What makes an intellectual series TOO complex? I'm alright with something that makes me think (pic related) but sometimes a series can get so internally complicated that it makes your brain hurt unless you stop and attempt to chart everything out just to make sure you can actually get a grasp on what the fuck is going on. There's obviously a sliding scale in effect here, but where is the line, and when is it okay to cross it or not?
There is no line, as it is going to be different for everyone. Hell, Lain's creator thought it was more cryptic than it actually was, as he said he was disappointed that everyone came to the same conclusions about it.
>What makes an intellectual series TOO complex?
Like what series?
>something that makes me think (pic related)
I enjoyed Yama no Susume, its a deep anime
Whether I understand it or not.
Dennou Coil is a complex anime done correctly.
maybe it`s bad writed like evangelion
Maybe you should learn to speak properly, retard.
Why did everyone turn into Tang? Why was there like 50 million Reis? Why were they all congratulating Shinji? What are the dead sea scrolls?
It depends on how much "complexity" has to do with being a focal point. For example, two series that are both good and complex: NGE and TTGL. In the former, the complexity is part of what made it good. In the latter, the complexity is just there but doesn't help or hinder it from being good.
If you're going to tie them together, the line is defined by one of three things:
>the complexity is continued to be forced just for the sake of being complex, screw plot development
>the complexity has become so overarching that even the writers lose track of it
>the complexity overtakes the content of the show as the main focus of the show, leading to more discussions about how complex it was than discussions about the story
If you're not going to tie them together and it's just there for the effect, the line is pretty simple:
>the complexity is starting to distract from the themes the plot is focusing around, leading people to question plot effects that aren't really there
You >sound like a retard.
> Gurren Lagann complex.
> Eva is complex and not random bullshit that looks creepy
This was too complicated for me. I don't think I'm very smart, though.
>Eva is complex and not random bullshit that looks creepy
>Creator directly admits he put in meaningless imagery "because it looked cool."
>People still eat it up as intellectual and deep.
That isn't what he said. He said something to the effect that Jap audiences and American ones would have different conclusions about the show, not due to its complexity, but because of the disparaging idiosyncratic values that are pervasive throughout the 2 cultures. It wasn't a comment on the show's complexity.
Agreed except for the fact that DC was absolute shit
The stupidity of the audience.
>makes your brain hurt
It's called thinking. It's not something people usually do with anime but Lain is different.
>what's the meaning?
>why did this happen?
>why did THAT happen?
>this doesn't make sense, therefore it's shit
Some pieces are meant to be experienced rather than watched and understood.
You don't understand *insert intellectual show*, you just get used to it.
now ya niggas are gonna tell me that hype la hype is complex because trigger was invovled in eva
>but because of the disparaging idiosyncratic values that are pervasive throughout
Shit, settle down.
Not terribly so, no. I was just trying to think of a well-known example where the "complexity" is only there for effect and really has nothing to do with the themes at hand. It's basically there just for wow factor. That was the first thing that came to mind, and it's really shallow compared to some of the other series people could bring up. That may be due in part to the fact where it didn't need to be a hallmark of the show, though, where in NGE it wouldn't have been even half as noteworthy without it.
So you're admiting that TTGL is not complex and you were making bad examples because you don't know anything actually complex. Good.
Eva's not complex. Someone post the "guide to EoE" which explains everything.
>Someone post the "guide to EoE" which explains everything.
>Says Eva's not complex
>needs a guide to understand it
So if I write a cryptic shit-series that needs a manual to be fucking understood in first place I'm a genius and my work is deep and I'm not just an incompetent hack?
You know how you don't make children watch LOGH?
It's not because the show fails on some level but because the audience wouldn't be able to comprehend it. That means it's dependant on the audience.
There's your answer.
Eva isn't that complex, you have to know that all religious allegories shouldn't be taken into account, since they were made because they "looked cool" (seriously). They have no real meaning. The only complexity EVA has is in the burden's each character has, and it isn't that complex, they practically spell out why each character behaves the way he/she does.
Lain was complex because it made you ponder about many things, like reality, what constitutes it, identity, etc. The best thing is they managed to include this in a way that actually nurtures the story.
An anime that fails rather spectacularly at this is Ergo Proxy, because all the complexity the show has is actually pseudo-intellectual shit that doesn't add anything of significance to the story, it was mere pretentious filler. It takes an effort to not get bored.
A show that has a lot of complexity is Mawaru Penguindrum, the themes it presents may not have as much gravitas if you just watch what is on the surface, but if you watch closely and interpret a lot of it metaphorically it is quite deep, and yet surprisingly simple at the same time, it lends itself to a lot of heavy interpretation, but you could avoid that for the most part, though I guarantee that is makes the show so good.
I don't think you understand semiotics at all.
You only need the guide if you're incredibly dense or suffer Asperger's. Seriously there's nothing seriously complicated about EVA.
Possibly, but it's also harder than you think it is. Also depth doesn't not necessarily equate to incoherent obfuscated rambling like you seem to imply. Lain was both deep and easy to understand, for the most part, to the point where the plot could be summed up by a few sentences.
