The Worst Anime You've Watched Recently

[armentage]

Wow...it seems you're the minority here when it comes to Saikano, armentage. Does this mean you're calling us "idiots?"

372846[/snapback]

I'm not calling any particular person anything. It's my opinion that the show is garbage, and I can't understand how anyone can like it. I've spelled out what it is I don't like about it.

Edited February 22, 2006 by armentage

[JELEINEN]

Wow...it seems you're the minority here when it comes to Saikano, armentage. Does this mean you're calling us "idiots?"

Right now, I can't get into any mainstream anime like Naruto, One Piece or Fullmetal Alchemist. For some reason, they don't interest me. They're not the worst, but just titles I don't plan to follow.

372846[/snapback]

I think that's the thing. There are a lot of anime I don't like because of the genre (boys fighting and harem anime to name two examples), but that really doesn't say anything about the quality of the shows themselves. In fact, if anything, it probably disqualifies me from making any comments on the quality of shows in those genres. And even though I strongly disagree with his opinions of Innocense and Grave of the Fireflies, I really appreciate Sundown for giving a well reasoned explanation for his opinions.

[Sundown]

Sundown, that was a great post.  I can understand what you are saying.  I still believe that it may be out of place if they did inject something about the government in such a personal story, but I see your point.  I think the problem that you speak of where there is a lack of perspective may ultimately have to do with how the Japanese culture views and deals with WW2 and is probably not a failing inherent only in this anime.

I'd agree that what problems I have with Graveyard is something that's actually more widespread, and very little Japanese entertainment or art really "owns up" to Japanese involvement in WWII as instigators. Japanese culture is heavily pacifist, but it's pacifist because war as seen as a generic evil to be avoided at all costs, and I'm guessing that this happens because any other view puts square responsibility and "blame" on the Japanese nation itself. And that view would be hard to bear for a culture in which saving face is so important.

I understand your point Sundowner, but I think you're coming from this movie from the wrong perspective. This movie isn't supposed to be a historical lesson in the ways you're looking at it. I think adding a whole "who was guilty for WW2" reading would be fundamentally at odds with the theme of the movie, and would weigh it down.

The thing is, this seems to be the only perspective the Japanese have as a culture-- as unfortunate victims because they engaged in non-specific "war". And while a more comprehensive background on WW2 would probably be out of scope of the story, there are plenty of opportunities to drop in historically relevant hints which in my opinion, would add depth to the telling. So Graveyard's perspective isn't really unique... it seems to be the only perspective that Japanese culture at large has.

Hotaru avoids that by strictly looking at the characters’ experiences, and reminding us about their suffering. Is their suffering worth a greater good? That’s up to you to decide, but that is not the issue this movie attempts to answer, and good on it for not doing so.

See, I'm not sure this question is ever really asked, because from the Japanese perspective, the audience Graveyard was made for, the answer would be a rhetorical no. Japan did lose the war after all. For the rest of us, we have to struggle with whether the suffering of innocents is a price worth paying in order to stop the aggressive military regime under which they live. And our answer might be a hesitant yes. But its intended audience doesn't have to do any of that soul searching, because history has already responded for them.

So ultimately, I feel that Graveyard, by omission, adds to a lack of perspective rather than contributing anything fresh to our, and more importantly, the Japanese peoples' understanding. And by omission, there are times when it views almost to me like a propaganda film although I'm pretty sure that's not its intent. Yes, the film conveys a childlike ignorance, but that simplistic view isn't too far removed from the understandings of most of its viewers, and I think it fails if it actually fosters such understandings rather than dispels them.

Graveyard is as if a German filmmaker made a film about the suffering of children in the firebombing of Dresden, without ever showing German troops or ever mentioning Hitler, European conquest, or the Nazi regime in the slightest. Many Germans consider Dresden a war crime, but such a film would probably be beyond most German sensibilities. They're too conscious of their past, and even if such a film were made, it would be seen by people who already have perspective on Germany's responsibility in the war.

Oh whoa... coincidentally, a new German Dresden film just came out. It's causing a stir, but mostly for telling both sides of the story and for attempting to show Dresden might not have been the pointless loss of life it's usually seen as.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1903823,00.html

"'The film shows from the start that the Nazis were the ones who were guilty of starting the war,' said Günther van Endert, an editor with public broadcaster ZDF, which will show the film as a two-part miniseries in March.

'That does not mean we have to shy away from the fact that civilians suffered horribly,' van Endert said.

But even after the wrenching scenes of dead bodies strewn in the streets and incomprehensible devastation, the movie makes a point of showing Nazis forcing concentration camp prisoners to clean up rubble and shooting looters."

