|
Post by Malcolm Belmont on Feb 17, 2014 6:52:00 GMT -8
I have seen some of the fight scenes and they are so cool looking..i might check it out soon
|
|
|
Post by theotaku143110 on Feb 17, 2014 12:14:49 GMT -8
And Mary Sues and Gary Stus' are the worse. Oh, CLEARLY they're the worst thing in the universe. I mean, they're so HORRIBLE that there's not even one set definition for them! Which means you could technically label any bad character (or any character period) a Mary Sue and get away with it! Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't work. You can't just apply a vague derogatory term with meaning that's debatable at best and write off a whole character/story without any other explanation. If I can I can and I think I just did. And how is it vague? Mary Sue is a TV trope wherein the lack of flaws in a character becomes a flaw in itself. Mikasa is almost perfect. She can kill Titans with ease even though it's established that it's difficult to do so. And like many Mary Sues' she has a traumatic back story.
|
|
|
Post by draftsman on Feb 17, 2014 13:43:33 GMT -8
And Mary Sues and Gary Stus' are the worse. Oh, CLEARLY they're the worst thing in the universe. I mean, they're so HORRIBLE that there's not even one set definition for them! Which means you could technically label any bad character (or any character period) a Mary Sue and get away with it! Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't work. You can't just apply a vague derogatory term with meaning that's debatable at best and write off a whole character/story without any other explanation. There's a CLEAR definition about what a Mary Sue is. Trying to dismiss it for vagueness isn't a good refutal if there's a concrete definition of the term in question. Mary Sue is the character that lacks human flaws, which on itself it's a flaw specially when it can make the character one-dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by baka_tyranno on Feb 17, 2014 16:35:44 GMT -8
There's a CLEAR definition about what a Mary Sue is. Trying to dismiss it for vagueness isn't a good refutal if there's a concrete definition of the term in question. Mary Sue is the character that lacks human flaws, which on itself it's a flaw specially when it can make the character one-dimensional. Congratulations, you defined your own version of the trope. Continue reading. If I can I can and I think I just did. And how is it vague? Mary Sue is a TV trope wherein the lack of flaws in a character becomes a flaw in itself. Mikasa is almost perfect. She can kill Titans with ease even though it's established that it's difficult to do so. And like many Mary Sues' she has a traumatic back story. Oh, OK, let's just go to TV Tropes then. Huh. Seems like there isn't a set/clear definition after all. But, just to be safe, let's find another source, shall we? Let's try Wikipedia. Well, I suppose it half-matches, but only half - somehow i doubt Hajime Isayama's idealized form is of the opposite sex. Let's try urban dictionary. To be clear: Every definition I've found from varying sources is contradictory; at best, they only agree in half. So, as I stated earlier, calling a character a Mary Sue doesn't amount to much of anything when it seems no one has the same definition of the term in mind - it could mean any number of things, depending on the source. Without providing your own definition and/or reasons, you basically have no point. But luckily for you two, you did provide an aligning definition for me to work with, so let's look at that, shall we? So according to YOUR definition, a lack of human flaws is what makes a Mary Sue, yeah? And that lack of flaws is a flaw? So...what if there's a flaw you're missing? A flaw like Mikasa Ackerman is a socially inept single-minded sociopath (in the sense that she lacks a social conscience)? Dear oh dear this is turning into an essay. I believe stopping here is fine, I'm way too tired to go into any character analysis right now. Just take this moral: "Mary Sue" is a lazy label for someone who just wants to write off a character they don't feel like thinking about. Try instead explaining thyself.
Oh God I'm tired. Good night.
|
|
|
Post by theotaku143110 on Feb 17, 2014 16:47:19 GMT -8
Then I'll at least say she's possibly one. Also screw the moral.
|
|
|
Post by baka_tyranno on Feb 17, 2014 17:29:48 GMT -8
Then I'll at least say she's possibly one. Also screw the moral. Meh. Works for me. Fuck I need to go to bed. y u keep me up walking deeaaaad...
