|
Mercrom posted:She also makes herself evil and embraces sin for the "greater good", the most ignoble and utilitarian of self sacrifices, and might destroy the world someday just like the witch system almost did. Ascribing a alignment to Homura is pointless. Her moral compass always points to Madoka. She would also bring back the dead and give everyone cake if she thought it would help Madoka, yet everyone always jumps to their worst-case scenarios... Sayaka said it best, I think. 
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
I was just thinking about the post someone made asking to explain why the Madoka movie isn't that deep. How exactly do you even do that? It's like asking someone to explain why a children's show* isn't deep; it's clear that it isn't if you've actually seen/read other things with more literary merit, but it's hard to really explain why it isn't as good in any way other than it having a relative absence of interesting elements. I found Rebellion to be interesting and not bad, but it's pretty laughable (and depressing) for someone to honestly consider it one of the most interesting/"deep" things they've ever seen. For any people who also read D&D, Lord Justice's posting makes me think of Eripsa's. It's seriously uncanny how similar it is, both in content and delivery. *Not that Madoka is, just for the sake of argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Viewing meaning/merit/value as being centrally located within a text has limitations. A reading can be a creative act in itself. What purpose is there in creating a hierarchy of taste ("interesting and not bad" / "laughable and depressing... to honestly consider it one of the most interesting") other than to situate oneself and one's values in a dominant position? It's certainly possible to critique a text, but critiques--especially critiques of style or meaningfulness--are always limited by one's own subject position. Two people from two widely disparate backgrounds may create very different readings of the same text. Now, if one person's reading finds problems in the text--assumptions that go unchallenged within the narrative; perspectives being silenced or marginalized--then that reading has created a meaning from the text: reading a text as marginalizing a perspective recreates the text as a narrative of oppression. In this model, claiming that a text has little or no meaning is more reflective of the accuser's position than of the text's. Because meaning is not held within the text but is rather sewn together by a reading, to find little meaning in a text means to be confronted by the limits of one's own subject position. "It's not interesting" and "It was not deep" then translate to "It did not appeal to my interests" and "It did not resonate with me." If you find that a text is trite or naive, then most likely your reading found that the text was uncritical of its own value system. This is certainly a reasonable reading of a text, and challenging another's reading based on your own reading is not a problem at all within this model. But if meaning is sewn together by the threads that one perceives, and each reading is limited by its reader's subject position, then there may be many readings that focus on discourses that you had not been occupied with or even aware of. At that point, you can either revise your reading of the text in light of your expanded/morphing subject position, or you can reserve your right to not care about the topic and leave others to their own devices. But it seems self-serving to be dismissive of others' readings based on taste rather than on disagreements with their ideology. Rather than trying to plumb its depths, my experience with Madoka has been that it has had a strong emotional impact on me and has never really felt "over" to me. I find that the way I think about the characters changes as time goes by. Rather than trying to make it mean anything, I find myself using the story as sort of a sounding board against which I can test my own changing views and values.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Cephas posted:Viewing meaning/merit/value as being centrally located within a text has limitations. A reading can be a creative act in itself. What purpose is there in creating a hierarchy of taste ("interesting and not bad" / "laughable and depressing... to honestly consider it one of the most interesting") other than to situate oneself and one's values in a dominant position? It's certainly possible to critique a text, but critiques--especially critiques of style or meaningfulness--are always limited by one's own subject position. Two people from two widely disparate backgrounds may create very different readings of the same text. Now, if one person's reading finds problems in the text--assumptions that go unchallenged within the narrative; perspectives being silenced or marginalized--then that reading has created a meaning from the text: reading a text as marginalizing a perspective recreates the text as a narrative of oppression. In this model, claiming that a text has little or no meaning is more reflective of the accuser's position than of the text's. Because meaning is not held within the text but is rather sewn together by a reading, to find little meaning in a text means to be confronted by the limits of one's own subject position. "It's not interesting" and "It was not deep" then translate to "It did not appeal to my interests" and "It did not resonate with me." So basically, nothing has any meaning until read/watched/heard by the person receiving it, so saying it has no "deepness" or "meaning" is retarded?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