Interesting that although it's billed as a tragic love story, it doesn't feel that it's telling is somehow hampered by artistically showing what needs to be shown.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Sundown

[Sundown]

I think its great that an unique view was taken with the film, it showed a side to war, as mentioned above by others, that most films don't explore. But at some level, I felt thats all there was to it.

I never felt like GOTF got past its own unique viewpoint, as if it thought its uniqueness was enough on its own to carry the story. A tragic story with complex characters and how they change says something about the human condition. Some folks felt the story got there, I unfortunately did not. A tragedy stuck in neutral that rides on its own simple shock value is just manipulating the audience because it can't do anything else.

Wow, that is so how I felt, to a tee, when I watched Graveyard. Even without any political baggage, the viewing felt a little like, "Okay, that really sucks. And then?" Boy, stuck in neutral is the perfect description. And it seems stuck because if it attempted to go anywhere, it'd find itself having to address things and say things that it was so careful to avoid.

Man, his sister and her candy box, and ultimately her death. Tell me that does not tug on heartstrings. I still feel it now. But I felt manipulated into feeling sorry for the characters without being given anything back. And I get irate whenever characters that I like are killed off simply for shock and tragedy's sake. If I can't see how their deaths make for a better telling or how they fit into something more profound, I start to blame the artist and not the story for their deaths.

If tragedy and death in fiction are supposed to get us to ask questions, I think it's only fair that the fiction starts to address those questions, even if only in passing. If the characters' deaths are due to the tragedy war, then let's talk about war. Specifically, this war. But it feels like Graveyard brings me just to where it wants me, then adamantly refuses to dialogue with me because of what might actually be said.

And even though I strongly disagree with his opinions of Innocense and Grave of the Fireflies, I really appreciate Sundown for giving a well reasoned explanation for his opinions.

Inconceivable! You like Innocence? O_o

What parts and aspects of it did you like that I seem to have missed?

[JELEINEN]

I never saw Grave as so much a condemnation of war so much as simply a condemnation of man's inhumanity. The people that are villified the most are the family and other people who neglected the kids. I think you could easily substitute a natural disaster for the war and the film wouldn't have changed much.

Now if you want something that actually addresses war and morality in an anime, check out Barefoot Gen.

[JELEINEN]

Inconceivable!  You like Innocence? O_o

What parts and aspects of it did you like that I seem to have missed?

372866[/snapback]

Well, for one thing I knew going in that it was a Mamoru Oshii film, so I expected a lot of exposition in places and a lot scenes without any dialog. I enjoy his style, so I don't have a problem with it.

As for the plot, I thought it was excellent; especially since he managed to work in such a great twist ending. The whle build up for the entire film has been leading to some sort of existential ending involving the whole "what is life?" question that typifies the cyberpunk genre. The truth of the matter ends up simply being another case of human cruelty. It's an amazing bait and switch that I think could only have been pulled off with all the philosophical pining that Oshii put in. The same ending in your typical action-fest film would have fallen flat.

The really great visuals and soundtrack only add to the film, as does the excellent characterization.

On the other hand, I thuroughly dislike the first GitS film. The characters are flat and the plot is very linear and predictable. I was bored with it and have never had the desire to watch it again.

[Noyhauser]

I'd agree that what problems I have with Graveyard is something that's actually more widespread, and very little Japanese entertainment or art really "owns up" to Japanese involvement in WWII as instigators.  Japanese culture is heavily pacifist, but it's pacifist because war as seen as a generic evil to be avoided at all costs, and I'm guessing that this happens because any other view puts square responsibility and "blame" on the Japanese nation itself.  And that view would be hard to bear for a culture in which saving face is so important.

I understand your point Sundowner, but I think you're coming from this movie from the wrong perspective. This movie isn't supposed to be a historical lesson in the ways you're looking at it. I think adding a whole "who was guilty for WW2" reading would be fundamentally at odds with the theme of the movie, and would weigh it down.

The thing is, this seems to be the only perspective the Japanese have as a culture-- as unfortunate victims because they engaged in non-specific "war". And while a more comprehensive background on WW2 would probably be out of scope of the story, there are plenty of opportunities to drop in historically relevant hints which in my opinion, would add depth to the telling. So Graveyard's perspective isn't really unique... it seems to be the only perspective that Japanese culture at large has.

Hotaru avoids that by strictly looking at the characters’ experiences, and reminding us about their suffering. Is their suffering worth a greater good? That’s up to you to decide, but that is not the issue this movie attempts to answer, and good on it for not doing so.

