All anime critics are in one of these categories: 1. Has never actually watched anime and has only seen the pilot of the series they're reviewing 2. Has seen all the "classics" and scorns any anime that isn't one of those 3. Has seen literally every anime and thinks this makes his viewpoint valid, despite little understanding of what makes narrative actually good
The first category is only for shitty sites like IGN. You can tell why the other two are pretentious.
I've never read anime critics, but what the fuck do they even write about? Like, >The boobs in this episode were perfectly round and looked like they'd feel good in my hand. >The boobs in this episode were a little all over the place at times. >The panties in this episode were slightly lacking in detail, I couldn't get hard very easily.
Most of them just give a basic analysis of the plot and other general shit and add their opinions over it. Literally anybody can do this so they make it sound pretentious in an effort to distinguish themselves.
>>136366944 Anime is incredibly diverse when you think about it. Yes it has a lot of cliches that bleed through everything, but the same counts for every single medium and genre. The only purpose a critic in general has is to explain why something is or is not worthy of your time according to there opinion. Or they are genuinely entertaining while being able to break the subject down, which is something not a lot of critics are able to do.
>Trying to critique the story of an adaptation without having read the source material >Confusing animation with art direction >Trying to make anime seem deep and profound >Not understanding who the target audience for a show is
There are others, but these are the most common that I see.
Anime is an incredibly subjective medium because it relies so heavily on sexual/romantic preferences. For example, I hate OreImo but someone who loves incest and bitchy girls might consider it the best show ever. We both think we're right and hate that other people disagree.
Not him but Demo's "serious" reviews tend to just fall under the "describes the anime and adds his opinions over it" category, which is ok I guess since it's not like he's a hardcore critic and is just trying to recommend a show.
Art critics can look at a random painting drawn by a chimp and come up with bullshit about how the random line represents the chaos of an artist's mind. Hell, art critics HAVE praised random paintings drawn by a chimp before.
Food critics come up with so many buzzwords like "deconstructed" and "rustic" that most people who make food don't even know what a food critic is saying. Blindfolded food critics have also been known to praise cheap goods like canned spam.
Wine tasters are even more bullshit, since they've been known to praise one glass and rail another while blindfolded even though it was actually the exact same wine (and yes, it is the same taster and no large amount of time passed between the tastings).
For every critic that knows what they're doing, there's several that are just bullshitting. I don't think many people who would know how to critique anime will waste time posting rants on Youtube and would probably do something more productive with their skills.
>>136368969 By watching anime as a way to past time like it's meant to be. When would it possibly useful in my life to know a literally who's opinion on Monogatari? Why would I even bring that up in a conversation?
>>136366850 The worst are the faggots who get hung up on fan service and act like they're above it all when the irony exists that they're just the type of manchildren who get uncomfortable at girl bits.
The only person I know that is an actual professional anime critic and not a youtuber is that guy in Japan whose name I can't remember. He has a tv show and everything, it's framed like Siskel and Ebert At the Movies.
I've read and watched plenty of critics, but this dude is my dude.
I think a lot of anime critics end up being pretentious because they feel the need to take this shit super seriously, because they fear that so many people out there don't take anime seriously at all. This guy makes it plain that all this shit is ridiculous, but he also knows what the fuck he's talking about, has good taste, and is obviously an /a/non.
The whole point of critics is you find one whose views often align with your own and use that tool to decide what to or what to not waste your time on.
>>136369683 Why is this such a bad thing, if anything you guys are the one breaking board rules by being meta, if popular youtubers want to post here about anime I'm all for it, /a/ is for anime just because we of the younger generation grew up watching youtubers along with anime doesn't mean we can't join in.
>>136369706 because 4chan is first and foremostly an anon community. If tripping became an accepted norm that'd be at odds with the whole prerogative of the site. People act differently when they have a name next to their post.
>>136367661 to be fair to the first one, there is merit in reviewing something based on the premise that someone hasn't read the source, nor intends too.
