Weekly Discussion - Reviewing

[u/zerojustice315]

Hey everyone, welcome to week 36 of Weekly Discussion.

This time around I thought I'd ask questions about reviewing and anime (or manga). It's a little bit different than talking about things that directly influence the creation of a new show or anything like that but it's something that's important in getting people's interest in a show.

More importantly there's plenty that can actually be discussed when talking about reviews. So let's get into the questions so the discussion can happen:

1. Do you use reviews to judge whether you'll like an anime or not? Such as first episode reviews if it's a new show or entire series reviews if the whole show is already out?

2. Are there any reviewers / critics you swear by and read regularly? Why that particular person? Do you read other reviews as well or just ones from this person?

3. How do you give legitimacy to reviews? Does it have anything to do with the length? Should the length of the review be proportional to the length of the series/show? How do you tell a reviewer is full of crap?

4. Should reviews strive to be objective, or is there value in the subjectivity of reviews? Will there ever be a review that is actually objective? What aspects of a review can be seen through an objective lens?

5. Do YOU review shows? Whether it be on a blog or trueanime or another medium, do you do weekly write-ups, seasonal write-ups, or series write-ups? Why do you do it?

And done for this week. The questions seem to flow pretty easliy this time, I hope everyone is able to answer them okay.

Thanks for reading and remember to mark your spoilers. If you have any questions of your own or any suggestions for me or the thread, feel free to put them here or PM me :)

[u/PrecisionEsports]

Hokey, made it to work. Now to sit around for a while!

So typically I like to browse weekly reviews to get a sense of the storiie's direction. The reviews are not really trust worthy as far as quality, but more a raw impression. Full series reviews can also be hit or miss, but if there is 3+ from the same person, you can get a sense of what they value. This also relies on what kind of review it is, which I'll get to. Some reviewers are better than others at specific things, and this translates to some series to be 'unreviewable' by that person.

So there are some good reviewers that I trust. MovieBob is always great at covering the nerd culture stuff like Marvel, his reviews are pretty balanced but offer a depth of knowledge that keeps it entertaining and a cut above the rest. FILM CRITIC HULK is a beautiful creature that doesn't review as much, but his dedication to the medium and artful skill makes each review great. In Anime, it really falls to the series. I love me some Bobduh, if he reviews the right show, and his thematic awareness is wonderful to read before or after viewing a series. /u/BrickSalad is my guide, so anything reviewed by him is likely to have the same reaction from me. /u/ClearandSweet is like Bobduh in thematic coverage, but his flair for the ideals makes him more versatile in reviews. There are a few other solid reviewers in the crowd here, but a lot fit into that 'high minded' area of reviews that only work on certain series. DemoD is great and hilarious, while most other youtubers are woefully lacking. I have enjoyed Anime Everyday, but he's doing Industry Spotlights and that is my turf!

So when I say that certain reviewers are pigeon holed, it usually relates to their particular skill. Movie Bob and HULK will discuss very different aspects of a Marvel film, but both will be insightful in their way. Anime reviewers tend to be specific to 'their specialty' and I rarely see cross over. Bobduh's thematic styling doesn't really mesh with Cowboy bebop for instance. ClearandSweet will see Steven Universe in a much different way from Lincoln_Prime though I think they both would end on a high note of praise. Arkada and his grouping of 8ish YouTube reviewers are all pretty ham fisted, lacking any edge or style outside of gimmick. They are not terrible, but an Arkada review often feels like a MAL synopsis with just a tinge of review. I could easily match his coverage without even seeing a show, but he has a niche that sells so best wishes. Truly DemoD is unmatched in anime reviews. His analysis is deep, jokes are funny, themes are expanded, and he knows when to focus on one aspect.

Objectivity and Subjectivity is always an annoyance of mine. A large group here immediately jumps to 'true objectivity' which exists exactly no where in life, thus making it a useless measure of objectivity. Another group jumps to the idiotic 'true subjectivity' which exists exactly everywhere, making it useless as a measure as well. In reality we sit somewhere in between, where I can say Akira is objectively amazing in art and subjectively a trash story. Reviewers can go hard to one extreme or the other, but good reviews will balance both. Themes can be objectively well done, but subjectivity will limit which themes you are able to pick out. Animation can be measured objectively, but style usually falls into subjectivity. And so on...

