Me: I should watch anime thats critically acclaimed and has won

>>149831385
>I should watch anime thats critically acclaimed and has won multiple awards and shit.
Please fuck off. And kill yourself.

File: 1454526642234.jpg (116KB, 762x720px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 762x720px

>>149831432
Naw

File: 1430274336056.png (210KB, 506x556px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 506x556px

>>149831385
>critically acclaimed anime

This is my favorite oxymoron

>>149831432
>>149831524
>Critically acclaimed by /a/
happy?

>>149831587
It's still fucking retarded.
Do you really believe in a hivemind with the perfect taste or something like that?

>>149831611
Oh my fucking god anon. There are obviously anime that are commonly praised for being good because they are fucking good. That isn't hive mind

>>149831544
>>149831611
dubs

>>149831660
With the exception of Kino, Yotsuba and maybe 2 or 3 other titles, you can only get a largely positive resonance by drowning out the haters, or if it's something so obscure that there's only 2 people bringing it up at all.
/a/ is not a meet-up of critics anyway. It's a place for people to watch whatever they want. If you want to watch popular stuff, fine. But don't pretend that a noble endeavor.

>>149831611
Why is the anime community the only one that doesn't believe objectivity exists? This is why no one takes us seriously. An objectively good show does not mean everyone will like it. Objectivity does not equal mass appeal. It simply means the people who's subjective taste does line up with it will think it is executed far better better than, and thus far more enjoyable than, any similar show. This is why reviewers generally make it clear who the show will appeal to and who it won't appeal to beforehand. Objectivity can only exist within genres or niches. Of course someone who only watches Moe SoL won't enjoy LOGH as much as someone who only watches sci-fi.

Luckily for you, that show is both.

>>149831977
Where are you even getting that from? Did you just want to say that and quote me by accident or are you reading more into the post than you should?

>Anyone else suffer from this problem?
stupidity?

>>149832041
You implied that we shouldn't watch shows just because they're acclaimed. I'm saying you should because as long as you are a fan of the genre, and the people doing the acclaiming are being objective, then your chances of liking it are near 100%. Hell, even if you despise the genre it's still more likely to entertain you than just picking some show completely randomly and hoping you like it.

>>149831977
ny'es dub's
reminder that if you report blogshit it usually gets deleted

>>149832461
>You implied that we shouldn't watch shows just because they're acclaimed.
No, I did not.
So I guess that means you were reading too much into my post.