He's saying, basically, that meaning is in the eye of the beholder. We each derive a different "meaning" from the same text because we interpret things different ways. So in the course of discussing the text, everyone will find that they either didn't think of something someone else did, don't agree with another's interpretation of the same elements, or that someone else did not notice things you did. We have the choice, at that point, either to leave the discussion and stick with your original interpretations, or have a discussion with the willingness to dynamically modify your initial interpretations as others present new ones. So simply saying that someone else's interpretation is wrong because the text itself does not allow for those interpretations, and provide no explanation for why, is just a way of shoehorning yourself into a discussion to insult the intelligence of others. You accomplish nothing, and you detract from the discussion. And if you just don't care to look any deeper than the surface of the piece, at least acknowledge that. Don't use your shallow viewing as an end-all of critical discussion because, like I said, all you've accomplished is insulting people for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Cephas posted:Viewing meaning/merit/value as being centrally located within a text has limitations. A reading can be a creative act in itself. What purpose is there in creating a hierarchy of taste ("interesting and not bad" / "laughable and depressing... to honestly consider it one of the most interesting") other than to situate oneself and one's values in a dominant position? It's certainly possible to critique a text, but critiques--especially critiques of style or meaningfulness--are always limited by one's own subject position. Two people from two widely disparate backgrounds may create very different readings of the same text. Now, if one person's reading finds problems in the text--assumptions that go unchallenged within the narrative; perspectives being silenced or marginalized--then that reading has created a meaning from the text: reading a text as marginalizing a perspective recreates the text as a narrative of oppression. In this model, claiming that a text has little or no meaning is more reflective of the accuser's position than of the text's. Because meaning is not held within the text but is rather sewn together by a reading, to find little meaning in a text means to be confronted by the limits of one's own subject position. "It's not interesting" and "It was not deep" then translate to "It did not appeal to my interests" and "It did not resonate with me." I half agree with this. On one hand, it's true that all meaning is ultimately subjective. But on the other there's something to be said for how a piece of art is executed. If I played something on my cello, I would consider it laughable if someone compared my proficiency with the cello with that of Yo-yo Ma. Even though my performance can be enjoyed subjectively to the same extent, I would consider it clearly wrong to say that I'm as good of a cellist as him. Likewise, while someone can enjoy the Madoka series/movies as much as they enjoy any other art, I would really question the taste of someone who actually thinks that Gen Urobuchi is a brilliant writer. I enjoy most of the things I've watched that he's written for, but I consider his work sort of like high quality fast food or something. It hits all the right notes, but I've never really been surprised by the sort of themes he's explored or others' interpretations of his works. I don't even disagree with anything Lord Justice posted; it just feels to me like if someone wrote a bunch of words about how Star Wars is an example of a hero's journey and claimed it was one of the deepest things he/she's ever seen. It seemed kind of obvious in the movie that one of the themes was Homura's idea of Madoka != the reality of Madoka, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Using Yo-Yo Ma as an example, even if you can play a piece on a cello technically correct, and there are people that like the way you play it, there is still something to be said about the way he plays it in particular about nuances like small details that differentiate the sound he creates from others or the demeanor and personality which he imbues the sound with, which is what makes him such a celebrated cellist. But say another celebrated cellist could play the same piece and be equally liked, and yet have it sound entirely different from Yo-Yo Ma's version. It's up to us to find and compare the nuances of their versions and make claims about what makes or breaks a particular version, then discuss those ideas thoughtfully and critically. And on the topic of Star Wars, why shouldn't someone be able to proclaim that it's a masterful exploration of the hero's journey? If he/she makes a good argument, why not? Just because you don't see it in some way does not make it objectively wrong, because a thematic and meaningful interpretation of anything is an inherently subjective action. So the point of discussion is to consider your own subjectively derived ideas/beliefs/opinions on a topic in the context of others' ideas/beliefs/opinions, and by doing so either develop a new understanding of the topic or reinforce your original one. The problem here is people saying the movie is poo poo, and because it is poo poo there is nothing to glean from it, and because there is nothing to glean from it that everyone trying to find something in it is dumb. That is stupid and counterproductive for everyone else. VV: Yes, that's totally what we're doing, and we won't stop till we vomit ourselves back out our mouths. Does being an ADTRW poster somehow preclude us from being competent, critical thinkers? Is there a contract I forgot to sign or something that says I must only ever post dumb inane poo poo? ViggyNash fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Seems like every day this thread crawls further up its own arse. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
