Puella Magi Madoka Magica

[Nick Hunter]

I've spent about two hours to post this last one. And realized it only now. Being a madokafag is sure unhealthy.
Or maybe it's time for me to learn to be more subtle?

 

[KP-X]

Nick, being a fag of anything is really unhealthy. But, since Madoka is really well-known, these kinds of discussion are more common-place than if we were talking about, let's say, Kara no Kyoukai for instance.

 

[Pontianak]

Claiming that Madoka is objectively trash, you imply that all who think otherwise are wrong.

It's true. Each character has one to three personality traits as a whole, and only one character has an established backstory that actually seems to affect anything that they do, and that's Kyouko. Even then, it's an incredibly cliche story of "entire family killed omg" that I guarantee you can find in the majority of protagonists in the shounen genre. Hell, there's two of them in Naruto alone. And Sayaka's "boohoo rejected by ambiguous gender creature for hitomi must go evil now" was the stupidest asspull I've ever seen.

And the plot is basically a retelling of a magical girl story that's been done 100x before, except a lot more cubic, and copying the same idea that many shows have done before. Only they're less recent so most people will have forgotten about them and so don't notice the incredibly obvious similarities between them all.

To quote waifu, because she is even more Oracle of Truth Truth-y than I am, and she doesn't have an account;

you can't keep watching the same jennifer aniston romantic-comedies and be surprised when she plays the same role with the same plot in every one of them, then when one is mildly different, go, "oh, i think she's playing in an action movie thi-- no, never mind, still playing rachel: rehashed"

Cue them stating that Madoka is objectively NOT trash, and you who think otherwise are wrong.

The difference between me and them is that I am always right, and since I am always right, it is impossible for me to be wrong when I say I am always right.

Restraining from statements like "This is a universal truth" is what makes your point a personal opinion.

But I am right, and you are wrong. There is a universal standard of good, but whether you choose to remain in denial or not isn't up to me, it's your own problem. But when you have to start a cult about it and refuse to acknowledge there is anything bad about Madoka at all and it is PERFECT AND UNIQUE LIKE A SNOWFLAKE (no offence to any snowflakes that might be reading this) then there's probably something wrong in your priorities.

Did it cross your mind that someone that reads this might actually have their legs amputated in here and be extremely offended by your comment?

No, actually. That's a very good point. Continuing on from that, I think we should ban this onion -> on the basis of the fact that it is running and expressing the ability it has to do so with its tiny, ableist legs. It's incredibly offensive to me that this should be allowed to continue being in use, especially considering how happy it looks to have the capability to exercise.

And now you've drawn my attention to it, this is incredibly offensive, too;
How do you think someone with a chronic bleeding disease is going to feel seeing this onion representing their critical illness for comedic effect, implying that they're always extremely angry?

And this! -> The way the legs are animated make it look like a wheelchair, implying that people who have to use wheelchairs are always really sad and crying all the time.

Let's not even mention this onion; It's way too similar to an epileptic fit for my comfort.

I can't believe the ignorance you are expressing by allowing these onions to be in full public view. Disgraceful. You people disgust me.

 

[ninetales]

Re:

Also, I have nothing to add the discussion, since anything I said would turn out repetitive, since CruelAngel and Nick already said everything I deemed was relevant for the discussion.

Seconded.

I'm getting out of here now, before I end up with an ulcer...

 

[Kerahna]

I've received several complaints so I have to say this. It's okay to support your own opinions but directly insulting other members is not something acceptable in the forum. If this is sarcasm gone a little overboard, please be careful next time.

If this kind of attitude continues, then we will have to ask you to leave the board.

 

[Nick Hunter]

Each character has one to three personality traits as a whole

Good for metaphorical emphasis when criticizing the show, but not true literally. You do realize that one to three traits make up a background character with one to three lines of dialogue? Although there ARE such characters in the show. Kazuko Saotome, for instance. The main cast can count up to a dozen, with or without combining original and acquired traits depending on the character. Once again, it doesn't mean they're perfectly-written characters. I already said they are pretty common magical girl/average schoolgirl archetypes. But the level of their portrayal is sufficient, people are able to relate to them and understand their motives.

and only one character has an established backstory that actually seems to affect anything that they do, and that's Kyouko

Homura's backstory turned her from a shrinking violet into a grim determinator. Mami's backstory explains her fighting creed. Madoka and Sayaka, on the other hand, have less backstory material to back up their actions, but they do create a background adding to their characteristics.

Even then, it's an incredibly cliche story of "entire family killed omg" that I guarantee you can find in the majority of protagonists in the shounen genre

Here's one more point where we agree. But like I said, it's a question of the USAGE of a cliche, not of its presence alone.

And Sayaka's "boohoo rejected by ambiguous gender creature for hitomi must go evil now" was the stupidest asspull I've ever seen.

An asspull a naive teenager may pull off EVER SO EASILY. It's stupid, but tearjerkingly CREDIBLE. But of course we won't prove that unless we find a Japanese teenage girl IRL who has the same character as Sayaka and put her through a similarly surreal experience, right?

And the plot is basically a retelling of a magical girl story that's been done 100x before, except a lot more cubic, and copying the same idea that many shows have done before.

True, I heard that there was some older show which tried a similar approach. But did this approach change the view of magical girls? No. Sailor Moon that came out some years later did that more sufficiently, turning a magical girl from a clumsy cute magic user to a fighter on the side of justice.
But now, with Madoka around, things have changed, if only on a memetic level. Suddenly becoming a magical girl is not such a good prospect. Suddenly making wishes is jokingly associated with a white fluffy alien and soul-selling deals. Suddenly some people have to get used to the word "witch" anew, so as to imagine once again a sorceress woman/old crone/cute girl in a pointy hat RATHER than a Salvador Dali tribute.

Maybe that will subside over time, and Madoka will be outmassed by lots of Shugo Charas to come after. I don't know about that, since nobody can predict a fiction work's fate in terms of lasting appeal, let alone immortality. But it's a valuable work here and now, doing what nobody else has cared to do for decades - give viewers of all ages ANOTHER view at magic and magical girls as a concept.

The difference between me and them is that I am always right, and since I am always right, it is impossible for me to be wrong when I say I am always right.

Oh. How I wish I had the same confidence in myself.

