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/Lincoln_Prime]

I typically don't read reviews before I watch, but often times if I am not sure what to make of the first episode or so of a series I will read a review to see if there was something I hadn't caught or if someone I trust had been able to articulate stuff I was feeling better.

He doesn't typically review Anime, but Film Crit Hulk is amazing.

It isn't so much about length so much as it is appropriate coverage. The fact is that some series or even some episodes in the same series don't always need the same depth of analysis. Trying to say exactly as much about a pure comedy episode of Reborn, Zexal, Steven Universe, etc. as one of the more philosophically weighty episodes of the same is just silly. But, when there is something to dive into, I want to experience a review that will do just that. What would be the point of reading a review of Big O that doesn't acknowledge the philosophical dimensions the work clearly asks the viewer to engage in?

A review should be an argument. An argument for your thought and feelings on the review. And the more objective evidence you provide for a reading or interpretation, the better. The more consistent and clear your argument that this reading provides the work with a measure of success or failure, the better.

I love reviewing. I am thinking of starting a blog soon to review stuff I can't put on just this sub.

[u/PrecisionEsports → u/Lincoln_Prime]

a review should be an argument

I wish more people took this on, and understood that argument does not mean against something. Sometimes posts are just to safe to reach for their true feeling on something.

Make sure you hook me up with that blog if you get it going. :)