See, I'm not sure this question is ever really asked, because from the Japanese perspective, the audience Graveyard was made for, the answer would be a rhetorical no. Japan did lose the war after all. For the rest of us, we have to struggle with whether the suffering of innocents is a price worth paying in order to stop the aggressive military regime under which they live. And our answer might be a hesitant yes. But its intended audience doesn't have to do any of that soul searching, because history has already responded for them.

372856[/snapback]

So now we base how good a film is completely on its culture's failings. If Hotaru doesn't own up to the sins of Japanese agression in the 1930s then OBVIOUSLY it can't be a good film... My point still stands, you're trying to make Hotaru out as some epic, when its not that, nor is it supposed to be. What does it do? tells the story of children in war. If it was a film about Tojo, or a Japanese solider, then yes it should be judged on how it deals with the subject matter of the war, I'd even expect it to. But it isn't about that. The children are essentially detached from war, they don't know what its about except when the B-29s come. Saddling this film with some deep exploration of guilt would ruin the story itself, because its not even within their realm of understanding.

Would flashing pictures of the rape of Nanking have anything to do with their experiences? One of them wasn't even born at the time of Pearl Harbour... what relevance would that have to her? The film follows THEIR experiences, and you are supposed to emphasize with them, not Japan. Your point about feeling manipulated into feeling bad about them, just emphasizes your line of thinking. No matter what evil Japan committed in WW2, they had no part in it. It doesn't matter whether they were German, British, Iraqi, or Serbian children. They still suffer, and they have little to do with the war.

And if you want to get into a societal level argument, I don't disagree that Japanese haven't confronted their legacy in the second world war as germany has. I won't go further because thats getting into politics. That said, it still doesn't make Hotaru any less of a powerful film, or has anything to do with that.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Noyhauser

[Noyhauser]

I never saw Grave as so much a condemnation of war so much as simply a condemnation of man's inhumanity.  The people that are villified the most are the family and other people who neglected the kids.  I think you could easily substitute a natural disaster for the war and the film wouldn't have changed much. 

Now if you want something that actually addresses war and morality in an anime, check out Barefoot Gen.

372873[/snapback]

Completely agree with you. That actually sums up my point better than I did in 3 paragraphs.

[Sundown]

As for the plot, I thought it was excellent; especially since he managed to work in such a great twist ending.  The whle build up for the entire film has been leading to some sort of existential ending involving the whole "what is life?" question that typifies the cyberpunk genre.  The truth of the matter ends up simply being another case of human cruelty.  It's an amazing bait and switch that I think could only have been pulled off with all the philosophical pining that Oshii put in.  The same ending in your typical action-fest film would have fallen flat. 

I might have to watch it again someday. It didn't help that I was watching it with a friend, and that he was repeatedly shouting "Stupid! This is stupid!" while shaking his head as I heartily agreed. I didn't see the philosophical exposition having to do much with the plot beyond certain contrived bits, but I might have missed it the first time around.

[Sundown]

So now we base how good a film is completely on its culture's failings. If Hotaru doesn't own up to the sins of Japanese agression in the 1930s then OBVIOUSLY it can't be a good film...

I didn't say that exactly. But I do think art and film needs to be evaluated at least partly on the basis of how it serves and speaks to its culture and audience. I do think it has technical merit, but it doesn't allow itself to go beyond the safe and isolated microcosm of innocent suffering because of things it fears to say and show if it does. And it ends up being weaker even as a story for it, in my opinion.

My point still stands, you're trying to make Hotaru out as some epic, when its not that, nor is it supposed to be. What does it do? tells the story of children in war. If it was a film about Tojo, or a Japanese solider, then yes it should be judged on how it deals with the subject matter of the war, I'd even expect it to. But it isn't about that. The children are essentially detached from war, they don't know what its about except when the B-29s come. Saddling this film with some deep exploration of guilt would ruin the story itself, because its not even within their realm of understanding.

While children might not have such an understanding, the exploration of cause, effect, and responsibility is not beyond the understanding of the audience. I guess I'm not very satisfied if in the end, the story only enables me to think as a child without adding the accompanying perspective of an adult. And like I said, I don't think it simply shows a childs perspective... much of what it conveys seems to be part of the larger Japanese psyche, adult, child, or otherwise.

I'd agree that a deep exploration of guilt would be inappropriate and out of scope. I never suggested that Graveyard be that. But it doesn't even use real historical context for accuracy or flavor, and I think the omission, coupled with how Japan views itself in regards to WWII, is a little glaring.

