Forum

BadNewsBlues wrote:

All the complaints seemingly amount “what do you mean you guys thought this show I liked was the worst?”.

Actually, if you read properly you'd see a lot of this complaints in this thread were about what people considered a misleading title given the fact so many of the reviewers expressed some version of, "...this is not a bad show, but here's why I'm disappointed in it."

I stopped watching Metallic Rouge after the first episode. I found myself unable to get into the story or connect with the characters. Sounds like I dodged a bullet there.

Tales of Wedding Rings and Chained Soldier weren't bad terrible but were just bad average. I enjoy both manga series but found both anime suffered from blah animation, mediocre attempts at fan service, and writers who showed zero interest in world exploration/building. Not that either is alive with Tolkein-esque detail, but as a poster put it earlier in this thread, the characters just seem much more alive on the static page than they did on screen.

Hokkaido Girls was a pleasant surprise. Yes, it was clearly aimed at interesting people in going to Hokkaido, but it still managed to create a likable cast, complete with a lead whose attractiveness was believable. The gals were fun too, with personalities and depth beyond "We like lead character." I had been afraid of a repeat of Our Dating Story from last season, but thankfully it avoided that fate.

Sven Viking wrote:

Hal14 wrote:

I will argue again that ShangriLa Frontier has some of the best looking fights in years (one I feel is even better than anything from Frieren) but the show overall? Meh.

If you see this, just wondered if you could tell me which episode had the best fight you mention? No current plans to ever watch the show but I’d be interested to check out the fight at least.

Episode 18 of ShangriLa frontier

cutslo wrote:

There is no objective standard for animation quality, so no. If you disagree show me the figures and there better not be an opinion involved at any stage. There is indeed an objective truth about what people generally consider good animation (your "we know" part), and if I said "Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer has good animation, actually" it would be definitive reason to question what the hell I'm on about, but it still isn't objectively, provably wrong. It's just an extremely outlandish opinion that almost nobody else shares.

There is factual evidence: the salary of freelance animators that are are paid 20 times the salary of regular animator or more and that their peer recognize the craft.
There is subjectivity in the appreciation of their individual "artistic style" but there is objectivity in the appreciation of their craft/technicity.
The relativism of the subjectivity of animation quality is not serious when producers can put a price tag on it.

Last edited by cutslo on Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

Snowcat wrote:

There is factual evidence: the salary of freelance animators that are are paid 20 times the salary of regular animator or more and that their peer recognize the craft.

Facts about professional opinions do not make professional opinions facts themselves.

you guys are shockingly bad at this btw. But hey keep going, if you crack this there might be a Nobel Prize in Literature in it for you.

cutslo wrote:

People confusing "factual statement about an aggregate of subjective opinions" with "objective fact" once again, what else is new.

No, you're just simply again trying to neuter word "objective" from it's common, normal meaning of "impartial" and "fair" to impossible and therefore useless standard of "completely provable". Even in realms of physics and mathematics things are not truly provable - is Axiom of Choice true or not? Are we just AI created by aliens to think we're real? According to your pointless definition we couldn't call call murder or rape objectively wrong, but keep it on same level as jaywalking, we couldn't say that car or house is badly made as long as there could be one possible person that would be happy with it, even if it's dangerous trash. It's useless and therefore wrong definition of the word "objective", and the fact that people keep using better one than yours just shows their better judgement.

Language's purpose is communication between people, and common definition of "bad" and "good" where "Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer"'s animation is objectively bad, while people can subjectively disagree if Frieren or Apothecary Diaries is better anime this season, but both are clearly good, is a definition that is, unlike your, useful and therefore objectively correct one.

a_Bear_in_Bearcave wrote:

cutslo wrote:

People confusing "factual statement about an aggregate of subjective opinions" with "objective fact" once again, what else is new.

No, you're just simply again trying to neuter word "objective" from it's common, normal meaning of "impartial" and "fair" to impossible and therefore useless standard of "completely provable". Even in realms of physics and mathematics things are not truly provable - is Axiom of Choice true or not? Are we just AI created by aliens to think we're real? According to your pointless definition we couldn't call call murder or rape objectively wrong, but keep it on same level as jaywalking, we couldn't say that car or house is badly made as long as there could be one possible person that would be happy with it, even if it's dangerous trash. It's useless and therefore wrong definition of the word "objective", and the fact that people keep using better one than yours just shows their better judgement.