I agree with everything Cephas wrote.Ytlaya posted:I half agree with this. On one hand, it's true that all meaning is ultimately subjective. But on the other there's something to be said for how a piece of art is executed. If I played something on my cello, I would consider it laughable if someone compared my proficiency with the cello with that of Yo-yo Ma. Even though my performance can be enjoyed subjectively to the same extent, I would consider it clearly wrong to say that I'm as good of a cellist as him. Likewise, while someone can enjoy the Madoka series/movies as much as they enjoy any other art, I would really question the taste of someone who actually thinks that Gen Urobuchi is a brilliant writer. I enjoy most of the things I've watched that he's written for, but I consider his work sort of like high quality fast food or something. It hits all the right notes, but I've never really been surprised by the sort of themes he's explored or others' interpretations of his works. I don't even disagree with anything Lord Justice posted; it just feels to me like if someone wrote a bunch of words about how Star Wars is an example of a hero's journey and claimed it was one of the deepest things he/she's ever seen. It seemed kind of obvious in the movie that one of the themes was Homura's idea of Madoka != the reality of Madoka, etc. Using banal analogies involving other value judgements doesn't even make it clear if you disagree with the implementation of the themes or the themes themselves. A food critic that goes "it's fast food duh" doesn't know jack poo poo about food. Unless you have ideological or factual disagreements with the interpreter you can't claim the high ground on any of your opinions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Seems like every day this thread crawls further up its own arse. I'm no gastroenterologist, but this arse is awfully clean. I'm pretty cool with staying in here, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
At this point, don’t bother responding to the GBS-style posters, they’re clearly here to shitpost and do little else. Report and move on, they’re not worth the time. I’m not sure what to add to this whole subjectivity in the reading of artforms discussion, but it feels like my statements caused it in some way. Yes, I think Urobuchi is a really good writer, perhaps one of the best in the early 21st century, although I think he needs to share the spot with Inio Asano. I admit I’m biased of course, my favourite form of art works is the sort of dark and depressing tragedy those two do very well. Personally, and perhaps this is me being overly romantic, but I believe there is one artistic work that just resonates with a person on a fundamental level. It hits all the right notes and really just works perfectly for that singular viewer. For a variety of reasons, Madoka is that work for me. I’ve never really analyzed an artistic work like this before, but the way Madoka is constructed keeps me thinking about it, even months after watching it. Ytlaya posted:For any people who also read D&D, Lord Justice's posting makes me think of Eripsa's. It's seriously uncanny how similar it is, both in content and delivery. Really? I’m curious about this person now, which threads does he or she post in? I only read Canadian Politics in D&D, the rest of the threads kind of make me angry with how terrible everything else is. Anyway, back to Madoka. Mercrom posted:I'm not one of those people. Betraying the original series is the most interesting thing Rebellion could have done, and hearing that it did was the only thing that made me interested in what would otherwise be a meaningless sequel. I think the movie failed at that, but I still respect it somewhat for trying. I don’t really agree with your interpretation of the series. Yes, there is a sense of cynicism and nihilism with Homura, but the series is as much about Madoka as it is Homura. Homura only becomes a second protagonist in Beginnings and Eternal with the context of prior knowledge (the movies are intended as a rewatch vehicle) and Rebellion. Before that she is a deuteragonist. The series then focuses on Madoka as a protagonist, and she does achieve her ideal. She makes her wish and destroys the witches, reforming the universe and creating a better world for Magical Girls. Beginnings and Eternal are, I feel, a balanced work. There is light, and there is dark, in equal measure. Madoka’s struggle and eventual triumph is an example of optimism within the series, and Homura’s struggle and eventual failure is an example of nihilism. Within the series, then, optimism wins out. Like I said before, Eternal’s ending is a happy one, it is only with the context of Rebellion that it becomes nihilistic. But yes, you’re correct in that Homura has already struggled and failed to achieve her jouissance in Beginnings and Eternal. The Eternal Recurrence refers to more than just the overall plot, it refers to Homura’s arc as well. Homura’s fight is literally never-ending, she will repeat it until she is dead most likely, even if she has escaped her time loops. Homura may have won the second iteration of the Eternal Game for Madoka’s soul, but just because she’s managed to trap Madoka does not mean Madoka will be with her as she wants. I think this is part of the reason why Rebellion is such a critical part of the greater Madoka series and why it necessitates its own existence. If I had one critique of Eternal’s ending, it would be how it handled Homura. She has spent 10 years in a literal hell fighting for one person and failing. Madoka is everything to her now, and she is gone. I believe the only thing keeping Homura going in those loops was Madoka’s presence, and without it, Homura wasn’t long for the world. Rebellion backs this up, as it seems she began her transformation into a demon not long after Eternal’s ending. Thus Rebellion’s ending makes much more sense than Eternal’s. Homura has broken down completely, destroyed and rebuilt herself into a new entity, and all to achieve an impossible ideal. There can’t be a happy ending for Homura, and Rebellion takes the next step forward in this path. Homura’s arc within Rebellion might be a recurrence of her arc in Beginnings and Eternal, but it sets up a new arc, one where Homura now struggles in a new way as she wrestles with her idealism and fights Madoka herself. In the end, I feel this can only end in one way, Kimi no Gin no Niwa’s possibility of redemption be damned, and it ties into the destruction of idealism:  That aside, I feel it’s interesting how episode 10 of the series foreshadows and sets up Rebellion. During that episode, Homura betrays Madoka’s