There is a universal standard of good

Could you please name it, and state that its goodness DIDN'T stem from a comparative degree? Because if it did, then we've already discussed it. I don't know how else can I get through with my point: there is no UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED standard. So there is no GOOD you can prove, just BETTER THAN+WORSE THAN that you can relate to when making your rating for something. In these terms, nothing is inarguably bad unless you find NO items that are worse. Things shouldn't stand on other things' faults? Not in this reality, gomen.

But when you have to start a cult about it and refuse to acknowledge there is anything bad about Madoka at all and it is PERFECT AND UNIQUE LIKE A SNOWFLAKE

I keep saying that I don't consider Madoka perfect and with nothing bad about it, and you keep saying that I do. Just where are my English skills failing me?

 

[Pontianak]

Good for metaphorical emphasis when criticizing the show, but not true literally.

Sayaka is self-righteous and stubborn, with maybe a bit of an overprotective streak. Kyouko is greedy and independant. Madoka can basically be summed up in "Y U FITE". Homura embodies the mysterious transfer student trope. Mami is a personification of onee-sama.

And then I can't even remember what personality trait that Kyousuke/Hitomi or whatever their names were had, other than generic love interest/boyfriend-stealing whore.

You do realize that one to three traits make up a background character with one to three lines of dialogue?

That says a lot for the quality of the protagonists, then.

Although there ARE such characters in the show.

Yes. The main cast.

I already said they are pretty common magical girl/average schoolgirl archetypes. But the level of their portrayal is sufficient, people are able to relate to them and understand their motives.

No, their portrayal is not sufficient. They are not well-written characters, they are personifications of cliches that people can only relate to and understand so widely because they're so simplistic in their execution. That is not what having a good character cast is about. That is not what good storytelling is about.

Good character casts are complex characters that still manage to appear human, instead of cheap plot devices. Good storytelling is making you understand and empathize with them without having to dumb them down to "THIS CHARACTER IS THIS ONE THING" or rely on cheap shock values/production edits such as omg sad music cry now plz

Homura's backstory turned her from a shrinking violet into a grim determinator. Mami's backstory explains her fighting creed.

But that's because they're cliche tropes that directors and writers only use for DRAMA LLAMA. Hell, BLEACH has more backstory and characters being affected than Madoka does, and BLEACH is infamous for having terrible characters and bland cliches in every single thing it does.

Madoka and Sayaka, on the other hand, have less backstory material to back up their actions, but they do create a background adding to their characteristics.

Not just their actions. Psychology isn't just about their actions. It's about their outlook, their opinions, their tastes, every single one of their choices, their behaviour, how they carry themselves in the eyes of other people, and in everything they say. Mai-HiME got this so right that I can overlook the terrible art/animation/character designs just because they were complex characters that I could directly link every single thing they did to being affected by their pasts.

Madoka just goes "wahey cliche story/personality". Again, for comparison to Naruto, since lol it seems accurate. Homura = Sasuke, Kyouko = Sasuke/Sakura, Mami = Naruto.

Here's one more point where we agree. But like I said, it's a question of the USAGE of a cliche, not of its presence alone.

And it's used in the exact same way that every other show does, so again, this is not a point in Madoka's favour.

An asspull a naive teenager may pull off EVER SO EASILY. It's stupid, but tearjerkingly CREDIBLE.

"Oh, no, my best friend went out with the guy I like. MY LIFE IS OVER." /suicide

Are you kidding? I mean, seriously, every single person I know IRL has had this happen to them. A guy they like dating their best friend instead of them. You know what they do? They're sad about it for around a day, then they get over it and find someone else.

True, I heard that there was some older show which tried a similar approach. But did this approach change the view of magical girls? No.

But it was still done before. Even Homura's whole "yay timetravel" crap was basically GrimGrimoire with weirder animation.

Sailor Moon [sic] concept.

This seems like you're wording it on ad populum.

The quality of the show itself has nothing to do with popular reception. Lots of people love K-On. Sales of the Fender and Les Paul guitars rocketed after it. Everyone adores it. But that doesn't mean K-On is any good of a show, it just means people are falling for crappy marketing on a huge scale.

Suddenly some people have to get used to the word "witch" anew, so as to imagine once again a sorceress woman/old crone/cute girl in a pointy hat RATHER than a Salvador Dali tribute.

Which, really, is an aspect of Madoka I liked. The non-human weirdness of the animation and the designs of the Witches and the weird world they went into and the odd quirks that makes SHAFT's animation SHAFT-like.

I even liked the lameass magical girl outfits, but they're not actually that good, so they count in the "con" territory, rather than the "pro". /sob

Oh. How I wish I had the same confidence in myself.

Did you notice how I went through all the trouble of making a paradox, just for you?

Could you please name it, and state that its goodness DIDN'T stem from a comparative degree?

I've named it before. Every show has aspects of the following;

➸　plot
➸　execution
➸　consistency
➸　characterization
➸　development
➸　art
➸　pacing
➸　animation
➸　originality
➸　creativity
➸　enjoyable

Around 1/2 or more of those have to be of high quality, or 1/3 of them being outstandingly above the norm, for it to be considered good. Whether you're capable of looking past any inherant bias on the media in question to analyse it properly is an issue many people have.

If something has more flaws than merits, it's bad. If something has more merits than flaws, it's good.

I don't know why this is hard to understand.

Things shouldn't stand on other things' faults? Not in this reality, gomen.

I literally cannot believe you just said this while trying to argue for a show's quality.

What?

I don't even.

If you cannot think of a single good thing about the show itself to defend it on, then that show is inarguably bad. You can't defend a serial killer by saying "at least he's not Hitler!".

I keep saying that I don't consider Madoka perfect and with nothing bad about it, and you keep saying that I do. Just where are my English skills failing me?

Every single Madoka fan I have encountered has refused to acknowledge that it has a simple plot, ugly art, two-dimensional characters and extremely bad execution. Whenever anyone gets overly defensive and says "NO HERE HAVE A BILLION EXCUSES WHY THIS IS NOT SO", I automatically associate them with the weird Madoka cultists that make up the majority of the fanbase who go around saying "madokami-sama!!!1" because they have no friends in real life and don't understand acceptable social conduct.

If this is sarcasm gone a little overboard, please be careful next time.

I don't even notice when I'm being sarcastic or insulting, but sure. I'll refrain from whatever it was I was doing.