I mean, what's the purpose of a "review" (atleast outside the entertainment through reveiw type, like Demo), its to inform the viewer on whether they should watch the show, so unless you can expect your target audience to be OK with reading the manga (which, I think its fair to assume most people who watch these kind of anime reviews on youtube are not OK with doing), then reviewing based on that is valid.
They problem with most anime reviewers is...well they're just anime fans. Most movie reviewers understand the craft of filmmaking, they've studied this shit and understand why good movies are good and bad movies are bad. They usually have some experience in the industry themselves.
I didn't agree with Roger Ebert in a lot of his reviews, in fact I almost universally sided with Gene Siskel when they disagreed, but it didn't change that he understood what he was talking about. Yeah he liked Tomb Raider, but everyone's allowed to like a bad movie once in a while.
>>136369991 It's not a matter of who's tolerated, tripfags are part of the tapestry that makes up /a/ whether or not everybody rejects them. Also Bear is more or less tolerated. Also they're both faggots.
>>136369706 It's important to remember that a huge part of the value of /a/ is that it is elitist and xenophobic. If /a/ were openly accepting of anything as socially flawed as the youtube community then it would no longer hold value.
>>136370036 Also, it's difficult for people to really study the industry because western fans have no real access to it. So they're made up of people who look at it from an outside view.
Steve Ressel has written many books and reviews on western animation, but he also has the credentials of being the director of most of the big name Nickelodeon cartoons (Rugrats, Rocko, Ah Real Monsters, Wild Thornberries all episodes of Invader Zim except the pilot) and Duckman (which I think is his best work, but he apparently hates it). He is someone that understands what goes into making a cartoon and why shows fail or succeed.
Do we have people like that in the west? No, they're too separated from the industry. They exist in Japan, there ARE professional reviewers, but they're mostly unheard of outside of Japan.
Fred Patten is legit. The guy worked with the anime industry directly from the 70s to the mid 90s, oftentimes alongside the original creators themselves. If ANYONE in the west should be given the rather pretentious title of "anime expert", it's him. He was trying to bring anime to the west back when Carl Macek was still in college.
>>136370261 >>136370357 >Apparently he's a furry. Yeah that's putting it lightly. He wrote a book on the subject according to wikipedia
>Funny Animals and More: From Anime to Zoomorphics
and he was an editor to the following books
>Best in Show: Fifteen Years of Outstanding Furry Fiction >Already Among Us; An Anthropomorphic Anthology >Anthropomorphic Aliens; An Interstellar Anthology >The Furry Future: 19 Possible Prognostications >An Anthropomorphic Century: Stories from 1909 to 2008
But shit, he's in his 70s. When you get that old I say like whatever you want.
Generally I hate critics. I only sometimes read random analysis, especially those who try to come up their own interpretation, without making it a review.
The only good "review" I saw was a dude pointing out why Space Dandy was great from a directing point of view, how on every episode it embodies a different style which is actually has a precise meaning, trying to make a mix of what actually makes anime in general so appealing. Too bad I can't find it anymore.
>>136367776 And these so called "critics" always believe their opinion is 100% valid and stands upon all other forms of opinions. They seem to believe "This show can only be enjoyed by people like me, therefore it's shit if it couldn't do that."
>>136369982 It's more towards the fact that they apply the wrong mentality towards certain shows. Which is why, at the very least, being aware of the source material is necessary. Imagine someone arguing about the lack of story on an ecchi anime. They're just setting themselves up as idiots at that point.
>>136367661 >Trying to critique the story of an adaptation without having read the source material If you have to read the source material to understand what's going on in the anime then the anime suck.
>>136374433 Also because of the fact the room for discussion on 'reviews' is very different to a post on an imageboard some other discussion format where you can reply and guarantee a response and dissent/conflict due to differences in opinion. On top of the ignorance and the retards that do reviews , the fact that they're presented in a shitty format makes it so much worse.
I only come to /a/ to gauge reactions on seasonal shows before I pick which ones to watch first. I've been doing this for seven years. There's no point in arguing about anime when you can just let the autists fight it out and cherry pick your recommendations from that.