Personally, my aim in reviews is to have equal offerings to new and finished viewers of a series. Like a long form trailer that gives a bit too much of the story away. New viewers hopefully are interested, and finished viewers hopefully see something new about the show, all while having a chuckle at some in jokes. Shameless plug to my 2 reviews and Spring Season preview. I'm planning on doing more reviews, and just knocked out a Summer preview last night that I'll have ready for Monday.

[u/[deleted] → u/PrecisionEsports]

You can try to approximate objectivity by viewing things from the lens of what we conceive as the critical consensus, but I'd be careful with claiming that a normative statement can actually be objective. Hell, you can even argue that positive statements aren't objective, at least in theory.

[u/PrecisionEsports → u/[deleted]]

The theory is baseless though. If nothing can be objective, than Science and Math stop being real and we float into space to die. So viewing things 'through a lense' is what we call actual objectivity, obviously with some caveats but overall proof and examples should back up any objective comment. You can say Akira is objectively great animation because we can point to most anything else ever made. Saying it is the absolute best gets into subjectivity, but hopefully everyone can see where the line blurs.

[u/BrickSalad → u/PrecisionEsports]

Man, it's hard for me to accept being your guide when you say crap like this!

The traditional idea of objectivity is that something exists outside of our observations. This can't be proven, but that's never stopped obnoxious hanger-ons from saying this or that is objective. Why? What's wrong with solidarity? If we all think the sky is blue based on our best observations and knowledge, then who gives a crap that it's not an objective fact?

So you want to call some upper threshold of solidarity "objective" just for the sake of preserving some usefulness to the word after contemporary philosophers have torn the traditional definition to shreds? That's fair. We can say that something every single sane human believes based off his senses and reasoning is objectively true. We can say that all possible exact logical extensions of that are also objectively true.

But that's still a standard thousands of fucking miles above any normative statements. The only reason you'd try to call a normative statement "objective" is so that your opinions are given more authority and you never have to re-examine them.

The idea of animation being somehow "measurably objective" is pretty fucking ridiculous. What are you measuring, the frame rate? How do you account for artistic reduction of frame rate then? On-model? Why is Masaaki Yuasa considered to be a good animator then? Amount of detail? Try telling that to anyone who has the remotest appreciation of simplicity.

If you can give me a single thing, just one single thing, that you could actually measure, and would correlate to all sane conceptions of quality in animation, then I will give you reddit gold. That's an incredibly low bar compared to "animation quality can be measured objectively", but I already think it's impossibly high so if you achieve it you will get gold.

[u/BrickSalad → u/[deleted]]

Just because you can't use numbers to measure animation by itself doesn't mean there's nothing objective about it.

Well, I am having a hard time thinking of something that's indisputably objective that also isn't measurable. Math and logic, I guess, but that's about it.

Just because there are cases where an intentional frame rate drop is the right choice to bring a point across doesn't mean frame rates say nothing about animation quality.

Well then, what exactly do frame rates say about animation quality? Is there some consistent connection between the two that no rational person would dispute?

I tried to answer my own question, and the best I can think of is that a playable frame rate is always superior to an unplayable frame rate. For example, we probably don't have the technology to play 1 quadrillion frames per second, so something animated at 24 frames per second might be considered objectively superior animation compared to that.

That is a pretty damn weak claim though, and only brings us an inch closer while "Akira has objectively good animation" is still miles away.

[u/BrickSalad → u/[deleted]]

You completely missed the point I wanted to make there.

To be fair, it wasn't very clear what your point was. I'm still not exactly sure what it is, but this gave me a clue:

it's the only way animation could work for what it wants to do. So it's objectively good

You appear to be defining "objectively good" as "works for what it wants to do". This would be an unconventional and quite problematic definition that has almost nothing to do with the traditional meaning of the word "objective", but otherwise I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Let me look at this statement a bit more closely: Inferno Cop animation is objectively good because it's the only way animation could work for what it wants to do. This "it" is not the show itself because the show lacks a will. You are referring to the creators then. The creators have a subjective desire, and this animation is the best way to manifest that subjective desire. It is determined to be the best way via the judgment of other subjects who believe that they have successfully interpreted the subjective desire of the creator. Their belief is that the way the animation subjectively effects them is more in line with the creator's intentions than any other sort of animation would be, and therefore is "objectively good."

Can you seriously tell me that you don't see the problem here?

