Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:I used to be more open minded about anime but after seeing enough to make a decision about it I came to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of it is simply awful.
I can even give a few reasons for my opinion: (note that while not all anime posses these traits most posses one or more)

1. The charachters do not behave realistically: they go from slaughtering people/monsters to going hysterical over candy or ramen. It would be like watching john mcclain gun down six bad guys in Die Hard then throwing a tantrum and crying when he finds out his ex changed her name back.
2.too predictable. you know how the hero is going to win it's just a matter of time before they go "super saiyan" or unleash their inner demon or form voltron. obviously this applies mostly to the shounen(?) ones but I've seen it elsewhere as well.
3.admittedly this one is strictly my opinion but they depart too much from reality. I understand the concept of suspension of disbelief but they will ignore gravity for no reason other than they are in the middle of a fight and they think it looks cool or cut a airship in half with sword. or they will drastically change the direction of the story when they have several episodes of a series where everything seems more or less ordinary and then something happens and you can't help wondering if you're even watching the same show.Akira was a prime example of this with the giant blob at the end I couldn't figure out why people liked that show so much.

Other reasons include nonsensical premises, poor translation and/or voice acting, and kiddie heroes in an adult world.

There is a ton of a good anime that doesn't even invovle "Heros" or "Bad Guys", with swords guns or anything of that nature. I don't think you're honestly qualified to make statements about "Most" anime if you're talking about elements not even found in most genres of anime.

Chongara wrote:
There is a ton of a good anime that doesn't even invovle "Heros" or "Bad Guys"

Would you feel better if he had used the terms antagonist and protagonist instead? Or is it time for SEMANTIC FIGHTING TO GO OVER 9000!?!?!?!?!?!?

Ahtman wrote:

Chongara wrote:
There is a ton of a good anime that doesn't even invovle "Heros" or "Bad Guys"

Would you feel better if he had used the terms antagonist and protagonist instead? Or is it time for SEMANTIC FIGHTING TO GO OVER 9000!?!?!?!?!?!?

Not really. The words have different connotations. You also can't ignore context , he was using the words in relation to 1) "Slaughtering people/monsters" 2) "slicing airships in half". 3) "ignoring gravity in the middle of a fight." It seemed clear to me at least, that in the post I quoted "Good Guy" was being used to mean "Protagonist in an action-oriented story that is depicted as holding moral high ground, who fights quite literally and physically the "Bad Guy" antagonist".

While it's certainly fine not to like the elements he is describing it's still not fair to ascribe them to "most" anime, when a great many don't even contain so much as a single fight scene, or even conflicts where someone is clearly holding the moral high ground.

It's like hearing a handful rap songs and suddenly feeling qualified to talk about "most" music of every type from classical to metal and polka.

I disagree with just about everything you said. Most anime does have those things in comparison to the ones that do not. Sure there is a bit of exaggeration there to make the point but the reality is that the great majority of anime is a male adolescent power trip with busty chicks and super weapons regardless of whether it they are swords or orbital lasers. The philosophical underpinnings also tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep. They pseudo-philosophical musings that don't stand up to serious scrutiny and are of the type that appeal to younger people. Now this obliviously doesn't account for the entirety of anime, as I said before, becuase there is some out there that is the opposite in many ways.

You seem to be holding a myopic view where you are just seeing what you want to see in anime and using at a justification for it's defense. Most of it does have a hero/villian, most of it does involve conflict with a moral high ground. Most of it does have a fight scene of some sort contained within. The ones that don't are the exception, not the rule. Even so, there are still good ones that fall into that pattern and bad ones that don't. Just meeting or be anathema to the mainstream anime tropes doesn't determine the quality of any given story.

Now I'm only going off my 30 years of anime watching and degrees in studying Eastern culture and history, and you don't have to agree at all, but I am, of course quite correct, as usual.

Well there are a lot of people here whop appreciate high art anime, and none, other than myself has mentioned Last Exile. Methinks there are some quality animation buffs who might appreciate a link or two.
Its gothic steampunk anime, so with al l the 40K players here it shopuld go down well.

Saucer eyes are kept to a minimum, sailor suit girls do turn up in moderation though it does go offscale. Still flying gothic battleships with outriggers fitted with giant chainsaws have something to be said for them, Last Exile out Imperiums the Imperium.