Would flashing pictures of the rape of Nanking have anything to do with their experiences? One of them wasn't even born at the time of Pearl Harbour... what relevance would that have to her? The film follows THEIR experiences, and you are supposed to emphasize with them, not Japan.

No, of course not, because it would inappropriate and would be contrived. However, historical references or even tongue and cheek jabs at Japanese propaganda of the day, say in conversation between adults or soldiers overheard by the children... would flesh out the world they were living in. We would see the children accept such with their childlike innocence, but we of course as an audience, would know better.

Your point about feeling manipulated into feeling bad about them, just emphasizes your line of thinking. No matter what evil Japan committed in WW2, they had no part in it. It doesn't matter whether they were German, British, Iraqi, or Serbian children. They still suffer, and they have little to do with the war.

Yes, they still suffer. Yes, they had little to do with the war. But I do feel manipulation if we're to pity the children without understanding who or what might be responsible, and allowing us to reflect and react to that as well. I don't mean to say that Japanese atrocities somehow make the characters' suffering right or justified. No way. Quite the opposite-- I think it's only fair to hold the Japanese goverment of WWII culpable and responsible. And I think it would both be fair to the viewer as well as powerful to at least hint at this responsibility, of a nation and government to its people.

If we're not allowed a real glimpse at cause, effect, and responsibility, then it becomes a meaningless exercise in pity for pity's sake. I guess in the end, I feel tragedy in fiction needs to have a meaning, and needs to be part of something richer that becomes impetus for reflection, and hopefully someday, action. Shock and tragedy for its' sake alone ends up being a little empty, and in the end, I guess I personally want more than to say that Graveyard made me cry... which it didn't. But it did make me frustrated in its attempt to do so.

In the end, what is Graveyard trying to say? Children suffer? That sucks. Then the next logical thought is, so, what factors are responsible? Is it war? How did the war start so we might prevent it? Oh wait, can't talk about that. Okay, then is it man's inhumanity? That too. Then I suppose we ought to fight against our apathy, selfishness and help where we can-- in little things and big things. Maybe even in preventing and ending such wars and the suffering they cause. So how did this one start? Oh right, can't talk about that. We inevitably ask why, but no why is offered. Even if we look, the answers seem to be intentionally obscured.

In the end, we get Children Suffer, Suffering Hurts, and Maybe We Should Do Something. I'm not left with anything I didn't come into the film with, and we're sort of spinning our wheels watching children die. I just don't find that to be enough for me.

I'd brought Germany into the picture not just to compare their handling of WWII, but because Germans don't seem to feel pointing out the historical realities when portraying German suffering somehow cramps their artistry. If anything, they feel it an inherent part of the story itself. And whether in big or small part, I'd agree.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Pretty much all the pokemon type cartoons. I'm sick of them. Too many clones trying to cash in on the monster breeding/pet raising/trading card craze.

At least with transformers the robots had interesting backstory to them. Prime was a hero. Megatron was a cool villain, and starscream was always plotting in the background which would show the disadvantage of the bad guys (no honor, always trying to climb the corporate ladder to knock the gorrilla off the top at the expense of the group) which the good guys would use to thier advantage because the bad guys were ruled over with fear rather than through the belief of loyalty and taking on the heroic principles. I can see now that Prime's death was such a shock to children: it was like a jesus style sacrifice, and the matrix of leadership was him passing on the holy spirit to the autobots even though his body perished.

The anime TF movie captured all that and was entertaining even for an adult who watches more serious science fiction. Kiddy anime shows need interesting characters. I think now there is too much teen angst and crying and not enough doing stuff. Gundam Seed Destiny for exmaple didn't have time to build up the characters enough to make us really care if they lived. It wasn't like macross where a character would die and you went "WTF?? he was important, you can't kill him!"

Edited February 23, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Radd]

But if you have to spit quote after quote at us, because you, yes you, Masamune Shirow, are just sooo enthralled with Hume, or Hobbes, or whoever, and you're such a big shot that no one dares to tell you,  "Shirow-san?  Men with guns sitting around quoting philosophers for two hours makes for really crappy anime." you've sort of lost the whole point of the artistic endeavour.

372703[/snapback]

Whoah right there, buddy. Let the blame fall where it's deserved. Mamaru Oshii is responsible for the two Ghost in the Shell movies, not Masamune Shirow.

[Sundown]

Whoah right there, buddy. Let the blame fall where it's deserved. Mamaru Oshii is responsible for the two Ghost in the Shell movies, not Masamune Shirow.

372926[/snapback]

Oopsies. I figured it was Shirow since he created GITS in the first place, and I thought he still had primary creative control. My bad.