EDIT

Just saw this;

Now imagine Mononoke being flamed and your own reaction to it.

1) I was hardly flaming it. If you considering bringing to light the negative aspects of a show "flaming" then you are in denial.

2) That depends. If they were just like "mononoke sukz lol" I'd be like, "eh". If they were actually looking for a debate on it, then I would obviously make a short post highlighting every single one of Mononoke's amazing merits.

If they attempted to debunk it, I would describe objectively how every single one of them is considered a virtue and exactly why it's so amazing and belongs in an art museum instead of an anime genre.

Then I'd attempt to find flaws in it (and fail, because there are none) so I could balance out my argument.

And what's to be surprised about in PMMM fans reaction?

LMAO "no it is perfect /sob /cry /ban" isn't a logical reaction to "eh it kinda sucks".

They're still bound to die one day, and neither option will be a natural death that would classify them as 100% saved. All the magical girls before them who gave in to despair and perished are still dead.

Quoting waifu;

spongebob will die someday
omg that series, so dark

:(

The concept of countless girls being bought into a life of fighting and slowly becoming monsters for the benefit of some alien race's grand project isn't dark at all.

You can make anything sound dark. Let me show you as we play SPOT THE NURSERY RHYME.

A canon about the futility of achieving a simple, vague goal despite the apparent lack of obstacles, highlighting in a concise and effective way the uselessness and pointlessness of human existence and effort, shows extremely well how much the ultimate scheme of things means that you will either experience your own painful, inevitable failure in your every incarnation or watch the person closest to you slowly fall backwards in an unavoidable cycle of loneliness and anguish, no matter how much assistance you may have.

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water〜 Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after〜 Up Jack got, and home did trot, as fast as he could caper〜 To old Dame Dob, who patched his nob, with vinegar and brown paper〜

Yet another short story about how the common perception of life is perceived by the general population; a telling tale of how people refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of their actions, floating along as if in a tranquil dream of apathy, deluding themselves slowly into believing they are truly happy to avoid being swallowed up by the inescapable shadow of melancholy loneliness of being the only person left in the world; the pull of which is only stopped by a thin, artificial barrier constructed through your own imagination as you slowly drift into complacent insanity.

Row〜 row〜 row〜 your boat, gently down the stream〜 Merrily〜 merrily〜 merrily〜 life is but a dream〜

 

[Nick Hunter]

Sayaka is self-righteous and stubborn, with maybe a bit of an overprotective streak. Kyouko is greedy and independant. Madoka can basically be summed up in "Y U FITE". Homura embodies the mysterious transfer student trope. Mami is a personification of onee-sama.

Well, what you've listed is included in their profiles to various degrees for sure.

And then I can't even remember what personality trait that Kyousuke/Hitomi or whatever their names were had, other than generic love interest/boyfriend-stealing whore.

I'd count a bit more if I cared to, but overall it's one more line we'll definitely agree on.

"Oh, no, my best friend went out with the guy I like. MY LIFE IS OVER." /suicide

Are you kidding? I mean, seriously, every single person I know IRL has had this happen to them. A guy they like dating their best friend instead of them. You know what they do? They're sad about it for around a day, then they get over it and find someone else.

Of course, it happens to them right after they have learned that their body is suddenly no more than an outer-operated meat shield, their souls have been zipped into a Faberge egg wannabe that you could drop into a manhole accidentally and thus have your life end in the stupidest way possible. So mundane. I'm pretty sure that Sayaka would have infinitely fewer problems finding "someone else" if she hadn't been questioning her very status of a human being by the time.

And when agreeing to become a cool girl in a cute dress and with "wow"-inducing magical powers suddenly brings you problems like THIS... that qualifies for a magical girl concept made successfully dark, or I don't know what does.

1) I was hardly flaming it. If you considering bringing to light the negative aspects of a show "flaming" then you are in denial.

2) That depends. If they were just like "mononoke sukz lol" I'd be like, "eh". If they were actually looking for a debate on it, then I would obviously make a short post highlighting every single one of Mononoke's amazing merits.

If they attempted to debunk it, I would describe objectively how every single one of them is considered a virtue and exactly why it's so amazing and belongs in an art museum instead of an anime genre.

Then I'd attempt to find flaws in it (and fail, because there are none) so I could balance out my argument.

A nice algorithm, I'm taking notes here.

I even liked the lameass magical girl outfits

Wow, with your general attitude to Madoka, fancy you liking something that I, who dares call himself a madokafag, never really cared for.

No, their portrayal is not sufficient. They are not well-written characters, they are personifications of cliches that people can only relate to and understand so widely because they're so simplistic in their execution. That is not what having a good character cast is about. That is not what good storytelling is about.

A character should be simple to relate to in the very least. What goes above it is an extra purpose that is usually well-defined and well-reached in some of the better shows of the demographic you call "mature". But a good storytelling doesn't require abyss-deep characters all the time. They go well with a deep philosophical plot, choking with themes and subtexts. A kind of plot Madoka doesn't pursue and has proved not to need much. I pray you not go saying that I've called Madoka's plot a perfect Tarkovsky-level one before. Good storytelling, in my view, balances out the plot and the characters. If Madoka went for a Oshii style movie format, you'd clearly need characters with extra depth. For its actual format, making Madoka a hikkikomori, Homura a hidden sociopath, Sayaka a weeboo buried under lots of complexes under a shiny facade or Kyouko a Nitzschean human detester... would produce an extremely weird result. You know, in my book it's a problem with many Bee Train shows - they have relatively simple adventure plots, but attempt to squeeze so much character portrayal there, complete with subtexts, double bottoms and long monologues that they simply don't manage to pull it off and this grand project is left unfinished by the end, with lots of actual plot potential wasted on trying to make their every protagonist into a badass philosopher.

To balance it out, you have to correlate with the format and choose how much detail you will use. It should be enough to make the character work, be believable and understandable. All above that level will depend on the requirements of what you're creating. Then there's an amount of details left out of view, since the audience is expected to assume them by default. Because whatever fictional universe you depict, a character with REALLY one personality trait wouldn't manage to exist there. As to summing up... Just like you showed anything can be made to sound dark (that was really funny, btw ), anything can be summed up to one trait, if one's will to do so is strong. But having to dumb it down to that... is a new concept to me. Since when such things are a must in an analysis?