idealism not once, but twice. During the initial first iteration: Madoka: “But I’m still a Magical Girl. I need to protect everyone.” Homura: “Please...Let’s just run away. There’s nothing else we can do.” And more relevant to Rebellion’s ending especially: Madoka: “I guess...This is the end for us too.” Homura: “Hey...How about we become monsters together...And lay waste to this awful world? We’ll wipe out everything, all traces of evil or sadness, and just destroy, destroy, destroy, until there’s nothing left but dust. Don’t you think...That sounds nice?” It can be said that Homura did become a monster and wiped out all traces of sadness, or will. She did destroy the world and rebuilt it, and as the final scene shows us...She’s waiting for Madoka to become a monster like herself as well. More relevant though is that even Rebellion’s central theme of betrayal is itself a recurrence, although Homura’s betrayal of Madoka has far larger consequences in Rebellion. Speaking of themes and getting back to your post, I feel like listing themes that Rebellion has and that the series doesn’t isn’t terribly helpful. Rebellion shares most if not all of its themes with the series, it’s just repurposing them and deconstructing them. Deconstruction is, of course, one thing that the Rebellion does that the series does not. The series is not a dark deconstruction of the Magical Girl genre, it is just a work with a different focus and outlook within that genre. Rebellion itself is deconstruction though, that being a deconstruction of the series itself, most notably the ending. One thing is bothering me, though, and perhaps you’ve explained it previously, but what exactly makes the majority of Rebellion terrible to you? I’ll admit there’s some pacing problems, most notably with Homura and Kyouko taking too long to go nowhere, but I really can’t think of why the rest of it would be bad to you. Perhaps it’s just bias, Rebellion is my favourite film after all, so I’m less likely to see actual faults in it. As well, why do you think Rebellion has failed in its theme of betrayal? I felt it was pulled off as well as it could have, and I consider the scene where Homura betrays Madoka to be one of the best I’ve seen. It is equal parts surprising and expertly setup if you know what to look for, giving it almost two entirely unique experiences. Mercrom posted:I watched Rebellion again, and have some new thoughts. The only redeemable part of the movie is the last 20 minutes, the rest is terrible. Yes, I feel that Homura’s transition into an antagonist role that replaces the bunnycat is perhaps what makes me the most excited for Post-Rebellion. Homura is a really good character on her own, but seeing more of Demon Homura’s arrogant malice, cold attitude and quiet insanity has the potential to be amazing. While Kyuubey’s inhuman nature was really well done and worked perfectly for the series and Rebellion, I feel that Homura’s humanity will be even more interesting, as she is a relatable and tragic character. More interesting perhaps will be her relation to the other characters. Even if Incubators are somehow involved with wishes, Homura has essentially supplanted herself as the new devil figure. The wishes of the series are essentially “deals with the devil”, so how does Homura play into it with her new status? After all:  I brought up before the potential of Kyouko’s fall, and I think this ties into it. If Homura is the Devil now and grants wishes, what exactly is she granting? Desire, an impossible joy, a fantasy, a lie. An unreachable idealism, which must inevitably fall apart. Lord Justice fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Lord Justice posted:Really? I’m curious about this person now, which threads does he or she post in? I only read Canadian Politics in D&D, the rest of the threads kind of make me angry with how terrible everything else is. Lord Justice posted:I don’t really agree with your interpretation of the series. Yes, there is a sense of cynicism and nihilism with Homura, but the series is as much about Madoka as it is Homura. Homura only becomes a second protagonist in Beginnings and Eternal with the context of prior knowledge (the movies are intended as a rewatch vehicle) and Rebellion. Before that she is a deuteragonist. The series then focuses on Madoka as a protagonist, and she does achieve her ideal. She makes her wish and destroys the witches, reforming the universe and creating a better world for Magical Girls. All plot threads in the original series are nihilistic. Their point is to thoroughly undermine all the character's values. The only escape from the nihilism is death or the madness of becoming a witch. However, the ending is an inversion of the central premise of the show. Suffering becomes heroism, death becomes martyrdom, and the enemy becomes an ally despite not changing at all. Lord Justice posted:But yes, you’re correct in that Homura has already struggled and failed to achieve her jouissance in Beginnings and Eternal. The Eternal Recurrence refers to more than just the overall plot, it refers to Homura’s arc as well. Homura’s fight is literally never-ending, she will repeat it until she is dead most likely, even if she has escaped her time loops. Homura may have won the second iteration of the Eternal Game for Madoka’s soul, but just because she’s managed to trap Madoka does not mean Madoka will be with her as she wants. Hope was the cause of Homura's struggle and suffering. When losing hope is seen as a good thing people call it closure, and that is what Homura got at the end of the series. Instead of giving up and dying she got a new desire to drive her, the ideals taught to her by Madoka. People who are not mentally ill cope by moving on. Lord Justice posted:That aside, I feel it’s interesting how episode 10 of the series foreshadows and sets up Rebellion. During that episode, Homura betrays Madoka’s idealism not once, but twice. Lord Justice posted:Speaking of themes and getting back to your post, I feel like listing themes that Rebellion has and that the series doesn’t isn’t terribly helpful. Rebellion shares most if not all