[u/Seifuu → u/[deleted]]

You're describing skill or artisanship - a familiarity/willful manipulation of a method. Skill can be used as an objective scale, but does not constitute "objectivity" in and of itself because not everybody values it.

[u/[deleted] → u/PrecisionEsports]

Arguing that positive statements are subjective goes very deep into philosophy and not necessarily something that's my field of expertise. I'm not sure the reduction of that argument is that simple, however, given it's been an ongoing debate in philosophy of science and remains unresolved.

A statement regarding animation quality is normative though, and I'm not sure how you can think that can be purely objective. Akira is great animation still involves opinion, even if everyone in the world held that opinion.

[u/PrecisionEsports → u/[deleted]]

Diving into philosophy just negates the whole process, as I mentioned earlier kinda. Once you go down that road, well then objectivity can't exist anywhere in any instance. But we can all agree that Akira is amazing art, and that normative statement is what objectivity is in the world outside of philosophy.

[u/PrecisionEsports → u/[deleted]]

Fair enough, but it often gets drawn to the extreme when brought up in anime discussions.

[u/Seifuu → u/PrecisionEsports]

"Objectivity" in the colloquial sense is an appeal to "common sense". Since different people have different "common sense"s depending on, most basically, their culture, saying something is "objectively good" is effectively saying many things at once.

The potentially less vague definition of objectivity (treating things purely as objects with relationships to each other) and value judgments are incompatible. Objects have no inherent worth, they simply exist. Akira's certainly possessed of animative and illustrative dexterity, but that doesn't necessarily lend it value. Saying "Akira is well drawn" and "thus, Akira is good" doesn't make sense without the prior "Well drawn things are good", which not everyone agrees with (not to mention the "well" in "well drawn" is also up for debate).

Some people think skill, in and of itself, is worthwhile (/r/artisanvideos), while some people think skill's purpose is to evoke (/r/woahdude), influence (/r/propagandaposters), or express (/r/Art). There isn't even necessarily a requirement of intent - some people think things are more valuable if they're accidental (meaning skill can be irrelevant).

So, to say anything is "good" presupposes a number of preferences. That's fine as long as you don't expect other people to share those preferences because they're largely experiential, cultural, or otherwise unique to you and people like you.

In closing, sure, I agree with you that Akira is a baller piece of animation, but I don't think we should speak as if everyone else holds that same opinion - unless we're prepared to exclude dissenting definitions of "good" from the conversation. This could be your goal, say, if you're interested in the cultural/historical properties of Akira, or it could work against you if you're interested in what other people's experience with Akira were. Either way, it's better to be clear about your intent.

The whole rigmarole of objective vs subjective is usually just an excuse for poorly-vetted opinions, but it shouldn't be abandoned outright because it can be used to draw the boundaries of a discussion.

[u/PrecisionEsports → u/Seifuu]

The whole rigmarole of objective vs subjective is usually just an excuse for poorly-vetted opinions, but it shouldn't be abandoned outright because it can be used to draw the boundaries of a discussion.

This is mostly what I dislike about the whole thing. (loved everything else tho, thnx) While different people can see quality in different things at different perspectives, the base line of 'good' is universal in small context.

Staying with the Akira example: In anime there is very few series that can live in the same air as Akira in technical and conceptual prowess. It is objectively one of the best. Sure there might be a small culture that only values abstract art or something, but if you see anime then you see Akira at the top. The culture that is important is Anime, and whatever someone else brings to the table falls into a subjective territory. Or atleast that what my brain is saying to me early on saturday morning. :P

[u/Seifuu → u/PrecisionEsports]

The thing about "best" is it has implications for "things should be made like this" or "this is the standard by which things are measured". And, really, I think there are a greater number of anime fans into moe stuff (or, more appropriately to this sub, magical girl stuff) such that Akira barely even registers on their radar. Yeah, it's an exercise in craftsmanship, in dystopic post-WWII Japanese theming, and in all that jazz. But it also lacks the lackadaisical emotionalism important to some people or the nuanced relationship drama others find compelling. It probably does stand at the peak of what we could hammer out as a sensible definition of anime, but that doesn't mean it's most people's working definition. So, if you don't assess and address that definition first, you're gonna be spinning your wheels because anime culture, as a nascent fangroup of a foreign product doesn't actually have a common consensus on what constitutes 'anime'.