Hell, BLEACH has more backstory

Bleach has more screen time and space to put it into in the first place, and relies on the characters heavily since without a good deal of them, they wouldn't be able to stretch the plot itself to such lengths.

And as to cliches, using one WELL justifies its use no matter how often it's used. That's why a cliche is intended to be used in the first place - as a fitting quality detail in the works. And in a show that breaks a number of cliches by itself, a good use of others will be usually forgiven.

But you insist that

But it was still done before.

Yes, sure. Then let's say Madoka didn't invent a new concept but re-invented it. And the fact that the other shows having done it before have HARDLY been reminisced upon until a successor appeared... shows that Madoka did what needed to be done. Is the fact that those shows' popularity was mediocre and Madoka's is up to ridiculous levels relates to good marketing alone? Or to the point that Madoka was done later, in the age of better technologies and more polished cliches, methods and tropes, and executed the concept more efficiently than its predecessors?

And I'm not talking Sailor Moon popularity alone, I'm saying that it added something new to the magical girl genre. Who knows, maybe we could dig up earlier shows that experimented with it? Sailor Moon's popularity just led to the industry being interested in such an addendum and using it from then onward. Madoka's predecessors apparently weren't received well enough to make a difference in the genre - then let's hope that the sales figures of our pink valkyrie's [mis]adventures will help carrying that out.

But popular reception has a bit more to do with the show's quality than you think. It shows that it appealed to a good number of people, and to do it, it apparently had to execute something better than other shows around. Marketing? It serves to ATTRACT people to the product. When it comes to lasting appeal and fandom building, the product is on its own. And if it wasn't better than a good number of other shows (usually more recent ones, creating an easier comparative background for some ), no marketing will help it gain big popularity.

Huh, look, we've come back to my point again: being good actually means just "being better than" and being bad actually means "being worse than".

You repeat your point that

I've named it before. Every show has aspects of the following;

➸　plot
➸　execution
➸　consistency
➸　characterization
➸　development
➸　art
➸　pacing
➸　animation
➸　originality
➸　creativity
➸　enjoyable

Around 1/2 or more of those have to be of high quality, or 1/3 of them being outstandingly above the norm, for it to be considered good. Whether you're capable of looking past any inherant bias on the media in question to analyse it properly is an issue many people have.

If something has more flaws than merits, it's bad. If something has more merits than flaws, it's good.

Now that's a very interesting blueprint for analysis. I'll be sure to try it out sometime, too. But that doesn't overthrow my point about the absence of unanimous standards. Measurements of high quality and the norm to be above or below, they ALL differ significantly. And I won't even get started on the criterion of enjoyability, since in potential there might exist up to 7 billion norms on that.

What I'm trying to get through to you is that literally any view is subjective. That's why all ratings are based on comparison. Making a serial killer parallel is rather off the point, since we don't rate criminals in the court, we judge them based on the book of law that everyone has accepted. The question of fiction quality has no single, accepted book of law. We may list the criteria, but the real gradation of these criteria isn't universified, and will hardly ever be.

People's judgement on such things will always be subjective. Even I, arguing with you about Madoka's quality, am aware that I'm mostly stating my IMHO and in the end you won't be obliged to accept my claims at all. These last two pages have stemmed from the fact that you seem to deem your opinion completely free of subjectivity. Like I said, the power of IMHO is what keeps arguments mild: you say, "I think Madoka sucks LOLz", people respond with "Huh?" and "It's cool for me, but... suit yourself". You say, "I think Madoka sucks because blah blah blah", people respond with saying that they see this or that point differently, enterpreting it better and finding it more sufficient than you do, and it either ends with one side realizing that the other has a point or they part with agreeing to disagree. Such debates may get humorous, ironic, sarcastic, but are generally harmless and contribute to the overall analysis of the show. There are even things in Captain Obvious domain that not many fans will even bother to disprove, like "Madoka's plot is simple". But stating that "Madoka is objectively a worst show regardless of anything around it, and it's a universally accepted truth that only the fags deny" makes people HEAVILY wonder where you got the basis for such "objectivity". No, not the aforelisted criteria like plot, creativity and whatnot, but the EXACT AMOUNTS of plot, creativity and whatnot that define an objectively good show.

If you try to define these amounts by descriptional phrases, you'll be dogpiled by IMHOs again, since with all the "deep characters etc" stuff it's hard to find a raw definition of what they are. Something that you feel as deep characters? But such a lot of people found that other show as having deep characters, and good luck proving that your taste is simply better than theirs. That's where your escaping route makes a full circle and leads you to what I've been telling: to show the said amount of [insert criterion here], you'll have to go and give an example of a show that has this amount. The trick is, it will lead you away from the sought definition of "good/bad" that you advertise and back to the terms of "better/worse". Somehow, even while often based on your OWN rating (subjectivity again?), it seems to be the CLOSEST you can come to being objective. Because you'll be stating things meeting wider and natural agreement in comparison to the absolute "truth truths". Hey, I think Madoka sucks because I've seen this show, and it has an obviously more complex plot, a wider set of themes presented and deeper, more detailed characters. And I bet most people will look up the said show and say "Oh, it's true". That may not make them like Madoka less, but it may make them fans of the said show and maybe even rating it higher. Dunno about your anime top, but in mine, shows never went lower because I started to like them less, just because I started to like something else even more.

So, for the umpteenth time: fiction popularity ratings and quality measurements are based not on universally accepted "bad" and "good" (due to the sheer lack of those), but on comparative "better" and "worse".
Oh, and you know what? Everything I've been saying is what I'M thinking, so it qualifies as a simple IMHO too. ROFL indeed! With that, I think there's no further need to continue this particular discussion. I'm always open for debating Madoka's quality, but I won't go discussing the definitions of good/bad shows again. I've said all I wanted to on this subject. If you disagree, then it seems to be basically IMHO territory again, and the "let's agree to disagree" tactic is welcomed here.
But still, seeing as reading your points has gained me a few tips to keep in mind for potential try-out, I humbly hope that you might want to try out my approach to objectivity/subjectivity and see if it works for you or not.

Thanks for the ride.

 

[Lorde-Kowz]

Today i´m marathoning Madoka in delicious HD. It shall be glorious.

 

[Pontianak]

Well, what you've listed is included in their profiles to various degrees for sure.