of its themes with the series, it’s just repurposing them and deconstructing them. Deconstruction is, of course, one thing that the Rebellion does that the series does not. The series is not a dark deconstruction of the Magical Girl genre, it is just a work with a different focus and outlook within that genre. Rebellion itself is deconstruction though, that being a deconstruction of the series itself, most notably the ending. As to why I don't like Rebellion: The first part of Rebellion is a comically exaggerated but unfunny repetition of the naive facade of the first three episodes of Madoka, but without the insight into the characters. The second part is a mystery that doesn't feel mysterious because of how unsubtle the first part is. The third part explains the mystery in boring technical detail that involves a lot more in-universe sci-fi logic than character motivations, and the character motivations that are there mostly suck. Sayaka is back because she misses Kyoko in the fanfictions, Kyubey completely lost all depth and just acts like a mad scientist, and Homura is stupidly instigated by Kyubey into ruining his own plans. That leaves the last 20 minutes. Lord Justice posted:Yes, I feel that Homura’s transition into an antagonist role that replaces the bunnycat is perhaps what makes me the most excited for Post-Rebellion. Homura is a really good character on her own, but seeing more of Demon Homura’s arrogant malice, cold attitude and quiet insanity has the potential to be amazing. While Kyuubey’s inhuman nature was really well done and worked perfectly for the series and Rebellion, I feel that Homura’s humanity will be even more interesting, as she is a relatable and tragic character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I don't really know what people actually mean by deconstruction. Most people seem to use it as a form of inversion. Since I haven't seen any other magical girl anime I don't know or care if it's an inversion of the genre, but in the end it is an inversion of a nihilist story. Rebellion tries to do some kind of double-inversion which at best would serve to make the story cyclical and a repetition of previous themes. I think a better word for Madoka is "subversion". It begins by presenting the standard themes of the genre - friendship, love, harmony, etc. - and then ends episode 3 by obliterating all of that and continues on telling an entirely different kind of story - at least until the end. So in a sense it's both a subversion and a celebration of the genre's themes. I think people have just been substituting "deconstruction" for "subversion" because they didn't know what the word meant, but it sounded right. Rebellion, as Lord Justice said, is very much a deconstruction of the original series, since it takes many elements of the original show and re-purposes them to reach a different conclusion. Mercrom posted:People lose hope for a good reason; hope can be destructive. By giving Homura the the power to reverse time itself Kyubey gave Homura a source of infinite hope and belief in her own agency. When causality doesn't work in a way that facilitates permanent failure, trying and failing becomes trying and going back to step one; it becomes a source of endless despair driven by guilt. I would argue that as a result of her experiences she's been driven well past her mental breaking point. What we see at the ending of the series is her vain attempts to stay positive in Madoka's new world order. All that poo poo she went through to save Madoka and all she has to show for it is that? There's no way she could stay sane in that world for very long. But as a result of her experiences she has determination and tenacity well beyond any normal human's capabilities, so there was never any chance she would commit suicide. However, her actions in Rebellion - destroying the world of Madoka's ideals - are her personal form of suicide, hence all the suicide imagery. In the end, Homura realized she couldn't reconcile her own desires with the ideal she believed in, so in the weakness brought on by the crushing, nihilistic despair of her situation, she chose her desires over her ideals, and Rebellion is the result of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Cephas posted:Rather than trying to plumb its depths, my experience with Madoka has been that it has had a strong emotional impact on me and has never really felt "over" to me. I find that the way I think about the characters changes as time goes by. Rather than trying to make it mean anything, I find myself using the story as sort of a sounding board against which I can test my own changing views and values. I think it is both good and healthy to reflect upon your personal worldview by watching the witch girl anime a lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
On a speculative note, the series is going to get a rebroadcast on WOWOW next January with a few TV specials attached. Anime rebroadcasts are often used to preface franchise announcements by revving interest back up. This doesn't prove anything, but you may want to keep your ears perked and eyes peeled this winter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Aside from statistics the closest you can come to ever objectively evaluating art is to compare it to something very similar. If Madoka is the Star Wars to some literary masterpiece I'd really like to know about it. I'm not really sure if I disagree with you. Is it possible for even the most experienced food critic to objectively claim that, say, the food McDonald's produces is inferior to the food produced by some experienced chef? This isn't a rhetorical question. If people can agree that trite/shallow ideas exist in the first place, how do you determine which ideas are trite/shallow? Like, what words could I possibly say (other than "it's easy for me to see the themes other people are mentioning being in the Madoka movie") that would defend my claim that the movie isn't exceptionally "deep" or interesting on an intellectual level? Just to reiterate, I'm serious when I say that I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. I fully