Was typing up a response to the thread dicking on KnnW when it

>>160037999
What on human earth are you talking about anon

>>160037999
ket ai, uh, finds a way

>>160037999
That anon was just shitting on it to fit in, normie shit as usual, no point in getting mad over it.

>>160038705
Oh, found what you were talking about

kek

What's the big deal, anon?

>>160038790
Someone said kimi no na wa had bland main characters and wondered why people liked the movie so much

What I find confusing is why some people gauge their opinion on a story purely by the main character alone, and why a "bland" main character completely ruins the entire story.

There's been plenty of film and stories in which the main character is either average and bland or just a fucking asshole, that didn't mean the story sucked.

>>160039493
And by this I'm talking about the people who asks "why do people like X so much? The main character is so bland"

It seems /a/ in particular has been hit with this shit so much due to most of the audience literally self-inserting themselves into the main characters. If those main characters entail personalities that do not align to their own, then they label them as "bland".

It's what happens when you remove an air of spectatorship of a narrative and have your audience directy inject themselves into the story.

>>160037999
lol

>>160039493
>>160039683

I can see where you're coming from, honestly. An audience's tendency to "self-insert" will affect the story negatively, more often than not.

However, it IS important to have good, well-written characters. Being an asshole isn't even a bad thing - and can be a good thing - as long as the how and the why are effectively written. A bland, boring character, however, can end up hurting the story more often than not. The main character should be the main character for a reason. Without reason to see them as more than just "robots", the story loses at least part of its effectiveness. Without a proper drive, the story suffers.

That having been said, I disagree with the claim that Taki and Mitsuha are bland or tasteless. Both have their own personalities.

>>160037999
6 DAYS

Taki has less charactierisation similar to shinkai's old characters which are more self inserts for the audience
I don't see how anyone can complain about Mitsuha though, they are a step above the typical anime tropes in any case

>>160043080

>Taki has less charactierisation similar to shinkai's old characters which are more self inserts for the audience
You knew this was bullshit as you were typing it.

>>160043123
Nah he has that role for the most part
also he is a little more fleshed out in the novel compared to the film which leans more toward Mitsuha.

File: 1489989235393.jpg (34KB, 309x384px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 309x384px

>main characters are bland stereotypes
>characters drive the story which is centered on them
>thus bland main characters ruin the story that is based around them
I don't give a shit about this movie or know anything about it, but this logically fallacy you typed up was astoundingly stupid. I hope you don't post here frequently with the amount of brain cells you obvious have missing. Carry on with your retardation.

>>160043275
that greentext makes no sense, anon. Don't give people shit about brain cells when you failed to use even your own.

Basically: please be more specific. Unless you were planning on having people misinterpret your sentence because they got a different context out of it.