Because that is all there is to them. After watching THE iDOLM@STER, there's more depth to the cast in the first episode than there was in the entirety of Madoka, and THE iDOLM@STER has 2x the size.

I'd count a bit more if I cared to, but overall it's one more line we'll definitely agree on.

So I got their names right? Woo.

Of course, it happens to them right after they have learned that their body is suddenly no more than an outer-operated meat shield, their souls have been zipped into a Faberge egg wannabe that you could drop into a manhole accidentally and thus have your life end in the stupidest way possible.

You just described how most people feel about their credit card.

So mundane.

Exactly. Mundane problems. I ran out of Grief Seeds the other week and I didn't pussy about turning into a Witch, I went out there to the nearest 24/7 store and got myself an eightpack.

I'm pretty sure that Sayaka would have infinitely fewer problems finding "someone else" if she hadn't been questioning her very status of a human being by the time.

Which is exactly what every teenager does. In fact, questioning ~*who you are*~ is the whole point of being a teenager, so lol.

And when agreeing to become a cool girl in a cute dress and with "wow"-inducing magical powers suddenly brings you problems like THIS... that qualifies for a magical girl concept made successfully dark, or I don't know what does.

You could turn the lights off while watching Pokemon and it'd still be sufficiently darker.

A nice algorithm, I'm taking notes here.

What would you expect me to say? Though? Really?

"I don't really like Mononoke, so..."
"Okay."

No matter how good Mononoke is, if they don't like it, they don't like it. Nothing will force them to, so there's no point in me flipping my shit at them and telling them to go away and stop flaming my favourite show. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

Wow, with your general attitude to Madoka, fancy you liking something that I, who dares call himself a madokafag, never really cared for.

Just because I hate Madoka doesn't mean I'm going to deny it has any good aspects. Don't paint me with the same brush you've used to colour yourself in, since you seem to be intent on denying the flaws of Madoka based on these two factors; OMG SUBJECTIVE and NO YOU'RE WRONG.

A character should be simple to relate to in the very least.

No. A character should be well-written at the very least, since absolutely anyone could write a relatable character, so there's no merit in it. Anyway, quite obviously, a well-written character will have relatability by default.

But a good storytelling doesn't require abyss-deep characters all the time.

No. Good storytelling requires well-written characters, which why I said "well-written" and not "deep".

They go well with a deep philosophical plot, choking with themes and subtexts.

Not necessarily.

Good storytelling [sic] result.

Allow me to illustrate this excellent scenario you've placed yourself in.

the point










your head

You know [sic] philosopher.

Was this paragraph necessary? At all? I have no idea what leap of logic you've made so that "Madoka is uhmayzing" can be followed by "Bee Train sucks" in your head and it makes sense.

To balance [sic] to summing up...

Which is what "well-written" tends to mean. Which is why I used "well-written". Are you feeling alright, since your comprehensive abilities seem to be lacking?

Just like you showed anything can be made to sound dark (that was really funny, btw )

How dare you! It was not intended to be funny, it was intended to dissect and invert the genre of nursey rhymes, and I am insulted you have not taken it seriously. The gauntlet has been thrown, sir.

anything can be summed up to one trait, if one's will to do so is strong.

I had a lot of trouble just thinking about three for Sayaka, if I'm honest. I probably made up a few character traits just to make myself feel better that I managed to sit through it all.

Bleach has more screen time and space to put it into in the first place, and relies on the characters heavily since without a good deal of them, they wouldn't be able to stretch the plot itself to such lengths.

There is no plot. BLEACH is a terrible, badly-written, badly executed pile of crap that only has one saving grace in its art, which is sort of good for a shounen. That was my point in comparing the two.

And as to cliches, using one WELL justifies its use no matter how often it's used. That's why a cliche is intended to be used in the first place - as a fitting quality detail in the works. And in a show that breaks a number of cliches by itself, a good use of others will be usually forgiven.

But Madoka didn't use them well. Madoka used it in exactly the same way shows have used it before, and the other shows used them with more finesse.

Yes, sure. Then let's say Madoka didn't invent a new concept but re-invented it.

After a lot of other shows had already re-invented it. Which makes them rehashing the re-invents, which makes Madoka a cheap ripoff cash cow, which means Madoka doesn't even have the talent to copy shows properly.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how bad Madoka actually is.

And the fact that the other shows having done it before have HARDLY been reminisced upon until a successor appeared... shows that Madoka did what needed to be done.

No. It was because people with prior fame were working on it. You said that yourself, lol.

Is the fact that those shows' popularity was mediocre and Madoka's is up to ridiculous levels relates to good marketing alone?

Yes.

Or to the point that Madoka was done later, in the age of better technologies and more polished cliches, methods and tropes, and executed the concept more efficiently than its predecessors?

It didn't, though. The only thing Madoka did better was have better animation and better weird non-character related designs, and that's because SHAFT has a long history of taking anything and making it amazing.

Madoka's predecessors apparently weren't received well enough to make a difference in the genre

No. What. No. You will find this link helpful in realizing how big of a logical fallacy that is, I hope?

But popular reception has a bit more to do with the show's quality than you think.

NO.

I don't even-- "more people like it lol!!!!!!!!!!" is not. an. argument.

Measurements of high quality and the norm to be above or below, they ALL differ significantly.

Measure them all in litres. Problem solved.

And I won't even get started on the criterion of enjoyability, since in potential there might exist up to 7 billion norms on that.

That's a sum factor average based on all of the above, though can be edited for a person's own views.

What I'm trying to get through to you is that literally any view is subjective.

"the Holocaust is the best thing that ever happened"
"what, no"
"sorry bro it's subjective"
"ok yeah good point"

Making a serial killer parallel is rather off the point

Why? There is no definite "bad", since you're saying people should judge something based on comparison, and in comparison to Fat Man & Little Boy, the Holocaust, Rwandan Genocides etc., what's a measly little serial killer?

we judge them based on the book of law that everyone has accepted.

And people can judge media based on a book of standards that everyone should accept.

The question of fiction quality has no single, accepted book of law. We may list the criteria, but the real gradation of these criteria isn't universified, and will hardly ever be.

And the same is said with crimes. Murder being a prime example, which is why we have "manslaughter", "crimes of passion", "insanity plea", "cold-blooded murder" and several other things.