...then you have ones with ambiguous morality like the second Vampire Hunter D movie, Appleseed (In the manga moreso then the anime), Blade of the Immortal, Cyber City Oedo 808, Bubblegum Crisis (moreso the original then the later series), Those who Hunt Elves (being the most morally ambiguous comedy I've ever seen. 'Yes, we'll save your village, but afterward you have to strip naked!"), Pandora Hearts (to a degree), Black Lagoon (the cast seems to have heard of morality at some point, but it's a vague concept to everyone but Rock)and Witch Hunter Robin...

@Baron- 'Ya think we should warn those whom are uninitiated to such about hentai?

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, the first FMA anime was nice. The only useless girls fawning over the male characters and being "protected" were rose and winry, and both of them had counterpoints in lust and hawkeye. The new series doesn't do so well in this regard, but it's still not bad. It would be nice if any of the shonen jump series weren't just male power fantasies with absolutely useless female "support" casts though.

The newer FMA is just a load of crap, honestly. I've heard that it is more like the manga, but still. They did the animation to Brotherhood poorly compared to the original. I wouldn't say Winry is useless, but I will admit that she doesn't do very much other than repair his arm and leg a few times.

HERESY.

Poor animation...? Really? Compare it to standards your usual main stream shonen anime and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Also, FMA is one of those few anime that doesn't suffer DBZ syndrom.

As for anime in general, I mostly avoid the overly cheery stuff.

focusedfire wrote:@Baron- 'Ya think we should warn those whom are uninitiated to such about hentai?

Those Who Hunt Elves was not, strictly speaking, Hentai. Since if I recall correctly, you never actually see anything other then butts. For those looking for hentai, go watch either Ogenki Clinic or Bible Black. That ought to cure what ails you!

Ketara wrote:Just to those who were moaning about the women in FMA:-

Have you actually seen Major General Armstrong? You know, the woman who physically beats the crap out of her muscular brother, then drags him back for more? Or Izumi Curtis, who smacks so many characters around, it's ridiculous? I swear, regardless of sexism being prevalent in anime or not, there isn't much in FMA.

Yes, I know, thats why when I as the only person to say something similar to what you're ranting against said that they had a few crying pairs of boobs with no real active role in the show except to allow the hero to save them I noted that there was another female character doing the opposite.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ketara wrote:Just to those who were moaning about the women in FMA:-

Have you actually seen Major General Armstrong? You know, the woman who physically beats the crap out of her muscular brother, then drags him back for more? Or Izumi Curtis, who smacks so many characters around, it's ridiculous? I swear, regardless of sexism being prevalent in anime or not, there isn't much in FMA.

Yes, I know, thats why when I as the only person to say something similar to what you're ranting against said that they had a few crying pairs of boobs with no real active role in the show except to allow the hero to save them I noted that there was another female character doing the opposite.

I think you're agreeing with me, but the lack of punctuation makes it difficult to be sure.....

chromedog wrote:They were the ONLY good giant-robo stories.

Every gundam series after this is made of fail.

I loved Gurren Lagaan.

Something tells me you've only seen the original series of FMA....

Basically, roundabouts where Greed and his crew get done in, the original manga, and the original anime diverged, because the anime had caught up to the manga. That was why it ended so badly, and the plot just tailed off. However, the manga has a completely different storyline that's about five times better. About six months ago, they started redoing the anime to follow the manga storyline. It's called Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood.

Hahahaha No. The series restart has by far the inferior storyline. It has bigger fights, more colorful enemies, and is about as thin as air.

In the proper storyline, Izumi gets a much larger role. Not only that, they introduce another of Armstrongs sisters, Major General Armstrong. She's deadly in a fight, cold, and ruthless. Think Ice Queen style. She also challenges Armstrong to a fight to inherit their fathers mansion, and actually physically beats the crap out of him and wins.

A fight that she wins for no reason other than to win it. She punches him through walls (how?) into the sky (how?) gets him in headlocks (how?) and a dozen other things. Thats not good storytelling, she was barely in the first series because she should have been an ancillary character that leads a faction of the military. As for Izumi getting a larger role, that has not yet materialized, and given the heavy involvement she had in the first series I question when it will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ketara wrote:Just to those who were moaning about the women in FMA:-

Have you actually seen Major General Armstrong? You know, the woman who physically beats the crap out of her muscular brother, then drags him back for more? Or Izumi Curtis, who smacks so many characters around, it's ridiculous? I swear, regardless of sexism being prevalent in anime or not, there isn't much in FMA.

