Before I reply, I just want to say I only read the initial post.
Kaimax wrote...
I really still think these people are stupid and fail to realize the true purpose of these titles.
Yes and no. They certainly do not recognize the true purpose of the titles you've put up. However, I'm rather sure that everybody, subconsciously at least, realizes the purpose of the show: to draw in more viewers.
In my opinion, one of the most important parts of being a critic, or even a knowledgeable viewer of something, is to realize intent for the show. For example, you do not judge comedy on the basis of a drama that is not present - you judge it on the comedy. If you go into a slice-of-life expecting action, a satire expecting a mecha, or a psychological or philosophical work expecting no analysis or reflection necessary, you're doing something horribly wrong. To be a knowledgeable viewer, you need to be
an informed viewer, at least willing to put in the effort to pre-gauge a work by its target and recognizing truthfully whether or not the work is for you. Simply? If it is not to your liking by the very description itself, do not watch it. Criticisms do not need to be heard from people who are prejudiced against the show from the onset.
Of course, this lays way to another interesting thing I've noted. This is the "ardent defender", who seems to use the argument of "intent" to defend a show, no matter how bad. I find these people just as annoying as the former. The argument of purpose is only valid when the purpose itself is being actively striven for, and when the subject actually manages to fulfill that purpose. Deviations and failures must be objectively viewed, and this is
not over-analysis. This is viewing the show through an objective lens. Defending what's wrong is just as moronic as fighting what's correct.
I will never look at comedy and say, "gee, it was good, but it needed more death and violence." That wasn't the point. What I will say, however, is "Wow, that was fucking stupid" when a comedy show attempts to do drama and fails miserably. You cannot defend this failure by arguing "intent" because it wasn't the intent in the first place, and even if it was, it was done poorly. You cannot say "The show didn't take itself seriously, so you shouldn't have" - if the characters and scenario take themselves seriously,
you should. On the flipside,
I will immensely enjoy the plethora of generic harem and ecchi shows, complete with cliches and what have you, but when it comes down to it, it's likely that they were mediocre in their execution and subject matter.
For example, to take note of one of the examples you used, I'll talk about Blood-C. "That's not the Saya that I know and Love, and there's no Chiropteran" is not a valid criticism. A valid criticism of the show is as follows: "drags on far too long in the ludicrously boring S.o.L. segments and takes itself seriously (and expects the audience to) at the end of the episode. There is absolutely no plot action in the show." This is why I think Blood-C is a horrible show. Here are some more examples, following. Sacred Seven has characters that take themselves seriously in a setting that doesn't, and where events (most notably, the maid guard) have broken my suspension of disbelief. Yumekui Merry tried too hard to be serious when all it did was manage to show how bad whoever the writer of the show was at developing character. Ano Hana succeeded at being a tearjerker, but failed on so many other fronts that I can't say it's anything above "good."
EDIT: Also, since you seem to be frequenting this thread Kai, can you tell me what this means?
ãã®ãƒ›ãƒ†ãƒ«ã«ã¯åå‰ã®ä»˜ã„ã¦ã„る和室ãŒã‚ã‚‹
That "no" in between "namae" and "tsuite iru" is tripping me up.