[JELEINEN]

But if you have to spit quote after quote at us, because you, yes you, Masamune Shirow, are just sooo enthralled with Hume, or Hobbes, or whoever, and you're such a big shot that no one dares to tell you,  "Shirow-san?  Men with guns sitting around quoting philosophers for two hours makes for really crappy anime." you've sort of lost the whole point of the artistic endeavour.

372703[/snapback]

Whoah right there, buddy. Let the blame fall where it's deserved. Mamaru Oshii is responsible for the two Ghost in the Shell movies, not Masamune Shirow.

372926[/snapback]

Not that lots of exposition and weird digressions aren't very common to the manga either. But yes, Shirow had nothing to do with the films.

[mpchi]

Thought I could get some good suggestions of low quality anime shows that one should stay away from. But turned out its just a ranting thread of one don't like whichever show just because its not their cup of tea, not because the shows were actually bad. Now if I were to complain, who is going to give me back those minutes reading this? LOL

[yellowlightman]

Thought I could get some good suggestions of low quality anime shows that one should stay away from. But turned out its just a ranting thread of one don't like whichever show just because its not their cup of tea, not because the shows were actually bad.   Now if I were to complain, who is going to give me back those minutes reading this?    LOL

374134[/snapback]

All anime sucks.

Go read a book.

[Radd]

Most anime does suck, at least in my opinion. However, tastes vary by the individual, which is why it helps to state why you like, or dislike a particular piece when dealing with threads such as this one.

As we see from the Grave of the Fireflies discussion, how we interpret a story, and what baggage we, the audience, bring to it can have a heavy influence on what we take away from it as well, through no fault or merit of the show itself.

[KingNor]

I just want to say i agree with Sundown about GOTF. IMHO its not one of the worst animes out there, but its definately alot worse off for the reasons he's stated.

A show that is really popular that i just can't get into is Naruto.

To me its not really animated that well, its repetitive, and has a bit of that DBZ "power, Power, POWER!!!" thing going on where the characters run into someone who kicks their ass, they train for "find inner strength" and just keep getting rediculously stronger.

They never find anyone who is just clearly much weaker than themselves, or run into someone who is soundly stronger, and not defeatable in the immediate future. its like theyre progressing through a carefully balanced videogame.

I've noticed i'm not a huge anime fan.. heh.. like someone else mentioned, there are entire genera that i don't like:

kid in giant robot (but he don't wanna fight) storys. (except evangelion)

young man of oustanding morals vs. seemingly always naked ultra innocent girl.

collection anime, capture tons of things and hoard them up.

there isnt' much left that i can like hehehe.

[fernarias]

Here's my list for 2005:

Amaenaideyo!! - a 15 y.o. monk gets super monk powers to fight spirits by seeing girls naked. At least the girls are drawn well.

Gallery Fake - I only watched the first episode and it was so bad I didn't watch another to see if it would get better, it's about a guy fighting the corrupt world of art, I think.

Gunparade Orchestra - let see, mech's, girls, aliens, with no story line and bad acting. Why?

Iriya no Sora UFO no Natsu - it started out strong but the last three episodes were awful, kinda like star wars.

Starship Operators - I actually watch all 13 episodes of this pointless exercise.

The Law of Ueki - boy fights by turning garbage into trees, what the hell.

Xenosaga THE ANIMATION - I watch this because I heard it was good, perhaps if I was 8 y.o. and dumb as a board but I don't think I would have liked it when I was 8 either.

I also nominate all the Ai Shonnen that came out in 2005 but I guess it wasn't made for me anyways. It's like going to a party in High School where there are no girls.

F.

Edited February 27, 2006 by fernarias

[Kin]

Ok it's not anime but it sucks: Battle royale 2

After I watched that movie... I feel heavily embarrased and wished I wasn't asian.

[Sundown]

As we see from the Grave of the Fireflies discussion, how we interpret a story, and what baggage we, the audience, bring to it can have a heavy influence on what we take away from it as well, through no fault or merit of the show itself.

374217[/snapback]

True. But at the same time, I think historical reality and the apparent omission of such in order to tell a story has to weigh in somewhere. If anything, GOTF seems to reveal the Japanese culture's baggage more than it does the viewer's. Artists are people too, and they carry a plenty of baggage of their own, and we can't talk about the audience's baggage without fully acknowledging that they are in fact interacting with the baggage that the artist himself presents.