Yes, I know, thats why when I as the only person to say something similar to what you're ranting against said that they had a few crying pairs of boobs with no real active role in the show except to allow the hero to save them I noted that there was another female character doing the opposite.

I think you're agreeing with me, but the lack of punctuation makes it difficult to be sure.....

Actually I was telling you not to disagree with me when you agree with me. I posted before you.

WARNING:-POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THIS POST!

Hahahaha No. The series restart has by far the inferior storyline. It has bigger fights, more colorful enemies, and is about as thin as air.

I could say something about subjectivity, but did you ever actually consider the number of plotholes in that crappy animators on the fly storyline? I could go into huge amounts of detail on it, but suffice to say, the way homunculus were meant to be killed, from the bad guys true identity, to hohenheim getting killed off, were all executed with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, that barely hung together. It was a barely credible, barely coherent storyline made up by people who write filler for naruto. If that's to your taste, fair play to you.

A fight that she wins for no reason other than to win it. She punches him through walls (how?) into the sky (how?) gets him in headlocks (how?) and a dozen other things. Thats not good storytelling, she was barely in the first series because she should have been an ancillary character that leads a faction of the military. As for Izumi getting a larger role, that has not yet materialized, and given the heavy involvement she had in the first series I question when it will.

Errr.......You're complaining about realism in a series that has people reconstructing radios by drawing magic circles on the ground? The whole joke about the Armstrong family is that everyone in it is strong even if they don't look it. That's where the other sister and her hobby of lifting the piano come from. I was commenting on how she was not a character portrayed in a sexist way. Whether you think a woman beating up a large muscleman is more realistic than people fusing dogs and children together using magic powers is no concern, or interest of mine.

And Izumi Curtis is one of the human sacrifices, so I'd say she's pretty major.

EDIT:- Major General Armstrong actually wasn't in the first series, because she hadn't been introduced in the manga at that point. You're thinking of Armstrong's younger sister, not his older one. And actually, the reason she won the fight was for comedy. A concept you seem to find hard to grasp, examining your thought process above.

I could say something about subjectivity, but did you ever actually consider the number of plotholes in that crappy animators on the fly storyline? I could go into huge amounts of detail on it, but suffice to say, the way homunculus were meant to be killed, from the bad guys true identity, to hohenheim getting killed off, were all executed with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, that barely hung together. It was a barely credible, barely coherent storyline made up by people who write filler for naruto. If that's to your taste, fair play to you.

Not all those complaints aren't justified, which just compounds how much worse the current series is.

Errr.......You're complaining about realism in a series that has people reconstructing radios by drawing magic circles on the ground?

No, I'm complaining about gakky writing.

The whole joke about the Armstrong family is that everyone in it is strong even if they don't look it. That's where the other sister and her hobby of lifting the piano come from. I

Yes and in the last series it was just that. A joke. In this series a major piece of plot hinges on it, which makes it less of a joke and more of another case of awful writing.

I was commenting on how she was not a character portrayed in a sexist way. Whether you think a woman beating up a large muscleman is more realistic than people fusing dogs and children together using magic powers is no concern, or interest of mine.

You were commenting on a conversation that never existed. Sorry for ignoring your complaints. I was talking about your insistence that the new series somehow holds up better than the old one (glad to see kimbly can summon a drachma army in less than a day to attack a heavily fortified position as the leader despite being from the country that they would attack. That makes sense).

And Izumi Curtis is one of the human sacrifices, so I'd say she's pretty major.

Not really.

EDIT:- Major General Armstrong actually wasn't in the first series, because she hadn't been introduced in the manga at that point. You're thinking of Armstrong's younger sister, not his older one. And actually, the reason she won the fight was for comedy. A concept you seem to find hard to grasp, examining your thought process above.

Comedy for comedies sake is fine. Comedy when major plot points hinges on the outcome of that comedy is not. If she just beat him up thats comedy, thats funny. She beat him up, got the estate, and launched a massive surprise military assault from it. Thats not comedy, thats gak writing based on an unrealistic and "comedic" happenstance. That is gak writing. A concept you seem to find hard to grasp.

Ketara, why are you bothering to explain something to mister knows it all? His reputation should keep you out of these situations.

Soladrin wrote:Ketara, why are you bothering to explain something to mister knows it all? His reputation should keep you out of these situations.