My serial killer comparison was way more accurate than you want to think.

you won't be obliged to accept my claims at all

I will never accept people lying about shit just to fool themselves into thinking something that isn't true. :(

These last two pages have stemmed from the fact that you seem to deem your opinion completely free of subjectivity.

It is.

Like I said, the power of IMHO is what keeps arguments mild: you say, "I think Madoka sucks LOLz", people respond with "Huh?" and "It's cool for me, but... suit yourself".

"crap you just killed someone"
"yeah but imho that's a cool thing to do, deserved it for being black anyway"
"oh yeah bro suit yourself"

Haaahaha no, logical fallacy again.

You say, "I think Madoka sucks because blah blah blah"

I don't think. I know.

people respond with saying that they see this or that point differently

Without ever giving advice or examples or evidence, as opposed to my multitudes. HM.

enterpreting it better and finding it more sufficient than you do

Just because they're happy to settle for shit soup doesn't make shit soup suddenly transform into an elegant banquet of exotic feasts to delight your taste buds.

and it either ends with one side realizing that the other has a point or they part with agreeing to disagree.

Except they don't have a point. So. Um.

There [sic] show.

5/10 is average. Madoka averages out at a 3/10.

If you try to define [sic] because I started to like something else even more.

Do you even know what you're talking about anymore? All I got from that is "lol no subjective /CONVERSATION BLOCK".

I humbly hope that you might want to try out my approach to objectivity/subjectivity and see if it works for you or not.

I'll save you the trouble of waiting to see if I do this by telling you upfront that I won't try anything out that's so blatantly and obviously wrong.

Thanks for the ride.

Please close the door to the facility quietly.

 

[murrue02]

No. "It's mature for a toddler show" and "Cool people are working on it" does not a good argument make. That has nothing to do with the actual contents of the anime and does not speak for the quality of anything that actually happens within the media.

There are a couple of animes that are horrible, but some people like it.I suggest that you have to open your mind on stuffs such as these.As I said earlier, there are genres and taste.So saying that "you don't care..." and "bad tastes" is really So people have bad taste coz they love Madoka? I hope you would be mature enough to see the larger picture Ponti.You're being unreasonable already, accept it or not.True, Madoka may have flaws but you already went overboard.it's already like being a fault finder.
If you fail to understand what the others are trying to explain here, then I can do nothing about it.

 

[ZoaKaizer]

yea, its all about taste, like some ppf prefer old antique car with the sameprice as brand new Super Car


Or like I can like a Nissan GTR more than a Porsche with 3 times or more of it price. I would but the nissan even if I have the money to buy the porsche

 

[Pontianak]

There are a couple of animes that are horrible, but some people like it.

I don't care if they like it, and I've said this. People like what they like, even if it's terrible, and I like a few things that are horrible myself; such as Seikon no Qwaser's anime, and all the shitty harems like to-LOVE-ru that I watch.

However, just because people like it does not automatically make it good.

As I said earlier, there are genres and taste.So saying that "you don't care..." and "bad tastes" is really

Correct? Right? Truthful? Honest?

So people have bad taste coz they love Madoka?

Yes.

People have bad taste if they like things of bad quality. I sometimes like things of bad quality, so I have bad taste. It's relatively simple to understand and admit to, unless you're ashamed of the things you like. Which you shouldn't be, if you like them.

I hope you would be mature enough to see the larger picture Ponti.

There is no larger picture.

Madoka = bad. End of discussion.

Whether people want to admit it or not is a different argument, and whether people like it or not is irrelevant.

You're being unreasonable already, accept it or not.

Of course. Next time, I will be sure to take your advice and lie about things just to make people feel better.

True, Madoka may have flaws but you already went overboard.

Why start something if you're not going to go at it 100%?

it's already like being a fault finder.

I am a critical person.

Also, even if people didn't notice them, the faults would still be there. Things don't just go away if you refuse to acknowledge them, like if someone pretended the KKK didn't exist, they obviously still do. The person denying it is just deluded.

Or like I can like a Nissan GTR more than a Porsche with 3 times or more of it price. I would but the nissan even if I have the money to buy the porsche

I am not talking about people liking Madoka.

I really do not feel like going through and quoting myself when I clearly say "I DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE LIKE IT", so perhaps you could all learn to read?????

Honestly, even if everyone in the world liked it, Madoka would still. be. bad.

 

[Nick Hunter]

Oh goodness, is the show still going on?

Meanwhile, the fandom apparently couldn't stay sad and solemn over ep 9's BD ending for long:

Also reposting a bunch of art which I'm afraid was accidentally sunk by the short discussion me and Pontianak have had.

Which is exactly what every teenager does. In fact, questioning ~*who you are*~ is the whole point of being a teenager, so lol.

Last time I checked, a teenage identity quest was usually about "what is my real "me" and how to find it", not "am I still human or am I just a lich?"

No. What. No. You will find this link helpful in realizing how big of a logical fallacy that is, I hope?

Thanks for finding the exact term for what I've been telling you happens in the absence of codified criticism.
Except that in the paragraph you replied to I was not talking about the absolute meaning of popular reception, but about it being a significant factory in shaping the industry. If the producers think the experiment made enough money, they go at it again and again. Sailor Moon's success was apparently enough to launch new and new hordes of magical girls into a fight with scary baddies. Or you could take another example in Evangelion which caused the genre to dive headlong into psychics analysis. In the case with Madoka's predecessors, maybe the cash wasn't convincing. I can't even predict if it may be the other way today - only time will show if Madoka's 60k+ per volume will be considered tempting enough to produce more darker and serious magical girl plots.

And people can judge media based on a book of standards that everyone should accept.

Well, the only problem I have with your choice of parallels is that anything concerning law LONGS to codify things. Their degree of success is a topic for another discussion, but AFAIK one of a law's quality criteria is PRECISION.
Now where do you get this precision in judging fictional media standards? I've named one way to get a standard for judging a show or whatever (three or four times already, I think). Is there anything else?
For a change, let's use the very allegory you like. A judge says to a murder suspect: "I'll declare you not guilty if your defence arguments meet the criteria of doing so". Cue fiction sphere: a critic says, "I'll declare this show good if its plot/character/whatnot standards meet the criteria of being good".
What's the difference? The judge has tons of papers at his disposal that codify the possible arguments leading to the not-guilty verdict. But where does a critic take codified measurements? Liters won't do the trick, I fear. The characters are not well-written? Why, I deem them as such. They're poorly written because of insufficient trait number? Why, I've spotted more. What are the real figures to disprove such claimsand smash them into oblivion? I'm not joking here - it's a point I've never really thought about before our talk, but...