Again, even though GOTF isn't intended to be propaganda, I dare say that it "works" in a similar way to how propaganda works-- by omitting bits of historical reality that might dampen the emotions the work's trying to invoke. But for those who simply know more than the artist is willing to show, this just doesn't really work, and the story itself suffers. And I think this effects its "merit" somewhat. At any rate, I hardly think caring about historical reality and how that actually effects the intent of a telling is "baggage". I think that's a pretty fair thing to be concerned about when an artist is making a statement by invoking history.

[Nightbat]

Visual: Xenosaga - 1985 animation with 1995 CGI in 2005

almost like Animefriend made it

Story: School Rumble - Just couldn't get it to be "Fun"

at Ep3 I was bored to death and the 2 leads irritated the hell out of me

Too bad, love the artwork enough to buy some figures of it

[yellowlightman]

Again, even though GOTF isn't intended to be propaganda, I dare say that it "works" in a similar way to how propaganda works-- by omitting bits of historical reality that might dampen the emotions the work's trying to invoke.  But for those who simply know more than the artist is willing to show, this just doesn't really work, and the story itself suffers.  And I think this effects its "merit" somewhat.  At any rate, I hardly think caring about historical reality and how that actually effects the intent of a telling is "baggage".  I think that's a pretty fair thing to be concerned about when an artist is making a statement by invoking history.

374400[/snapback]

"Historical reality," like how it was the kid's fault their country was at war and they died from starvation? Gimme a break. Good job missing the point of the movie, though. I bet you hated Schindler's List too, because it was the Jew's fault they had so much money and brought the Holocaust upon themselves.

Edited February 28, 2006 by yellowlightman

[Zentrandude]

Hellsing for me now, was ok in the first couple of episode then the storyline got stuck in a deep rutt. The last ep battle tried to be cool but failed to be.

[Noriko Takaya]

Okay, here's another series. I just finished watching Mezzo DSA on Sunday. What crap...

[MrDisco]

i haven't watched much lately, however one which i was a little disappointed in was Diamond Dust Drops.

[Spatula]

Visual: Xenosaga - 1985 animation with 1995 CGI in 2005

almost like Animefriend made it

Indeed, Xenosaga was crap. Xenosaga the ANIMATION? What a joke, more like the lack of any good animation. The lips weren't in sync with the dialogue, terrible animation, just god awful basterdization of the original story line and events of characters, and very little reason to watch this once you've beat the game.

Story: School Rumble - Just couldn't get it to be "Fun"

at Ep3 I was bored to death and the 2 leads irritated the hell out of me

Too bad, love the artwork enough to buy some figures of it

374434[/snapback]

I didn't quite like SR in the first few episodes because Tenma-chan had a SERIOUS case of ADD. No really. I just can't stand characters who's faces change every nano second that you can't even visualize in your mind what her normal face looks like. Harima Kenji was no better, what you'd call no brain, and fake brawn. Some episodes were hilarious, as when they visited the beach and Harima was "accused" of raping Erika. LOL.

Also, worst DAMNED ending ever. I mind as well spoil it now: basically the ending has a lot of "what if" scenarios, and in the end we have to assume Tenma confesses to the turtle boy, since the camera pans out and her confession is not audiable.

The 2 OVAs after that didn't help AT ALL. WTF.

[JELEINEN]

I didn't quite like SR in the first few episodes because Tenma-chan had a SERIOUS case of ADD.  No really.  I just can't stand characters who's faces change every nano second that you can't even visualize in your mind what her normal face looks like.  Harima Kenji was no better, what you'd call no brain, and fake brawn.  Some episodes were hilarious, as when they visited the beach and Harima was "accused" of raping Erika.  LOL.

Also, worst DAMNED ending ever.  I mind as well spoil it now: basically the ending has a lot of "what if" scenarios, and in the end we have to assume Tenma confesses to the turtle boy, since the camera pans out and her confession is not audiable. 

The 2 OVAs after that didn't help AT ALL.  WTF.

374553[/snapback]

The manga is still running. Second season of the anime is supposed to start this Fall. And for the record, I think it's one of the best commedies to come out in the last couple years.

[KingNor]

Again, even though GOTF isn't intended to be propaganda, I dare say that it "works" in a similar way to how propaganda works-- by omitting bits of historical reality that might dampen the emotions the work's trying to invoke.  But for those who simply know more than the artist is willing to show, this just doesn't really work, and the story itself suffers.  And I think this effects its "merit" somewhat.  At any rate, I hardly think caring about historical reality and how that actually effects the intent of a telling is "baggage".  I think that's a pretty fair thing to be concerned about when an artist is making a statement by invoking history.