Language's purpose is communication between people, and common definition of "bad" and "good" where "Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer"'s animation is objectively bad, while people can subjectively disagree if Frieren or Apothecary Diaries is better anime this season, but both are clearly good, is a definition that is, unlike your, useful and therefore objectively correct one.

Yeah congratulations, you figured out that the Axiom of Choice, as far as anyone knows, is not objective fact (and make no mistake, some really, REALLY smart people wish desperately that it was). It really isn't my fault that when you say "objective" you really mean "as close to objective as inherently subjective things can get" and will forever argue that you don't.

cutslo wrote:

you guys are shockingly bad at this btw. But hey keep going, if you crack this there might be a Nobel Prize in Philosophy in it for you.

I'm sure you'll get the Nobel prize by insisting with this extreme relativism that's probably the more simplistic and scoffed at theory you can possibly imagine. Everybody knows it's impossible to disprove it, but you also cannot live truly believing it as literally everything can be questioned. Even the meaning of these very words, like anything we know of the world is filtered by our personal view of it, so who's to say the sky is blue?

uhuurt wrote:

cutslo wrote:

you guys are shockingly bad at this btw. But hey keep going, if you crack this there might be a Nobel Prize in Philosophy in it for you.

I'm sure you'll get the Nobel prize by insisting with this extreme relativism that's probably the more simplistic and scoffed at theory you can possibly imagine. Everybody knows it's impossible to disprove it, but you also cannot live truly believing it as literally everything can be questioned. Even the meaning of these very words, like anything we know of the world is filtered by our personal view of it, so who's to say the sky is blue?

You're starting to get it. Obviously this is all sophistry. Just call people fools and proivede a reason when they have a bad opinion, it's really all you need. But this insistence on "here, I can PROVE art A is better than art B because they paid the animators more and it has 5% more keyframes" stuff (as opposed to popularity, basic facts about human psychology, culture etc) is not a win button you get for free by invoking POWER WORD: OBJECTIVE.

cutslo wrote:

You're starting to get it. Obviously this is all sophistry. Just call people fools and proivede a reason when they have a bad opinion, it's really all you need. But this insistence on "here, I can PROVE art A is better than art B because they paid the animators more and it has 5% morw keyframes" stuff (as opposed to popularity, basic facts about human psychology, culture etc) is not a win button you get for free by saying "objective".

I'm not the same user you've arguing with, if you didn't notice. I just wanted to highlight how your reasoning really isn't that better. We have to agree on some objectivity to live, this relativism drivel is not as smart as you think.

uhuurt wrote:

cutslo wrote:

You're starting to get it. Obviously this is all sophistry. Just call people fools and proivede a reason when they have a bad opinion, it's really all you need. But this insistence on "here, I can PROVE art A is better than art B because they paid the animators more and it has 5% morw keyframes" stuff (as opposed to popularity, basic facts about human psychology, culture etc) is not a win button you get for free by saying "objective".

I'm not the same user you've arguing with, if you didn't notice. I just wanted to highlight how your reasoning really isn't that better. We have to agree on some objectivity to live, this relativism drivel is not as smart as you think.

I don't think it's smart (or particularly useful, in fact, the only thing it's handy for is people who think they've figured it all out), it's so easy to apply that a child can do it. But it's still, ironically, you guessed it...

Probably the only objectively true thing in this entire thread.

Just pick better lines of argument. It's not even hard. Just say "common sense" or "unbiased" instead (which are their own can of worms of course, because both of those are very subjective, but hey, at least it means anything).

cutslo wrote:

Facts about professional opinions do not make professional opinions facts themselves.

you guys are shockingly bad at this btw. But hey keep going, if you crack this there might be a Nobel Prize in Literature in it for you.