Now you have intrigued me in making a separate thread about it. [I hereby insert a HUGE NON-SARCASM tag here so you don't throw me another gauntlet] Maybe I'm missing out on a lot of things?

Honestly, even if everyone in the world liked it, Madoka would still. be. bad.

God forbid! If everyone in the world liked it, who would have been there to highlight its flaws?

And my offtop on the general plot judgement subject ends here, so much the more that you've remembered a good phrase:

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

PS. If you still want a duel for me finding your nursery rhyme descriptions funny... I choose pillows.

 

[moichispa]

Re:

I love this smell at mornings

And the plot is basically a retelling of a magical girl story that's been done 100x before, except a lot more cubic, and copying the same idea that many shows have done before. Only they're less recent so most people will have forgotten about them and so don't notice the incredibly obvious similarities between them all.

Examples please

Because that is all there is to them. After watching THE iDOLM@STER, there's more depth to the cast in the first episode than there was in the entirety of Madoka, and THE iDOLM@STER has 2x the size.

Are you joking right Idolmaster is a sterotype like anime. I'm watching it to identificate laguage paterns with personalities types.

I like the oujou-sama type (formal speech), the merry but reliable type (nano particle) and the active okinawa girl. mm I didn't got this one yet.

The difference between me and them is that I am always right, and since I am always right, it is impossible for me to be wrong when I say I am always right.

lol this one is funny. EVERYTHING in this world is relative. there is not at absolute thing in the universe.

You don't have studied anything related to sciences in a medium or high level or you have Zero social experience to actually be able to think like this.

You may shut away yourself in a box you can't be like that on a society unless you're really really rich or you have powerful people behind you.

And people can judge media based on a book of standards that everyone should accept.

The way people should and judge something depends of their culture, their country, their upbringing, their sex,religion, believes, their experiences on the past, their friends, their relatives, the popular culture etc. etc.

Standard are variable and thinking it should be the same is really stupid. Are you for from Usa or something?

Maybe you're just mad because you don't like or don't understand the popular show of the moment. I have seen so many cases like yours that it ends being funny. But it is funnier in umineko fandom

I have been a Shaft fan for a while but I don't like Bakemonogatari but I'm not going to say that it sucks. Because I just don't like it but it does not have to mean that it sucks for everybody

------------------

By the way does anyone more thinks that is is too much. at this rate madoka will end like evangelion and they unlimited merchandise http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interes ... -published

 

[stormy panda]

Re: Re:

The difference between me and them is that I am always right, and since I am always right, it is impossible for me to be wrong when I say I am always right.

Also learn to logic little troll.

 

[Pontianak]

Oh goodness, is the show still going on?

Maybe we should take it to PM, in case anybody feels uncomfortable observing.

Last time I checked, a teenage identity quest was usually about "what is my real "me" and how to find it", not "am I still human or am I just a lich?"

Clearly you don't know the right teenagers. And both of them are about finding their identity.

Thanks for finding the exact term for what I've been telling you happens in the absence of codified criticism.

No. What. No. Are you seriously that idiotic? I mean, I don't mean that in an insulting way, I mean that in a genuine "do u be srs bro" way. Like. I mean. Did you even read them?

Ad Populum = Argument Of The People

What I've been saying is "Madoka is bad", backed up with everything I've said, comparisons and all.

What you've been saying is "NO BUT PEOPLE LIKE IT", backed up with nothing but.... "NO BUT PEOPLE LIKE IT".

Except that in the paragraph you replied to I was not talking about the absolute meaning of popular reception, but about it being a significant factory in shaping the industry.

The quote does not apply specifically to that one paragraph, it applies to your entire fallacious argument. God, I hate the word "fallacy" and all forms thereof, but that describes the contents of your posts quite adequately.

You have mentioned nothing about the qualities show itself in any of your arguments and have instead resorted to "boohoo but other shows are worse" which is NOT AN ARGUMENT and "boohoo but other people like it" which is NOT AN ARGUMENT.

So... if you're not making an argument in the first place, how am I supposed to refute it?

If the producers [sic] tempting enough to produce more darker and serious magical girl plots.

This paragraph is entirely pointless and has nothing to do with the contents of Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica and the quality therein. Stick to the topic.

Well, the only problem I have with your choice of parallels is that anything concerning law LONGS to codify things. Their degree of success is a topic for another discussion, but AFAIK one of a law's quality criteria is PRECISION.

As do critics with fiction. As do people with anything. There will always be absolute standards in society for everything, quality of media included; it's just a matter of defining it into set categories that everyone can understand and put to use.

Now where do you get this precision in judging fictional media standards? I've named one way to get a standard for judging a show or whatever (three or four times already, I think).

Clearly by taking standards and applying them.

For a change, let's use the very allegory you like. A judge says to a murder suspect: "I'll declare you not guilty if your defence arguments meet the criteria of doing so". Cue fiction sphere: a critic says, "I'll declare this show good if its plot/character/whatnot standards meet the criteria of being good".

No.

A judge will say, "both sides present your argument and I will decide based on what you supply", and based on the points given, the judge will make a decision (with the input of the jury, of course) that they can defend using evidence from the trial (and other sources) that explain their decision.

Likewise, a critic will look at what the show presents and they will form an educated opinion based on that, which can be fully backed up by evidence from the original material that can be used to explain their decision on whether it's good or not.

My allegory was to show you that judging anything by comparison is not the way to do things. Judging things on what they put forth is the most objective and successful ways of analysing.

What's the difference? The judge has tons of papers at his disposal that codify the possible arguments leading to the not-guilty verdict.

No.

At the end of the day, each case is unique, and no possible amount of papers can classify the circumstances surrounding the case, the victims and the defendants with accurate and flawless determination. That's why we have trials. That's why we have prosecutors and defence attorneys and jurers and the judiciary system. So full, complete justice can be reached and that the best and only correct solution for that one, specific case can be reached.

Otherwise there'd be no point having a hearing, and it'd just go to several appointed clerks that press stamps and don't consider wild card factors.