agree that it's kind of bullshit for me or anyone else to say "clearly this movie is shallow/bad" on the basis of some gut feeling, but at the same time it does seem pretty nuts that someone considers Rebellion one of the best pieces of media they've ever encountered. Like, (as an exaggeration just to make a point), it would be pretty clearly wrong if someone claimed that Naruto is one of the most intellectual pieces of media produced by Japan in the past 50 years, so there's clearly some basis on which relative quality can be determined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like, (as an exaggeration just to make a point), it would be pretty clearly wrong if someone claimed that Naruto is one of the most intellectual pieces of media produced by Japan in the past 50 years, so there's clearly some basis on which relative quality can be determined. Would it? Don't get me wrong, it's not like I disagree with you, but based on what you said before that, can you, or anyone, really make that claim? When it comes to critics, all we can do is trust or not trust their value judgments and the logic of their statements. In this subjective world, there are no answers. There are only our opinions, some of which are well thought out and articulated, and other that are biased, shallow, or just plain moronic. Our opinions. What matters is not what the show wants to say or tried to say, it's what we take away from it that matters. So lets not get hung up on "Is Madoka a good show?" and instead ask "Why do you/do you not think Madoka is a good show?" ViggyNash fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like, (as an exaggeration just to make a point), it would be pretty clearly wrong if someone claimed that Naruto is one of the most intellectual pieces of media produced by Japan in the past 50 years, so there's clearly some basis on which relative quality can be determined. I think you can call Naruto a 'flat' show. It makes no attempt to show any level of depth so if someone sees literary value in it, it's the viewer projecting onto the work, not the work itself acting as food for thought. When shows stimulate the mind, objectivity ends and subjectivity begins. You can't simply 'rate' the intellectual merits of a show. Objectivity dictates that Homura is a crazy psycho lesbian, but almost anyone who thinks Rebellion is a work of art will tell you that she's 'much more than that'. Like Viggy says, people don't look at works like these objectively, they look for parallel opinions to validate their experience with the work. That's why you can have one person tell you with 100% certainty in their beliefs that Evangelion is a vapid show and all of the religious 'symbolism' is meaningless and Anno 'said so himself', and the next person will scoff at them, cite Death of the Author, and go on to explain why NGE is the best anime in existence, bar none. Then they both spam '2deep4u?' at each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Space Flower posted:Like Viggy says, people don't look at works like these objectively, they look for parallel opinions to validate their experience with the work. That's why you can have one person tell you with 100% certainty in their beliefs that Evangelion is a vapid show and all of the religious 'symbolism' is meaningless and Anno 'said so himself', and the next person will scoff at them, cite Death of the Author, and go on to explain why NGE is the best anime in existence, bar none. Then they both spam '2deep4u?' at each other. That's not what I was saying, though, ironically, you ended up pointing out what I meant to say. Death of the Author is important here. Whatever the author meant to convey is only as important as how well it was conveyed to the reader/viewer, so that a larger percentage of people will acknowledge that message. But it is never guaranteed that everyone will acknowledge that message. Some, or perhaps many, may derive an entirely different message that is still entirely valid based on what was presented, even if it was a message that the Author never considered. I for one didn't realize that ^^ was how my post would be read, but having read and considered Space Flowers post I can sort of see how he/she arrived at that. Death of the Author is also important because it means that no matter what the piece of work is, for example, Naruto, it is possible that someone, somewhere, can derive meaning from that piece, even if most believe there's no meaning to be found. I see that as the reason why everyone has such diverse interests in life, so that something that one person hates vehemently might hold a special place in the heart of another. What meaning we find is what we choose to believe in, and discussion is simply a means of deciding what to believe. Discussion presents other possible views on a topic, and consideration of those other views can temper our own views on the topic. So the meaning we derive from things will change over time, and could change drastically. Consider a life-changing even like a family death. Before that event, you might view media portrayals of similar tragedies in a more clinical way than you would after having experienced a similar trauma yourself. Your views on the same portrayals would be extremely dependent on that trauma. I'm not just pulling this example out of my rear end btw: http://www.avclub.com/article/fake-deaths-cheap-resurrections-and-dealing-real-g-210402 It's a pretty interesting, if maybe somewhat depressing, read. What I'm trying to say is that the piece in consideration doesn't have inherent meaning. The meaning we derive from it is dependent on how well it stimulates our thoughts and leads to thoughtful, critical discussion on the ideas it presents. I think it is that quality to stimulate our thoughts that makes one piece better than another, and why so many people have come to like Madoka. Whether or not you agree with what Urobuchi presents, he presents points well worth considering, whether we thought so before or not, and he presented them extremely well, which is something people have generally picked up on either consciously or subconsciously. With