Why do you come into threads to tell people not to bother talking to me? I'm pretty sure I could be reporting you for all the times that you do it, but I really just want to know why. You rarely have anything useful to add to conversations so I can see the reasoning from a content perspective, but why just me? Dogma is a knowitall as is ahtman and reds8n.

WARNING! SPOILERS!

Not all those complaints aren't justified, which just compounds how much worse the current series is.

No, I'm complaining about gakky writing.

Again, the point I just made about subjectivity springs to mind.....

Yes and in the last series it was just that. A joke. In this series a major piece of plot hinges on it, which makes it less of a joke and more of another case of awful writing.

Err........Hang on. Let me get this straight. Please clarify this for me. You thought that her storing a couple of troops underneath her dads mansion was a MAJOR piece of the plot? As opposed something like Wrath surviving, or the plan to turn the entire country into a giant stone? In that case, something like Greed/Lin not seeming to know how to solidify completely until his current fight with Wrath must positively have you foaming at the mouth, as well as being a MAJOR piece of the plot.

You seem to find it difficult to differentiate between a small plot device to allow the storyline to move forward and a 'major piece of plot' And if I'm wrong, and you can differentiate, then your getting so worked up about a small plot device to allow the storyline to move forward is at best, amusing.

I was commenting on how she was not a character portrayed in a sexist way. Whether you think a woman beating up a large muscleman is more realistic than people fusing dogs and children together using magic powers is no concern, or interest of mine.

You were commenting on a conversation that never existed. Sorry for ignoring your complaints.

Et tu brutus...?

A fight that she wins for no reason other than to win it. She punches him through walls (how?) into the sky (how?) gets him in headlocks (how?) and a dozen other things.

Your questioning of the physical mechanics led me to assume that was your issue with it. Don't blame me for your poorly thought out argument and miscommunication.

I was talking about your insistence that the new series somehow holds up better than the old one

Insistence? Yes. That's my personal opinion. What I find incredulous is that you hold a series as terrible as the original as somehow superior to the current. Care to give me a good five examples in how the original (which is to say, episodes 27-52, as the initial ones are identical), is superior. And in ways not entirely subjective please, or your opinion is no better than mine, and having judged it wanting, I can safely disregard it.

Comedy for comedies sake is fine. Comedy when major plot points hinges on the outcome of that comedy is not. If she just beat him up thats comedy, thats funny. She beat him up, got the estate, and launched a massive surprise military assault from it. Thats not comedy, thats gak writing based on an unrealistic and "comedic" happenstance. That is gak writing. A concept you seem to find hard to grasp.

Again, major...? Really...? If we're completely honest here, it didn't matter who got the estate, she would have bullied Alex around, and launched the attack from it anyway. The fight actually had NO REAL RELEVANCE other than comedy. A concept you seem to find hard to grasp....

ShumaGorath wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Ketara, why are you bothering to explain something to mister knows it all? His reputation should keep you out of these situations.

Why do you come into threads to tell people not to bother talking to me? I'm pretty sure I could be reporting you for all the times that you do it, but I really just want to know why. You rarely have anything useful to add to conversations so I can see the reasoning from a content perspective, but why just me? Dogma is a knowitall as is ahtman and reds8n.

Well, first, you left me out of the knowitall category, and second, frankly, if i didn't think it was a waste of time, I'd probably do the same thing...

Edit: Now that I've said that, I half expect fatebringer/kanwulen to suddenly appear and tell me how wrong I am.

Err........Hang on. Let me get this straight. Please clarify this for me. You thought that her storing a couple of troops underneath her dads mansion was a MAJOR piece of the plot? As opposed something like Wrath surviving, or the plan to turn the entire country into a giant stone? In that case, something like Greed/Lin not seeming to know how to solidify completely until his current fight with Wrath must positively have you foaming at the mouth, as well as being a MAJOR piece of the plot.

There can be multiple major plot points you know.

You seem to find it difficult to differentiate between a small plot device to allow the storyline to move forward and a 'major piece of plot' And if I'm wrong, and you can differentiate, then your getting so worked up about a small plot device to allow the storyline to move forward is at best, amusing.

You brought the instance up initially, there are a dozen minor and major other issues that could easily be brought up with as much or significantly more relevance.

Your questioning of the physical mechanics led me to assume that was your issue with it. Don't blame me for your poorly thought out argument and miscommunication.