It stops being meaningless when you give it meaning, but from a quasi-objective point of view, the fact that it was used for visual coolness renders it moot, unless you're not privy to that fact, or are incredibly stubborn.
>An anime that fails rather spectacularly at this is Ergo Proxy, because all the complexity the show has is actually pseudo-intellectual shit that doesn't add anything of significance to the story, it was mere pretentious filler. It takes an effort to not get bored.
Total agreement here. Ergo Proxy is one of those few anime that I will allow that laziest of words, "pretentious," to be lobbed at.
Pic not related I suppose?
I want to call you a hipster but I agree with everything you said.
No, anon, you are the hipster.
That "guide" is retarded. It barely scratches the surface and gets some facts just plain wrong.
I'm sorry, I know what you mean, it's just that 2 years ago I decided to speak as elegantly as i could, it has become a habit. I do it because I guess I posess a decent vocabulary, but for the most part it is because it's cool.
>because it's cool.
It really isn't. It makes you come off as fedora-core.
It's cool for me, is what I meant.
>hurr stop using big long words
>being stupid is good
No, fuck off, you pleb.
You know I've always been giving when it comes to art style but do you really guys sit through this one? I've tried to start it a lot of times but it just feels really off sometimes.
I have nothing against being intellectual, but the fact of the matter is that using needlessly vocabulary has become the mark of pseudo-intellectual cunts now-a-days.
Lain's art style is fine. Don't be a faggot.
A good show can never be too complex, because most probably it would leave the audience to ponder what they watched, they do half of the work.
So you're the one who decides who uses what and when?
Oh no, sir. I assure you this is not a recent occurrence. People have been doing that for centuries.
>Lain was complex because it made you ponder about many things, like reality, what constitutes it, identity
Those same themes exist in Evangelion. There are existential themes especially in the last two episodes and in EoE. Just because all you paid attention to are religious imagery and characters whining doesn't mean that's all there is to Evangelion.
But only recently have the culprits made themselves so readily identifiable.
Let's get rid of 90% of the english vocabulary then, or the vocabulary of pretty much any other language for that matter.
No it's not, that's just your inferiority complex flaring up.
No, the movie didn't feature it as much as the final 2 episodes, but the fact that they were a theme is somethin I concede, still, it's not complex at all, it was just a tool so Shinji could struggle with his existence, with reality. They didn't make you wonder what reality is.
Lain wasn't complicated, it was just a bunch of random shit that made no sense which dumb people pretend to get so they can act smart online, when in reality it was just random crap that you couldn't "get" because it made no sense.
Reread the exchange that started this tangent:
I wasn't saying that complex vocabulary shouldn't be used, just that being needlessly sesquidpedalian (See? That was completely unnecessary) makes you get labelled "fedora-cora" and is anything but "cool," which was what >>101230535 seemed to be saying.
Where Lain made you wonder what reality is, how reality might be a product of perception, how reality could change along with our perceptions of it, how your identity is different to other people on a person-to-person basis; EVA dealt with the value of relationships and the significance of a person's existence.
The main storyline was fairly simple, actually. You can even read the wikipedia article and understand everything from it.
did you really mean disparaging or diverging? If you meant to write disparaging I don't understand what you say, please explain in pleb-speak.
I find your willingness to publicize your lack of mental effort amusing.
If only the main storyline is considered, that can be said of just about anything.
Diverging actually, thanks for pointing that out.
This is what people say when they claim they "get" Lain. Everything else is left to each's personal interpretation. But Lain did make some sense, it wasn't "random."
>how reality might be a product of perception, how reality could change along with our perceptions of it, how your identity is different to other people on a person-to-person basis
Those exact same themes are in Eva. Seriously, rewatch the last two episodes. They are also somewhat featured in the movie mostly after instrumentality happens.
There is no such thing as too great of complexity just because plebs can't comprehend it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Lain didn't have its complexities or am agreeing with >>101231313 in any way, I'm just saying that most shows make the main storyline easy to follow, adding more complex themes through other means, so you can't judge how complex a series is just by the main story.
Lain makes sense if you're a symbolic intuitive thinker. Although thinking doesn't enter into it.
>symbolic intuitive thinker.
So a master of bullshit?
Spoken like a true ESFP.
Lain made a lot of sense, and it makes even more sense with every passing year, especially now that the Internet is part of everyone's lives. I'm dumb as fuck and I got it.
Ah, so you are a master of bullshit. Let me guess, you're an oh so special INTJ butterfly?
Can you faggots stop with the shitty personality labels already? It sounds almost as bad as self-diagnosing yourself with [insert social anxiety disorder].
I'm not the one dragging in Myers-Briggs into this, I meant intuition in a more general sense. Although, Jungs definition of Ni is the best approximation to that.
But people do misunderstand INTJs - if a person is Ni-dominant, e.g. is an intuitive according to Jung's definition (and not Myers-Briggs definition) they are pants on heads insane and view the world through their internal symbolic thinking and is controlled by this because that is what they *are*.