Rebellion, the points he is making are far more interesting, but are also presented in a way unfriendly to the viewer because he was putting more effort into selling the message than being entertaining. So Rebellion ends up being very pushy about its themes and alienates those not particularly interested in what the movie has to say. VV: I agree with all of that. ViggyNash fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm not really sure if I disagree with you. Is it possible for even the most experienced food critic to objectively claim that, say, the food McDonald's produces is inferior to the food produced by some experienced chef? This isn't a rhetorical question. If people can agree that trite/shallow ideas exist in the first place, how do you determine which ideas are trite/shallow? Like, what words could I possibly say (other than "it's easy for me to see the themes other people are mentioning being in the Madoka movie") that would defend my claim that the movie isn't exceptionally "deep" or interesting on an intellectual level? The reason experience and knowledge is important for authority on art is not really because you can assess the true "quality" of the work. A real reason is that gaining experience and knowledge is mostly an irreversible process. The teenaged boy will probably like Naruto a lot more than Vertigo, but in the future the opposite might become true, and once that happens he will never revert back to his teenaged self. Combined with that another reason is that more experience of an art form means you consume more, are more interested and thus louder, and are more likely to produce it yourself. Everyone's opinion on art is correct, but the aggregated opinion of everyone in the group "multiplied" by experience is the most useful for actually finding and creating things people in that group like. However, storytelling media is a bit more complicated. You not only have to take into account people's experience and knowledge of the art, but their life experience and total knowledge, and if they are looking for genre fiction. Storytelling media is also capable of carrying enough information to have practical use, and that information by itself can be judged objectively as true or false and or useful. Genre fiction is more like regular art, so life experience and outside knowledge matter less. Anime is a genre fiction bonanza. Not only is it mostly genre fiction, but anime fans are not just happy with their genres producing a specific emotion on demand, but also specific cliches and archetypes on demand. Action or sci-fi aren't specific enough, is it mecha, medieval fantasy, contemporary fantasy, magical girl or (taken from ADTRWiki) "girls with guns"? The demand for same, not new, divides the community into groups who want their own thing, and experience in one group means nothing to another group, especially not groups outside the anime community. I've never seen it, but I assume the reason it is wrong to call Naruto intellectual is because it is genre fiction, and people don't watch it for that reason, and it was not made with those aspirations. If someone out there watches Naruto for insight and thinks it's a deep show, they are correct, because they made it correct. But if they are the only one who does, it only shows that it's possible to enjoy Naruto that way, not that it's likely, so if you want you could still say that Naruto is statistically likely to be a dumb show for a person to watch. If you think Rebellion is uninteresting because all the themes in it are obvious, it is a dumb movie for you. If I think Rebellion is uninteresting because I think the themes are dumb, it is a dumb show for me. But if someone finds the themes interesting because they learned something, it is an intelligent show for them, and people can't say otherwise because the fact that they learned something is an objective truth, with the exception being if you can prove that what the person learned is false. This is where ideological and factual opposition to interpretations come in. Not only is it the only justifiable disagreement with someone's opinion, it is also the most constructive way to actually learn something useful from the source material. That way art can be used to actually discuss the real world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
joke's on you if you think that anything except post-structuralist analyses even matter
a cartoon duck fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Not that I'm biased against other schools of literary criticism or anything, some of my best friends are Russian Formalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I think what we can all agree on is that the work needs to be observed with a post-colonial lense. Have we discussed Madoka's hybrid identity as a normal girl within the universe and God Saviour outside the universe yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Truly, Madoka is the new Evangelion. It brings forth walls of text analysis that are more than likely attributing way too much depth to a piece, while hiding behind death of the author to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Evangelion doesn't really do that any more, that last film reduced even the most die-hard post-modernist to shaking their head and muttering under their breath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