I didn't have an issue when his sister was tossing pianos around in the first series because it was a joke. In this instance it is not a joke, it is a comedic event wherein there are necessary elements of the plot. The story is different specifically because of kawaii scary woman with big sharp teeth, that I take issue with.

Insistence? Yes. That's my personal opinion. What I find incredulous is that you hold a series as terrible as the original as somehow superior to the current. Care to give me a good five examples in how the original (which is to say, episodes 27-52, as the initial ones are identical), is superior. And in ways not entirely subjective please, or your opinion is no better than mine, and having judged it wanting, I can safely disregard it.

You yourself has stated that this is entirely subjective, how am I supposed to proclaim the first series superiority in non subjective terms?

Again, major...? Really...? If we're completely honest here, it didn't matter who got the estate, she would have bullied Alex around, and launched the attack from it anyway. The fight actually had NO REAL RELEVANCE other than comedy. A concept you seem to find hard to grasp....

How is she bullying around someone she can't beat up in the event that she can't beat him up? Their relationship is seemingly entirely predicated on the fact that he is both physically and mentally weak as compared to her. It is a dynamic that doesn't make any sense outside of the context of the funny mouse beating up the cat visual joke.

Isn't the reason she started the fight was to give the family an 'excuse' to leave Central?

Yes, I've enjoyed Brotherhood much more than the first attempt when the first FMA plot was finished by someone other than the creator.

Yes anime uses tv tropes, look them up and kiss your afterenoon goodbye.

Yes some are good and some are not BUT

Internet Rule 34 people. Sex sells so will anime

There can be multiple major plot points you know.

Really? You don't say? However, I was raising issue with the fact you seemed to regard the launching of the attack of from their parents house as one of them. I mean, it's hardly on the same level as 'Luke, I am your father!', is it?

You brought the instance up initially, there are a dozen minor and major other issues that could easily be brought up with as much or significantly more relevance.

That's correct. I brought up it up as an instance in which it could be said that FMA is not sexist, as it shows strong female characters. I never claimed it was an instance of the best writing since Tolkien. I never placed that strawman up for you to shoot down.

I didn't have an issue when his sister was tossing pianos around in the first series because it was a joke. In this instance it is not a joke, it is a comedic event wherein there are necessary elements of the plot. The story is different specifically because of kawaii scary woman with big sharp teeth, that I take issue with.

So you cannot have a comedic event within which there are elements of the plot? I'm afraid if that's all it takes to ruin a perfectly good series for you, then I can't imagine many that you would like. And as I've already said, I debate whether it was a 'necessary element' of the plot. They could have done exactly the same thing without the fight, they just chose to add it for comedic effect.

You yourself has stated that this is entirely subjective, how am I supposed to proclaim the first series superiority in non subjective terms?

Precisely my point. You claim you think the writing is terrible, I beg to differ. You have given your reasons as to why you think the writing is terrible, I have provided what I consider to be adequate rebuttals of your example. As it is ultimately subjective, to proclaim the writing terrible as if it were a fact, in the manner which you seemed to be doing, would be wrong.

How is she bullying around someone she can't beat up in the event that she can't beat him up? Their relationship is seemingly entirely predicated on the fact that he is both physically and mentally weak as compared to her. It is a dynamic that doesn't make any sense outside of the context of the funny mouse beating up the cat visual joke.

I would say she is mentally stronger than he is, looking at the two characters. She's far more ruthless, and even in their regular conversations, dominates him. Her physically triumphing over him is nothing more than another accentuation of that, albeit a slightly large one. But that gross exaggeration is for comedic effect. And you know what? I laughed. As did a large number of anime fans I know. Therefore it clearly hit the intended audience, regardless of whether it made sense to you or not.

So you cannot have a comedic event within which there are elements of the plot? I'm afraid if that's all it takes to ruin a perfectly good series for you, then I can't imagine many that you would like. And as I've already said, I debate whether it was a 'necessary element' of the plot. They could have done exactly the same thing without the fight, they just chose to add it for comedic effect.

And I disliked this particular instance of that plot technique. Magical. Comedy, how the feth does it work?

Precisely my point. You claim you think the writing is terrible, I beg to differ. You have given your reasons as to why you think the writing is terrible, I have provided what I consider to be adequate rebuttals of your example. As it is ultimately subjective, to proclaim the writing terrible as if it were a fact, in the manner which you seemed to be doing, would be wrong.

