kirito is great for escapism but he doesn't challenge us or make us grapple with ourselves or our own psychologies the way Shinji and Misato and Asuka do.

Somewhere along the line, everybody wanted to start identifying with characters. There's something disappointingly solipsistic about that. You don't have to relate to a character or even like them for a story to be good.
EvanDara Oct 7, 5:40 AM
I don't like using numbers to represent quality outside of the vaguest of descriptors.

Imagine this. On a 10/10 scale, most people can probably agree on probably the basic premise that something around a 5/10 or a 6/10 are average to decent shows. Not everyone will agree, but a lot of people will. What happens if you add decimal places? What's really the distinction between a 5.5 or a 5? What happens when you move up a base of 10 and move to 100/100 scales? What's the difference between a 56 and a 57?

They're useful in a certain pragmatic sense, but given that I have a lot of shows that I want to add, I'm not sure if I should put in the effort to "think" about the rating of them.

That sounds close to what the comic is describing, yes.
Fvlminatvs Oct 3, 5:07 PM
Well, the other thing I think, that is being missed is that there are some pretty tried-and-true measurements that can be applied regardless of genre or subgenre, like "what constitutes a good character." These things are somewhat universal.

For example, Mark Twain gives a list of characteristics of good storytelling that are applicable across genre lines in his criticism of Cooper's stories about Natty Bumppo. These characteristics can be applied across the board to almost all sorts of stories. Mark Twain says they require:

1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere.
2. They require that the episodes in a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it.
3. They require that the personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others.
4. They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there.
5. The require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject at hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say.
6. They require that when the author describes the character of a personage in the tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage shall justify said description.
7. They require that when a personage talks like an illustrated, gilt-edged, tree-calf, hand-tooled, seven- dollar Friendship's Offering in the beginning of a paragraph, he shall not talk like a <CENSORED> in the end of it.
8. They require that crass stupidities shall not be played upon the reader as "the craft of the woodsman, the delicate art of the forest," by either the author or the people in the tale.
9. They require that the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.
10. They require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones.
11. They require that the characters in a tale shall be so clearly defined that the reader can tell beforehand what each will do in a given emergency.

In addition, plenty of authors, critics, commentators, and philosophers have weighed in on this over the centuries. George Orwell gives advice on writing, as do Aristotle and Plato. The problem is, then, that good storytelling ends up being inundated with so many rules that it is impossible to keep track of them all and avoid violating at least a few of them. This is why no work is ever or can ever be considered "perfect." Everything will always have flaws of some sort.
EvanDara Oct 3, 4:34 PM
I'm not sure why I was mentioned, but I don't really put much thought into rating scales. I don't think putting too much stock into them is worth it when the more important questions of "what makes something good" are strictly qualitative and not quantitative.

As far as the sublime, I enjoy linking this comic by Existential Comics because it's a condensed but pretty good explanation of what Fvlminatvs might have been referring to with regards to the sublime. If that doesn't satisfy you, Edmund Burke's Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful is the gold standard for what people are usually referring to when they discuss matters of the sublime.
Fvlminatvs Oct 2, 12:21 PM
I can't, really. If I can dig up a copy of Harold Bloom's HOW TO READ AND WHY, I could give his definition, assuming he even defines "sublime" at all. I mean, the dictionary gives us a definition but Bloom sort of fetishizes the idea.
Fvlminatvs Oct 1, 9:41 AM
Just because YOU thought about them once doesn't mean others haven't revisited them repeatedly. Scholars on both sides of the Pacific have spilled ink about both Hamlet and Evangelion. That's really the litmus test. Scholar don't write about TWILIGHT.

And yes, I mean her/him.
Fvlminatvs Sep 30, 12:35 PM
It is an interesting prospect. Although, in truth, you really need a kind of multi-dimensional framework that goes beyond simply two dimensions. For example, what makes a good noir film is going to be completely different from what makes a good space war/real robot anime and those are going to be different from what makes a good romantic comedy (be it anime or live-action).

Nevertheless, I would argue that there are specific elements present in both genre fiction and "non"-genre fiction that transcend the conventions of what is simply "good" and enter into what Harold Bloom calls "the sublime." If anything, that's what I'm after, honestly, and I kind of seek out that "sublime." I've found it in things as disparate as the postmodern THE CRYING OF LOT 49 by Thomas Pynchon, the hardboiled THE BIG NOWHERE detective mystery by James Ellroy, Satoshi Kon's PERFECT BLUE, Shakespeare's HAMLET, Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, Anno's NEON GENESIS EVANGELION, and Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

That "sublime" is hard to define but it is that ephemeral quality that catapults something beyond just being "good" into this stratospheric realm of "beyondness" where you just cannot stop thinking about it or feeling about it. It isn't something you just enjoyed and watched/read but it changed you in some indelible manner. That stuff transcends any sort of polarity but exists in a kind of binary "it's there or it isn't" way.

If we were to kind of use a more 3-dimensional model where the outer edge of a sphere represents "bad" and the center of the sphere represents not only "good" but the sort of sublime quality that all supreme art possesses, then we can gauge quality of an infinite number of genre works but that itself still retains a sort of binary quality based on depth.

There's no clear answer. Frankly, I might not be the best to ask about this. EvanDara could be if they stick around the forums and haven't been driven off of them yet. Personally, I hope they stick around.
Fvlminatvs Sep 30, 8:38 AM
What, like a 2-axis scale?
Fvlminatvs Sep 15, 8:22 PM
Well, sort of. Literary criticism covers a huge number of techniques. I also draw from what I've learned of film studies.
Fvlminatvs Aug 14, 5:46 PM
Specifically that deserve more attention?

The original Macross, Macross Plus, Vision of Escaflowne, Nadia: The Secret of the Blue Water, Serial Experiments Lain, Wings of Honneamise... man I could go on and on.


The shows I mentioned earlier were ones I liked (or liked parts of) but still had enough issues to make them either not worth rewatching, forgettable, or just flat-out difficult to rewatch without starting to dislike because of all their problems.

In contrast, the shows I just recommended are all super-good, very rewatchable, and though they may have flaws, they easily overcome them.