Too late for the nobel Prize. That has already been resolved long ago, that's why there is a jury of professional in sports like figure skating. There are elements in the technical execution that can be evaluated objectively by professionals.

cutslo wrote:

Yeah congratulations, you figured out that the Axiom of Choice, as far as anyone knows, is not objective fact (and make no mistake, some really, REALLY smart people wish desperately that it was). It really isn't my fault that when you say "objective" you really mean "as close to objective as inherently subjective things can get" and will forever argue that you don't.

Again, it's just that your definition of word "objective" is wrong. No major dictionary contains "formal logic" as part of the definition. You're using the word wrong, which is common among the pedantic types, but that doesn't make you any more correct. The difference of words "subjective" and "objective" is between something that is partial and biased, something personal and something that is impartial and unbiased, common. The requirements of "provable by formal logic" is in your head only.

By the way, "unbiased" is literally in most dictionary definitions of the word "objective".

To not drag it out, unless you can show me some major dictionary that proves your definition correct, that's end of this topic for me.

Philville wrote:

Spot on – and I would expect this kind of "expert judgment" in a serious, full-fledged review... but my point is that it would still be subjective, since someone else's "expert judgment" might disagree (see my example above regarding the visuals of Ishura). I am thinking here of the work's reception -- not the artist's intention, as I suggested earlier.

Yeah, I think we agree, then. I wouldn't use 'subjective' for the kind of exercise I was describing, but that's exactly because I wasn't talking about reception of the work; I had in mind whether the work had realized its creator's intention, primarily in the creator's own judgement. Of course, experts would disagree over whether they thought the author's intention had been reached; but, some of them would simply be wrong, so long as the author themselves had a clearly defined goal in the first place, and a sense of whether they'd reached it. i.e., the distinction is: in principle, if we could reach into the creator's head, could we definitely say which critic was wrong? If so, I'd call the matter being judged objective, even if the methods used to get at it are very uncertain. If not, then it's subjective, or maybe something that even defies those two buckets.

FWIW, leaving behind the heavy-handed abstraction, in practice I don't think this really differs from what ANN reviewers do anyway. It varies by reviewer, but many of them absolutely stop and say things like, "Man, the characters were really off-model in this episode. It was so distracting!", and while they could be thinking, "And that's a totally legitimate artistic choice! Entirely intentional, I'm certain, and just not to my specific tastes! De gustibus non disputandum est!", I think most of the time the thought process behind an observation like that is more like, "Man, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like production really cut corners here, eh?". Or, in the most egregious cases, examples that seem to reflect a sentiment even like: "Oh god, look at how jarringly out of place that CG is! I know it's supposed to be cheaper, but they're literally learning Maya/Blender on the job, aren't they?"

Blood- wrote:

BadNewsBlues wrote:

All the complaints seemingly amount “what do you mean you guys thought this show I liked was the worst?”.

Actually, if you read properly you'd see a lot of this complaints in this thread were about what people considered a misleading title given the fact so many of the reviewers expressed some version of, "...this is not a bad show, but here's why I'm disappointed in it."

Yeah my complaint is that they don’t think a show I liked was the worst, nor [almost] any other show selected this season. Meanwhile another poster’s complaint was literally that they should be tearing into the same shows with more venom.

Hal14 wrote:

Sven Viking wrote:

If you see this, just wondered if you could tell me which episode had the best fight you mention? No current plans to ever watch the show but I’d be interested to check out the fight at least.

Episode 18 of ShangriLa frontier

Thanks!

Forum - View topic
The Worst Anime of Winter 2024

Slam Dunk Anime Episodes 61-101

Kogitsunemaru's Possibly the Greatest Alchemist of All Time Light Novels Get TV Anime in January 2025

The ANN Aftershow - Yatagarasu Gets Violent!

Code Geass: Rozé of the Recapture - Part 1 Anime Film Review

This Week in Games - Switchin' It Up

Creative Producer Goro Taniguchi, Director Junichi Yamamoto Talk Web3 Anime

Hokkaido Gals Are Super Adorable! Anime Series Review

Tomodachi Game Manga Ends with 26th Volume

This Week in Anime - Why Hunter × Hunter is Worth the Wait

trapezium Anime Film Review

Welcome Back, Spice and Wolf

Forum - View topicThe Worst Anime of Winter 2024

Forum

Forum - View topic
The Worst Anime of Winter 2024