But you're doing the exact same thing when you proclaim that the first series was far worse. You're like the pot calling the kettle black and I'm here thinking we're men not kitchen tools.

I would say she is mentally stronger than he is, looking at the two characters. She's far more ruthless, and even in their regular conversations, dominates him. Her physically triumphing over him is nothing more than another accentuation of that, albeit a slightly large one. But that gross exaggeration is for comedic effect. And you know what? I laughed. As did a large number of anime fans I know. Therefore it clearly hit the intended audience, regardless of whether it made sense to you or not.

I dislike the fact that a plot point hinged on a visual joke that didn't make logical sense within the constraints of the storyline (note how in the fight with sloth the brother is now suddenly significantly stronger than the sister). The fight was amusing, the aftermath was headscratching.

Chongara wrote:
There is a ton of a good anime that doesn't even invovle "Heros" or "Bad Guys", with swords guns or anything of that nature. I don't think you're honestly qualified to make statements about "Most" anime if you're talking about elements not even found in most genres of anime.

You'll notice I made the disclaimer that not all anime had all those traits and it seems to me that most of those with no discernible good guy/ bad guy still earn my ire for one of the other things I mentioned; even if it's just bad translation (admittedly that's probably my most petty complaint).

And I disliked this particular instance of that plot technique. Magical. Comedy, how the feth does it work?

Fair enough. YMMV.

But you're doing the exact same thing when you proclaim that the first series was far worse. You're like the pot calling the kettle black and I'm here thinking we're men not kitchen tools.

Oh, I know I'm doing the exact same thing. I was simply expressing my opinion on why I thought the first series was bad, and the second was better. I never claimed to be right. Just my humble opinion, as it were. You believe the writing terrible, I believe the writing of the original five times worse. We clearly seek different things from the program, as is demonstrated from the points below and above. However, considering you conceded the writing was terrible in the original as well, it makes me wonder why you bothered watching so far in this series as to know the plot point we're currently discussing.

I dislike the fact that a plot point hinged on a visual joke that didn't make logical sense within the constraints of the storyline (note how in the fight with sloth the brother is now suddenly significantly stronger than the sister). The fight was amusing, the aftermath was headscratching.

It's not that unrealistic when you think about it. Armstrong, being a moral character, would never unleash his alchemy upon his sister, to try and wound her. His sister, having no such compunctions, and being just as strong, beat the crap out of him because of his restraint. Sound more realistic now? And as I've said twice now, the plot did not hinge upon it. The plot could easily have proceeded without it with a minor tweak to the scene. All that happens is a piece of comedy occurred that you did not find funny, and as such, you respect the writing of the series less for it. That's perfectly understandable. YMMV.

However, I would say that just because you personally did not get it, does not necessarily make the series writing terrible. I would say that the fact most people laughed at that scene and similar ones evidence that the writing was perfectly adapted for the audience it was targeted it. People with your sense of humour, are clearly not that target audience. Would you slate Teletubbies for having a less than compulsive storyline? I see the situations as identical.

However, considering you conceded the writing was terrible in the original as well, it makes me wonder why you bothered watching so far in this series as to know the plot point we're currently discussing.

Actually I conceded that some points were valid. It doesn't have a small asian girl walking 200 miles in a single day after deciding she didn't want to go home (Because, y'know, she was going to make it across a hundred mile stretch of desert alone with no supplies a SECOND time). I think the writing in the first series was fairly sharp. It was far more grounded than the manga.

It's not that unrealistic when you think about it. Armstrong, being a moral character, would never unleash his alchemy upon his sister, to try and wound her.

He wouldn't need to. He is three times her size at minimum.

His sister, having no such compunctions, and being just as strong, beat the crap out of him because of his restraint.

But she isn't as strong as he is. She isn't the one punching a one tonne homunculous around like a beanbag. He is.

Sound more realistic now?

No. It's just writing around a joke, and it doesn't line up to how the character is portrayed. She is not strong, she's good with a sword and ruthless, she isn't throwing around painos and when she is placed into a fight that is strength dependent she starts to lose.

However, I would say that just because you personally did not get it, does not necessarily make the series writing terrible.

Don't tell me I "didn't get it". I'm not the one here defending an instance of bad writing. It's precisely because I "Got it" that I didn't like it. I don't just look away because it's "as the writer intended" like you do.