374400[/snapback]

"Historical reality," like how it was the kid's fault their country was at war and they died from starvation? Gimme a break. Good job missing the point of the movie, though. I bet you hated Schindler's List too, because it was the Jew's fault they had so much money and brought the Holocaust upon themselves.

374459[/snapback]

The point is that the movie was saying:

"These kids (and by association: Japan) are being killed by war. How cruel and unjust war is being to these kids (and by association: Japan) who can't help but be in this situation."

The problem is that the association these kids have with japan is lost because its Japans own fault that they were in the war. The film uses the kids to symbolize japan as a whole. Yet Japan is hardly as innocent (as a country) of its plight as those children are.

No one will argue that children starving to death is a situation that the brought on themselves. So its pretty underhanded to use starving children to symbolise a country that arguably started the fight that got it in the situation it was in.

Thats my take on it anyway.

Edited February 28, 2006 by KingNor

[JELEINEN]

The point is that the movie was saying:

"These kids (and by association: Japan) are being killed by war.  How cruel and unjust war is being to these kids (and by association: Japan) who can't help but be in this situation."

The problem is that the association these kids have with japan is lost because its Japans own fault that they were in the war.  The film uses the kids to symbolize japan as a whole.  Yet Japan is hardly as innocent (as a country) of its plight as those children are.

No one will argue that children starving to death is a good thing.  So its pretty underhanded to use starving children to symbolise a country that arguably started the fight that got it in the situation it was in.

Thats my take on it anyway.

374622[/snapback]

You're kidding, right? If you're going to use the kids as a symbol of Japan as a whole, then at least come to the logical conclusion. The kids starve because they're neglected by their family and the people around them. In other words, other Japanese people. Therefore, if that was truly the symbolism intended by the film makers, then they're blaming themselves.

Personally, I think this point of view is completely unsupported by the film. If they had wanted to make the argument that you're making, then the enemy would have been portrayed as something other than an act of god/nature. For all intents and purposes, you could easily substitute an earthquake or volcano for the bombs and the film's meaning wouldn't change a bit. Really, what the film is saying is not all that complicated: people treat each other like poo.

Edited February 28, 2006 by JELEINEN

[Radd]

Again, even though GOTF isn't intended to be propaganda, I dare say that it "works" in a similar way to how propaganda works-- by omitting bits of historical reality that might dampen the emotions the work's trying to invoke.

374400[/snapback]

Propoganda to what end?

[Noyhauser]

The point is that the movie was saying:

"These kids (and by association: Japan) are being killed by war.  How cruel and unjust war is being to these kids (and by association: Japan) who can't help but be in this situation."

The problem is that the association these kids have with japan is lost because its Japans own fault that they were in the war.  The film uses the kids to symbolize japan as a whole.  Yet Japan is hardly as innocent (as a country) of its plight as those children are.

No one will argue that children starving to death is a situation that the brought on themselves.  So its pretty underhanded to use starving children to symbolise a country that arguably started the fight that got it in the situation it was in.

Thats my take on it anyway.

374622[/snapback]

Personally I can't watch most "historical films" because they are horribly inaccurate. I can't help but pull apart Saving Private Ryan for each and every inaccuracy, never mind its plot holes. And that goes for a whole host of other films as well. But with Hotaru no haka, I certainly disagree with the contention that this film ignores history in the ways that you would suggest. The film was adapted from an autobiographical story of Seita (who actually did survive). Its his experiences as a child, who wouldn’t be able to grasp such concepts. If anything it’s a tribute to his sister. The following is part of an interview done by the author of the book:

My sister's death is an exact match with the novel. It was one week after the end of the war. At the countryside of Fukui prefecture where I was, it was the day the restrictions on lighting were removed. It must have been the 22nd. It was evening, and I was picking up my sister's bones. I was coming home in a daze when I saw the village lit up. There was nothing like my surprise then. My sister died in my side of the world, and the light was coming back in the other.

Honestly speaking, there was also relief that she died and my burden was gone. No one would wake me up in the night like she did with her crying, and I wouldn't have to wander around with a child on my back any more. I'm very sorry to say this about my sister, but I did have those feelings too. That's why I haven't gone back to my novel (Grave of the Fireflies, published in 1967) to re-read it, since I hate that. It's so hypocritical. It must be absolutely true that Seita must have thought of his sister as a burden too. He must have thought that he could have escaped better if it weren't for her.