|
|
|
Post by draftsman on Feb 17, 2014 17:37:06 GMT -8
There's a CLEAR definition about what a Mary Sue is. Trying to dismiss it for vagueness isn't a good refutal if there's a concrete definition of the term in question. Mary Sue is the character that lacks human flaws, which on itself it's a flaw specially when it can make the character one-dimensional. Congratulations, you defined your own version of the trope. Continue reading. If I can I can and I think I just did. And how is it vague? Mary Sue is a TV trope wherein the lack of flaws in a character becomes a flaw in itself. Mikasa is almost perfect. She can kill Titans with ease even though it's established that it's difficult to do so. And like many Mary Sues' she has a traumatic back story. Oh, OK, let's just go to TV Tropes then. Huh. Seems like there isn't a set/clear definition after all. But, just to be safe, let's find another source, shall we? Let's try Wikipedia. Well, I suppose it half-matches, but only half - somehow i doubt Hajime Isayama's idealized form is of the opposite sex. Let's try urban dictionary. To be clear: Every definition I've found from varying sources is contradictory; at best, they only agree in half. So, as I stated earlier, calling a character a Mary Sue doesn't amount to much of anything when it seems no one has the same definition of the term in mind - it could mean any number of things, depending on the source. Without providing your own definition and/or reasons, you basically have no point. But luckily for you two, you did provide an aligning definition for me to work with, so let's look at that, shall we? So according to YOUR definition, a lack of human flaws is what makes a Mary Sue, yeah? And that lack of flaws is a flaw? So...what if there's a flaw you're missing? A flaw like Mikasa Ackerman is a socially inept single-minded sociopath (in the sense that she lacks a social conscience)? Dear oh dear this is turning into an essay. I believe stopping here is fine, I'm way too tired to go into any character analysis right now. Just take this moral: "Mary Sue" is a lazy label for someone who just wants to write off a character they don't feel like thinking about. Try instead explaining thyself.
Oh God I'm tired. Good night.Well, how about in the perspective of that anime those traits aren't as awful as they would in a half-functional society as ours? The anime emphasizes revenge(upon the Titans) and violence in people. Along with an annoying(and in other perspectives unhealthy) devotion to Eren, is as it tried to virtue such awful traits, specially when making her a one-woman army. Overall that one anime lacks in the character department. And honestly, many that claim it to be unique have not seen much anime(Evangelion did a lot this anime did and better. And that was almost 20 years ago[not attributing that claim to you, just pointing something out]).
|
|
|
Post by UtterSpartan on Feb 25, 2014 22:30:12 GMT -8
This isn't a reply to anyone, just my personal opinion. I've watched up to the battle with the Female Titan and I already know what comes next.
I personally believe 進撃の巨人 has a lot of good things going for it. The animation is pretty top tier, the premise is amazing and when they do action, you best believe they do it right.
That being said it does have problems and those problems are things that probably only irk me.
I get it. Titans are scary. They eat people and that's scary. People have PTSD, people are dying and that's bad.
The first two times they pounded that in I was ok with it but through the "Battle of Trost" arc it gets pounded in AGAIN and AGAIN.
First Eren's squad goes in and they get fucked up. Alright, I'll accept that. It's scary and Titans are strong. People are dying and Armin is scared.
Then Jean has some people die on him. Alright time for PTSD lane again. And then after the battle he gets it again. And this whole fear of the Titans was already established in the first god-damn episode.
My problem here is that the action is replaced by character deaths and PTSD. The few parts where Eren and Mikasa were fighting the Titans were awesome, but the rest of the time people were too busy crying.
There's a place for sadness and character death in anime, I'm cool with it. But when I'm watching the big bombastic "Attack on Titan" show that has a super intense action intro, well then I want a fucking action series.
My problems seemed to be leveled once Levi came along but you'll never guess what happens a few episodes later. Yup, cast thinning. Here we go again.
Outside of that I feel a lot of characters aren't that interesting. Eren is your usual super-motivated lead male, Mikasa's character starts and ends with two words: "boring badass", Armin is cool because he has actual development and everyone else just feels unimportant. Levi's kinda cool though.
Overall the show is average to me. There's just a few gaping problems with it, but I'm sure many fans can get right past that.
|
|
|
Post by Mermaid Amy on Feb 26, 2014 14:41:48 GMT -8
I haven't watched it and probably will not. I heard it's a really bloody gorey series, which isn't to my liking. I can handle maybe a little here and there, but from way it sounds AoT is a bit too heavy on it.
|
|
|
Post by Doggielover10124 (Fawn) on Mar 6, 2014 5:23:50 GMT -8
Lemme just check my list.... -shit hits the fan fast -there's no real exposition as to how the timeskip in episode 3 happens (atleast what I saw) -a fuckload of blood and titan shit -the titans just creep me out.
Overall its up to you. I'm not a fan of it. Except the opening. Yeaaaaah.... B3
|
|