Writers for Anime News Network? Yeah, I agree. It's pretty much what this guy says: >>136366850
There is good writing on the topic of anime though. You have to go out of your way to find it. A lot of it is on volunteer blogs on Wordpress and whatnot. As a rule, avoid anything with a numerical rating scale.
My guess is that most people on /a/ simply don't read "critics" because we prefer decentralized discussion (such as the kinds we have) to bedside reading where we passively consume someone else's opinions.
>>136366742 Because the job of a critic is to be a pretentious twat. That's very easy to do when you have no experience in the production of the actual art due to a severe lack of talent, and therefore being jaded towards it.
>>136368049 That mindset has always been offense to me. I'm working on building my portfolio to work at an animation studio in the city (or really any studio that'll hire me), but I can most likely create much better art than that anon.
Do you honestly want to listen to some goon who is just an animation student at a university AT BEST for their opinions on cartoons? It's no different than an opinion from one of your peers, except they're not actually one of your peers, they present themselves as 'anime reviewers'
>>136376410 Most numerical ratings are just critics patting themselves on the back about how critical they are. "This was a great show, I'd say a 7/10 though because I'm very hard to impress." It's tiresome.
>>136381455 Well, it also boils down to people comparing apples and oranges. A simple quality spectrum can't really account for differences between genres. For instance, a reviewer might be reluctant to rate both Welcome to the NHK and Azumanga Daioh a 10/10, even if he thought both were masterpieces, because NHK might have a strict advantage owing to the seriousness of its subject matter. That's part of a general bias against slice-of-life anime that you see in critics though.
>>136381514 well then that critic is shit then. if they cant realize that Azumanga Daioh does what it sets out to do just as well as NHK does what it sets out to do despite the two being completely different then they shouldnt be a critic.
>>136370043 It's important to remember that a huge part of the value of /a/ is that it is elitist and xenophobic. If /a/ were openly accepting of anything as socially flawed as the youtube community then it would no longer hold value.
It is less socially acceptable to post on 4chan than it is to post on YouTube.
>>136369982 >>136374410 Many people who will watch an adaptation anime are fans of the original source or might be interested in reading the source if they liked the show. A critic who can't even comment on the original source is utterly worthless for at least half the people who would bother watching his review.
>>136382611 You do see some of them talking about framing and composition but it's in very vague terms and they never bother explaining what they mean. I get the feeling they are imitating film critics by doing this. I'm willing to give some of them the benefit of the doubt and assume they've actually studied film and know what they're talking about when they mention these things, but if so they fail catastrophically in understanding who their audience is for these critiques. Because unlike film critics writing in a film journal, their audience isn't other experts who've studied film, it's just normal, often underage fanboys and girls. Their audience hasn't studied film, they've at best looked up wikipedia articles for the various terms that were dropped.
Of course I still believe the vast majority of them are full of shit and never explain themselves because they actually can't. They also tend to stick to very well known series or stuff that's already been critically analyzed and end up never saying anything new. I can't even count how many desperate-to-be-taken-seriously anime critics have thrown their hat into the ring on Monogatari.
>>136382923 >They also tend to stick to very well known series or stuff that's already been critically analyzed and end up never saying anything new. This is true too. You might as well stick with the recommendation images /a/ has made over the years since you're going to find the same series there.
Nice thread OP. To criticize means point out flaws based on a very personal point of view, which means that the criteria of the critic doesn't have to match yours. Since you can have your own opinion of something, critics word shouldn't be taken as a fact, but rather to analyze your own opinion of the topic. That being said, most of critics are pseudointellectuals that do nothing more than believe their judgement on something is the only truth, completely dismissing the point of the whole thing, which is (I think) why /a/ finds listening to these guys so useless.
>>136366742 >These threads >Thinly veiled attempts at advertising youtube channels and/or other internet media >If not originally an attempt, some "content creator" will pop in and do just that >Mods do nothing
Where were you when /a/ became full of normalfags trying to fit in?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.