I wish, I know somebody that became even worse after 3.33.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:Evangelion doesn't really do that any more, that last film reduced even the most die-hard post-modernist to shaking their head and muttering under their breath. Ahaha, nope, I learned it the hard way. You could have ninety minutes of Shinji pulling a goatse, call it "Evangelion 3+1: You can(not) prolapse" and people would support amd over-analyze it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah, at this point over-analyzing Eva is part of the charm of watching Eva. It's just what you do. There's this cargo cult of literary critique cruft for mom robot cartoons, much like Rebellion has made for a cargo cult of literary critique cruft for magical girl cartoons. As an aside, one of the actual useful things about postmodernism is that it gives the same amount of love to low art (like MadoMagi) as it does to high art (like Otto e Mezzo). Everything is worthy of discussion and analysis, and if MadoMagi is the deepest thing you know then (you should probably broaden your horizons but) good for you. Everybody's gotta start somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Postmodernism is good because it acknowledges and highlights the fact that the emperor has no clothes, and never had. It's a good antidote to the delusional attempts to turn art into science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:Yeah, at this point over-analyzing Eva is part of the charm of watching Eva. It's just what you do. There's this cargo cult of literary critique cruft for mom robot cartoons, much like Rebellion has made for a cargo cult of literary critique cruft for magical girl cartoons. It borrows really heavily from western literature, I just think it's really loving cool that someone in Japan crafted it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
I finally got around to watching this series and.... holy poo poo. I heard people saying it was dark and stuff but man... I wasn't expecting this show to be sooooo fuckin sad and such a tear jerker. Great series though... wasn't sure what to expect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
EAB posted:I finally got around to watching this series and.... holy poo poo. I heard people saying it was dark and stuff but man... I wasn't expecting this show to be sooooo fuckin sad and such a tear jerker. Great series though... wasn't sure what to expect. Sayaka was the best character  They pair her and Kyoko pretty hard in the movie though 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
EAB posted:I finally got around to watching this series and.... holy poo poo. I heard people saying it was dark and stuff but man... I wasn't expecting this show to be sooooo fuckin sad and such a tear jerker. Great series though... wasn't sure what to expect.  (P.S. - be sure to stick around after the credits.) PerrineClostermann posted:Sayaka was the best character
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Not gonna bother with spoiler tags, you've been warned. I've been rewatching Madoka recently because I finally decided to get around to watching Rebellion and I wanted to prime myself for that and watching episode 6 it really bothered me how the girls are all shocked and horrified by the revelation that their souls are contained within the Soul Gems (name wasn't a giveaway?). And I remember it bothered me the first time I watched this show too (4 years ago Christ... ) that what kicks off the shitstorm that kills off half the cast was ...I don't want to say not a big deal because clearly from the way everyone reacts they care that their souls have been relocated but it really doesn't seem that huge compared to all the other poo poo they deal with up to that point. I guess Sayaka is just sort of unstable from the start? She moans about not being 'worthy' or 'human' anymore because her soul is in a gem now? And it just never made a lot of sense to me, I remember thinking it must be some cultural thing that I wasn't getting when I first watched the show but rewatching it now that doesn't really seem to be the case. In short, why does everyone care so much that their souls are in gems after they make the contract? I mean it makes Sayaka go off the deep end and kick off the end-run of the show, but it's clear that they're all more than a bit distraught by the news - even though to that point they have been fighting life and death battles against supernatural horrors with magical powers granted to them in exchange for a wish. But for some reason this is a bridge too far?Hopefully it's ok to ask a question unrelated to the current discussion, I checked the last 5 pages of the thread and didn't see this come up anywhere so 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
When they make a wish, they are essentially turned into sentient gems that pilot their former bodies around like meat puppets. It's not that their soul is in a gem, it's that they themselves are the gems. It's not really a cultural thing it's more that they have literally become something other than human now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Also the fact that A: they're all Jr. High age and B: the girls who get offers to become Magical Girls are specifically chosen because they're not exactly the most mentally stable. So finding out that they're essentially zombies/liches, on top of having to spend every evening hunting down and killing monsters is grounds for some psychotic breakdowns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Namtab posted:When they make a wish, they are essentially turned into sentient gems that pilot their former bodies around like meat puppets. When you word it like that it does seem a bit more distressing. And I guess the show pretty explicitly shows that that is the case... Weird I never really thought about it in those terms. I guess the reactions from Sayaka and co. aren't too horribly overblown after all. You could say they should expect as much from what is pretty much a literal deal with the devil so being so completely blindsided is a bit weird, but that's just nitpicking. Thanks for clarifying goons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a weird sort of transhumanist but I can understand why 14-year-old girls currently reeling from not feeling "good enough" for a boyfriend/having had their entire family murdered because their father thought they were a monster would be upset.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
I've always thought of the Soul Gems as being the singular core of their being, so to distill their core into a vulnerable material object is a huge burden on them. Thought I like the perspective of Soul Gem-controlled meat puppets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
It's only gay if the soul gems touch 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:30
|
|