WAIFU'S EXAMPLE

i have an example: THERE IS A GROUP OF MURDERERS.
one of them has only killed three people, and someone says that they are a GOOD person because there are 5+ people who have killed more. does that make it true?
i mean, i'm sure that a bunch of people could agree that this person is BETTER than the other murderers, but on his own, is he a good person for "only" killing three people?

: |

WAIFU'S EXAMPLE: THE SEQUEL

TO FIGURE OUT IF HE'S A GOOD PERSON OR NOT, wouldn't you need the circumstances behind the murders? some definitive proof either way? like, who the people were, his motive behind the murders, if it was in cold blood/premeditated or not, etc etc
so couldn't that be like, an example of how there are CERTAIN, CONSTANT THINGS that determine whether something is good or not, idk
now i'm just ranting

should this be a trilogy? only time will tell.

waifu's example: the adaptation

with good fiction
you need aspects of it to analyse as evidence
and with court cases
you need aspects of it to analyse as evidence
so with both there are set things to look at to ascertain whether they are guilty or not
: |

But where does a critic take codified measurements? Liters won't do the trick, I fear.

Take all the traits from each character, blend them, then put them in a measuring cup. Problem solved, yet again.

The characters are not well-written? Why, I deem them as such.

Then you're wrong.

They're poorly written because of insufficient trait number? Why, I've spotted more.

Fanon =/= Canon. Implication =/= Certainty. Analysis =/= Confirmation.

What are the real figures to disprove such claimsand smash them into oblivion? I'm not joking here - it's a point I've never really thought about before our talk, but...

Well-written characters are characters that are written well. That is, realistically, as characters one could possible find in real life, that are well-rounded and consistent and make decisions that suit their established personalities. That have a point to existing beyond a stimulus-response trigger for plot lines. Characters that you can get attached to because they feel sympathetic, or hilarious, or immature, and that are portrayed in a way that makes sense for the situation the author has thought up for them.

Well-written characters are not characters that have one/two personality traits that do nothing but further the cheap, unoriginal plot.

God forbid! If everyone in the world liked it, who would have been there to highlight its flaws?

...People who liked it and weren't in denial? Just because you like something doesn't mean you blindside yourself to the bad points of it. I've said many, many times that people should be able to seperate their inherant bias for a show so they can stop claiming it's the shit out of Jesus's ass instead of the crap you want off your shoe as soon as possible.

I can name at least three flaws for every single show that I love. Except Mononoke. That has no flaws because it is perfect.

And my offtop on the general plot judgement subject ends here, so much the more that you've remembered a good phrase:

I have never, ever said that people can't like Madoka. I've said that I don't care if people like Madoka, that it doesn't matter whether people like it or not, that for all I care people could be erecting shrines in their closets to the damn show.

What I do care about is people lying about the quality of Madoka just to make themselves feel better about liking it.

PS. If you still want a duel for me finding your nursery rhyme descriptions funny... I choose pillows.

I call the handgun.

Examples please

Nanoha, Mai-HiME, Bokurano, Narutaru, Evangelion, Idolmaster: Xenoglossia...

Are you joking right Idolmaster is a sterotype like anime.

Each character has a consistent, well-rounded personality with an established background and supreme character growth through their route.

However, some characters do come off as a little cliche and overboard - Yayoi and Haruka, for example - and the art/designs for them all is kind of ugly. And sob I don't even want to think about that choppy animation.

lol this one is funny. EVERYTHING in this world is relative. there is not at absolute thing in the universe.

Oh, look, we have a solopsist Hume-wannabe.

You don't have studied anything related to sciences in a medium or high level or you have Zero social experience to actually be able to think like this.

That's not very nice. I'm going to complain to my 800 cats about this atrocious accusation.

You may shut away yourself in a box you can't be like that on a society unless you're really really rich or you have powerful people behind you.

If you get suspicious-looking men in black suits calling for you, do be sure to let them in.

Standard are variable and thinking it should be the same is really stupid.

Pedophilia is wrong.

There's an absolute standard, right there.

Are you for from Usa or something?

I hate America.

Maybe you're just mad because you don't like or don't understand the popular show of the moment.

Whether I like something or not has nothing to do with the actual show. I love Seikon no Qwaser's anime, but that has practically no good aspects to it at all. ALLOW ME TO ILLUSTRATE.

*:･ﾟ✧　PRO　✧ﾟ･:*
• amazing seiyuu cast
• hilarious
• awesome soundtracks/music
• presently more character development à la Hana and Katja
• action scenes animated
• hikasa youko

*:･ﾟ✧　CON　✧ﾟ･:*
• choppy animation
• narmy
• overdramatic
• deviates from the manga in stupid ways
• stupid plot devices
• less character development as a whole
• inferior pacing
• completely unable to take it seriously
• action scenes can be dull and uninspiring
• unattractive art style
• ridiculous amounts of fanservice
• apathy towards characters

I have seen so many cases like yours that it ends being funny.

Should I take everyone's inability to form a counter-argument as conformation of Madoka's low quality?

I wonder why you're all so keen to resort to ad hominem.

I have been a Shaft fan for a while but I don't like Bakemonogatari but I'm not going to say that it sucks.

Because it doesn't. lol.

Because I just don't like it but it does not have to mean that it sucks for everybody

Why can nobody seperate fondness with objective standard of quality?

Liking a subject has no effect on the quality of it.

learn to logic

Yes, thank you for highlighting the sarcastic use of paradox in my post. I appreciate you doing that for the people who were unable to comprehend it.

little troll.

How dare you! My height is perfectly sufficient, thank you very much.

 

[salvanos]

[EDIT]

*vanishes*

 

[shin]

@Pontianak and Nick Hunter
please avoid making 3Km-long posts as it is very annoying.
you can have whatever discussion you want in private.


plus @Pontianak
your opinion is your own. while it should be respected, you shouldn't take it as universal truth because you may offend other people in the process.
thank you.

 

[Pontianak]

your opinion is your own.

Opinion can be successfully seperated from analysis. I do so automatically with every show I watch in order to know fully the standard that it's at.

while it should be respected, you shouldn't take it as universal truth because you may offend other people in the process.

Of course. Taking your advice, I will never tell the truth again, since it will obviously offend people. Thank you for enlightening me on the beautiful positive aspects of lying, and I will make sure to do so frequently and compulsively in order to save people's feelings.