I would say that the fact most people laughed at that scene and similar ones evidence that the writing was perfectly adapted for the audience it was targeted it. People with your sense of humour, are clearly not that target audience.

See, this is the thing. This is why you shouldn't be telling me I don't get it. You don't get it. I didn't mind the scene. I didn't even care when it occured. What I dislike is that plot hinged on what should have been a light comedic scene with no consequences. Because plot hinged on it then the scene suddenly has to stand up as a plot point, which it does not. Thats the issue I take, and it's something you seemingly don't understand given what appears to be your black and white perception of what constitutes comedy and writing.

Would you slate Teletubbies for having a less than compulsive storyline? I see the situations as identical.

And thats why I'm done talking about this with you. You're incapable of doing so.

There should be rules against logic in Anime/Manga threads.

Slarg: The amination in Brotherhood is alot better then the Original FMA series. The Original FMA anime series was pretty weak,but still a great series, the whole "other universe" thing was pretty "meh" In my iopinion. Brotherhood is alot better, espically with Hohenheiman (spell?) and his immortality thing.

Lord-Loss wrote:There should be rules against logic in Anime/Manga threads.

Slarg: The amination in Brotherhood is alot better then the Original FMA series. The Original FMA anime series was pretty weak,but still a great series, the whole "other universe" thing was pretty "meh" In my iopinion. Brotherhood is alot better, espically with Hohenheiman (spell?) and his immortality thing.

The wild success of the first series likely secured them a much bigger animation budget for the remake.

And thats why I'm done talking about this with you. You're incapable of doing so.

So to conclude, you think that it can't be the fact that the series isn't to your taste, but that the series HAS to be bad because you didn't like it?

In that case, then yes, certainly. There's no point in discussing something with someone who think subjectivity is something that only applies to other people.

The funny thing is, I never even said I even liked the series. I only mentioned that I thought it was 5 times better than the original, whilst explaining why I thought sexism was not prevalent in it. Instead, I got a page long debate on Shuma's dislike of a plot twist. Ah interwebz! How I love thee so!

So to conclude, you think that it can't be the fact that the series isn't to your taste, but that the series HAS to be bad because you didn't like it?

In that case, then yes, certainly. There's no point in discussing something with someone who think subjectivity is something that only applies to other people.

You're the one making half cocked teletubby comparisons and telling me "I don't get it". Manage a better tone in your arguments and people will think there is substance in them.

The funny thing is, I never even said I even liked the series. I only mentioned that I thought it was 5 times better than the original, whilst explaining why I thought sexism was not prevalent in it. Instead, I got a page long debate on Shuma's dislike of a plot twist. Ah interwebz! How I love thee so!

You know what's even funnier? I never said I didn't like the series. You told me I didn't. Repeatedly. Then used that as your seemingly only defense of the "subjective opinion" based discussion. I do like it. It's cool and has big explosions.

This is why I cut off the argument at hand. You were straw manning and claiming hidden concrete knowledge then claiming my points were irrelevant because of the subjective nature of the discussion. You can't just say "Nah nah no one can be right" then compare my opinions to bizarre telletubby examples and claim that I "don't get it" when "The majority of people thought subject x was y".

ShumaGorath wrote:

So to conclude, you think that it can't be the fact that the series isn't to your taste, but that the series HAS to be bad because you didn't like it?

In that case, then yes, certainly. There's no point in discussing something with someone who think subjectivity is something that only applies to other people.

You're the one making half cocked teletubby comparisons and telling me "I don't get it". Manage a better tone in your arguments and people will think there is substance in them.

The funny thing is, I never even said I even liked the series. I only mentioned that I thought it was 5 times better than the original, whilst explaining why I thought sexism was not prevalent in it. Instead, I got a page long debate on Shuma's dislike of a plot twist. Ah interwebz! How I love thee so!

You know what's even funnier? I never said I didn't like the series. You told me I didn't. Repeatedly. Then used that as your seemingly only defense of the "subjective opinion" based discussion. I do like it. It's cool and has big explosions.

This is why I cut off the argument at hand. You were straw manning and claiming hidden concrete knowledge then claiming my points were irrelevant because of the subjective nature of the discussion. You can't just say "Nah nah no one can be right" then compare my opinions to bizarre telletubby examples and claim that I "don't get it" when "The majority of people thought subject x was y".

I'm sorry, I thought you were finished talking with me sir?
I seem to have a certain image to hand which I believe explains this one....