saiyanvegetable wrote:Anime has standards whether you want to believe it or not - I'm talking about basic, fundamental standards such as writing, animation, art, etc. There are tons of shows you can compare Super. I have certainly not enjoyed some shows because of my own personal tastes, but if these basic rudimentary standards are met one way or another I definitely acknowledge them and know that it's my own personal prejudice that keeps me from watching. Super is a bottom of the barrel toy commercial so far at the 50 episode mark.
Writing, animation, and art are fine things to judge something on. You know what's funny though? That's not an exhaustive list of criteria on which you can evaluate something. There
is no exhaustive list of criteria on which you can evaluate something. Super may lose out based on certain criteria, but win out based on other criteria. Those criteria based on which Super wins out may be more relevant to someone else than you or I - and that's entirely okay. People are allowed to have different standards, and hold an animated series to those different standards. Who the hell are you to say otherwise? Saying "
these specific criteria are the only ones upon which we shall judge this anime, and that's final!" is silly. I'm not kidding, I'm absolutely dumbfounded as to how anyone's going to actually justify that assertion.
If you want to talk about the
traditional and conventional notion of what makes for a good anime (art, animation, writing, etc.), then yeah, Super is objectively trash
*. We have established some criteria, based on our
subjective preference, against which we can
objectively compare Super. That doesn't mean that we have the objectively
best, right, or correct criteria. You can ask, "but if nine out of ten people have a certain subjective preference, doesn't that make it objective? What if ten out of ten people have said subjective preference?" The answer is still technically no. For practical purposes, we could say that it's objective, because at that point it might as well be. In reality, however, human nature is not some static thing - as I already explained. Standards are doomed to evolve.
*There's a further caveat yet that one could go down, however. With animation, if I am understanding correctly, it is typically thought that the fluidity of the movement is what we want to see maximized. The more fluid the movement, the better the animation. And while I fully agree with that sentiment, I don't think it's unreasonable or irrational to say otherwise. A subjective preference is still a subjective preference. It's fine to have conventions and already agreed-upon collective standards that we hope others conform to (ie: fluid animation is better than stiff animation). When someone gets to the point you're at, though? Where you're actually berating and disparaging other people because they dare deviate from the norm of preferences and standards? Nah bro, you need to take a deep philosophical fucking step back and chill out for a minute. It's a cartoon. This isn't 4chan. You don't need to be so aggressive and abrasive. Act like an adult (even if you aren't one yet).
This isn't the "negativity police" or anything speaking; there's a lot about Super that I absolutely fucking deplore. Complaints about this series are more than deserving, I think, but there's a way to voice them in a composed, mature, and civil manner, without being a dick to other people. If there's a single take-home point to my post, it's that, all of that in the preceding two sentences. I'll even bold, italicize,
and underline them, so that they're more difficult to miss.
fadeddreams5 wrote:Beerus, Whis, Jaco, and Pilaf's group are among the worst offenders. They're new characters not many people know much about. And yes, I included Pilaf's group in there because, unlike in BoG, Super is treating them as new characters. I don't think it's been implied even once that they're adults trapped in the bodies of children.
Beerus, Whis, and Jaco were at least established enough (in a meta sense) by the point that they started interrupting the action that I think that they're exempt from that.
Pilaf, though. Pilaf's a splendid counter to my argument entirely. I don't treat the trio as new characters, in spite of the good point you make. In a meta sense, they're still long-since established characters. However, unlike the rest, even though they're established (as far as I'm concerned), them breaking up the action still grinds my gears. So that throws a bit of a wrench in my explanation for the differences.
I don't mind Beerus, Whis, or Jaco breaking up the action, because I enjoy their shtick, I guess. Mr. Satan's shtick had yet to be enjoyable for me during the Cell arc. Now that I think of it, there's a chance his shtick might be more endearing now that I like him as a character more (I'll know when I get to the Cell arc in the rewatch I just started). Pilaf though? Can't stand any of his moments in Super, that I can think of. I guess I grew tired of their gimmick as the incompetent villains, or something.
[/spoiler]