There are many things that I just couldn't get myself to write into the story. During composition, the older brother got increasingly transformed into a better human being. I was trying to compensate for everything I couldn't do myself. I always thought I wanted to perform these generous acts in my head, but I couldn't do so. I always thought I wouldn't eat and would give the food to my little sister, but when I actually had the piece of food in my hand, I was hungry after all, so I'd eat it. And there was nothing like the deliciousness of eating in a situation like that. And the pain that followed was just as big. I'd think there is no one more hopeless in the world than me. I didn't put anything about this in the novel.

http://nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/interview.html

I get the impression from this quote that the book was never about war and who was right or wrong but about these two children’s personal struggle, and as jelenien so put it "how people suck." ITs not supposed to answer those questions you want to saddle it with.

Moreover the choice of adapting this book begs the question, why would someone adapt it in the first place. We're talking about Isao Takaha and Miyazaki here. I don't think these two individuals are anywhere close to the right wing propagandists or apologists that both you and sundowner are trying to paint them as, or even individuals who are minutely ignorant of history. Miyazaki has always had left leaning tendencies, and I suspect he would be the first to acknowledge Japan's culpability in WW2. Watching both of their films, there is a clear message towards the aversion to war and violence. Look at Nausicaa, or Laputa.

In Nausicaa, the protagonist is all about peace and understanding with nature. You can draw clear lines with Dorok empire and how "bad" empires can be, even when righteous in their retaliation. Cooperation and understanding are key themes, and there isn't a wiff of apologizing for Japan’s atrocities in those films. To call Hotaru some sort of Japanese apologist piece, whether intentional or not, would be a major aberration from the themes these two artists have pounded over and over again.

However, when viewed through the lens of their other films, it is clear that this film does follow their long tradition in pacifism, and the view that certain individuals are the ones that are hurt the most by war. I think the use of Japan in 1945 was not intended as some apologist piece, but as a way for people to identify and understand the core message that they consistently try to get across.

So really, the contention that these directors are ignorant of history, doesn't really hold any water. I think they have been quite perceptive in the past about the causes of war, in ways that very few other artists ever have. Read Miyazaki's Nausicaa manga, and you'll see that.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Noyhauser

[Sumdumgai]

I haven't been reading the thread, but I'll just say Houshin Engi and Samurai Deeper Kyo are the two worst anime I've seen in the past few years along with Noir. Houshin Engi had crap animation and the story seemed retarded. Samurai Deeper Kyo I couldn't even sit through the first episode. Noir looked like it had promise, but was boring as hell and I didn't care for the characters. And there wasn't enough blood.

[Radd]

I thought Noir was terrible. Mind you, the action was excellenty done. However, I just could not get past the weak premise, and the virtually non-existant story or character developement.

If you're the sort who can forgive weak storytelling for beautifully crafted and stylistic action, Noir is really worth checking out. In that regard it was fantastic. Unfortunately, that's all it had going for it and that's not enough for me.

I saw a bit of Gantz a long time ago, before it was licensed. Absolutely terrible from what little I can recall. Unfortunately, it's been so long I can't really back that opinion up. I do recall the main character gained super strength while wearing a ridiculous suit, but only if he was thinking dirty thoughts or something like that.

I forget whether or not I've already mentioned Bleach in this particular thread, but it deserves another mention, if only because it failed so miserably to live up to the potential of the first 15 episodes or so. For a while, I really loved the show. It skirted the edge of being a stereotypical fight of the week anime, but managed to keep itself above that with some interesting characters and fun humour. However, it manages to drop all that before too long and become yet another DBZ-clone. By the time the main Ichigo and company head to Soul Society, most of the best characters become terribly contrived, or left out of the picture almost entirely. From then on, it's multiple episode fight scenes, and a whole lot of filler.

When that arc ends, it becomes painfully apparent that they're just trying to keep the show going, despite having run out of manga source material to work with.

Somewhat off topic, but still related, a extra special F***-YOU to Sony, for only releasing the heavily edited, americanized version of the recent Tetsuwan Atom/Astro Boy series to DVD. I hope you die in the second disc.

...

In a fire.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Radd

[KingNor]

You're kidding, right?

374626[/snapback]

No not really, though i'll admit its been a really long time since i watched this.

Now that i really think about it. I'd have to say that Dragon Ball Z is probably my least favorite Anime of all time.

I liked "Dragon Ball" alot but "Z" i didn't like at all.

The characters (besides picolo), the story, the plot, the pacing, the locations, the animation, their diagetic world.. i didn't/don't (is it still running?) like any of it.

Maybe its just the american version but something that really annoyed me was how they constantly were saying "I'm going to send him to another demension". Couldn't they just suck up the nuts to say "I'm gonna kill him" or something?

I realize goku died (or something) and spent like 4 months as a halo wearing guy, but wasn't that because he was "dead" and not "sent to another demension"?

anyway DBZ ew.