Can relate, but most people who claim to be intuitive can't, so meh.
Death of the author
Also known as humorism with a couple more axes
And you don't seem to understand...
Psychiatry/psychology is a pseudoscience anyway.
Someone applying the labels to themselves is as legitimate as when a quack does it. Especially for social anxiety.
Shyness, anxiety over social situations, etc. all exist. Social anxiety exists. "Social Anxiety Disorder" however does not exist and is a pseudoscience fabrication used as an umbrella term, which is applied to people with no science to back it up, based off opinions/observations of there emotions and behaviors. By all means you do not need a degree in quackery to deem that someone suffers from the "symptoms" of social anxiety.
A shame you seemed an honest man...
>Psychiatry/psychology is a pseudoscience anyway.
I wouldn't make a claim like that, unless I actually studied either of the 2, which I haven't, so I don't.
Yes, exactly. They took Jungs ideas and sliced them up like a dead pig and put them into boxes. Basically.
And all the things you hold so dear...
>Psychiatry/psychology is a pseudoscience anyway.
>Psychiatry is a pseudoscience anyway.
Confirmed for not having ever dealt with a mentally ill person. A relative with schizophrenia has a chemical imbalance
that has to be supplemented through Lithium pills, etc.
Did you watch the episodes in random order or something?
It made a lot of sense, the details you had to pay attention to, maybe.
But I don't see how anyone wouldn't get the gist of what was going on unless they were staring at a wall instead of the screen.
You do not need a degree in said pseudoscience to be able to point out when something is a pseudoscience.
Do you need to become a professional politician before you can say that what a politician is doing is wrong?
Next time before voting maybe you should become a politician.
Does he smell like a Lithium flower?
BTW I thought Lithium was for bipolar, is the poor fuck both bipolar and schizophrenic that sounds like a combination fit for a king.
>"Social Anxiety Disorder" however does not exist
sure it does. it's when said social anxiety is extreme enough to prevent that person from being able to function "normally". Psychology's aim is all about turning non-functioning people into functioning people.
Schizos need a fuckton of meds, lithium carbonate for mood impulses, there was another one for paranoid thought.
The bad days see at least 6 types of pills including clonazepam and haldol drops.
Polite sage for offtopic.
Oy vey, I thought it was just like Risperdal for the milder cases and a strict dosage of Haloperidol for the more severe. :O
Will turn to whispers in your ear...
>A relative with schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a pseudo-scientific fabricated label. Hallucinations, delusions, and the "symptoms" of it exist and are real.
There are times when there is something overtly neurologically wrong, but they don't know what. Instead of saying they don't know they give out labels like "schizophrenia".
Fact: There is no such thing as a test to see if you have a "chemical imbalance".
Fact: Chemical imbalances are an unproven hypothesis
Fact: There has never been a drug proven to treat a "chemical imbalance" because there is no such thing as a known way to identify "chemical imbalances", as it's just an unproven hypothesis.
I am well aware mental issues exist. You seem to not understand what I am saying if you think I don't. I am well aware your relative is probably fucking crazy.
My point is that the system you have been indoctrinated to believe is pseudoscience.
Your relative does not have "schizophrenia". Your relative does not have a "chemical imbalance" causing it. And Lithium or any other psychiatric drug has never been proven to cure a "chemical imbalance".
Lithium is not being given to him as a medication. It is not treating him. In fact it is only making him worse. It is however being given to him to retard his brain function and make him more manageable.
For future reference, if he ever does stop taking Lithium, please be aware that every psychiatric drug comes with withdrawals. Before you ever make a claim like "he's crazy when he doesn't take them, therefor he needs them", PLEASE be aware that the withdrawals of these drugs have the ability to make a sane person crazy.
Mamoru Oshii and/or Satoshi Kon
Am not samefag, but you are just tragically wrong. Schizophrenia used to be incurable, now with meds you can actually stop the symptoms to the point that people stop taking their meds because they're "cured".
Wrong, wrong, so very very wrong.
where did you get your degree?
Worsens over time.
It's a cycle of:
I don't need the pill anymore! -> Aggressive/dangerous behavior -> stronger dosage -> internment -> back to normal
At some point there is resistance to the stronger dosage so it goes even stronger.
Except the pill actually treats the symptoms and she is a reasonable person than can handle her own business while stabilized, not so when going off.
Where is your medical degree?
>schizophrenia iz not real, srsly gais listen2me
No it doesn't. That label is a pseudoscience fabrication. It implies that you have a neurological disease, when there is no science to back up that claim.
Psychology and especially psychiatry harms more people than it helps.
Psychology itself hurts people because these labels can cause self fulfilling prophecies. The labels themselves can cause people to lose hope. The labels themselves can cause people to lose credibility from the stigma. The labels themselves have stopped people from receiving real medical treatment.
Psychiatry hurts because it's based on the principle that
You should call emotions and behaviors diseases, then change them with harmful psychoactive drugs
This does not help people. It has killed people, and put people in FAR worse positions than where they started.
You are committing a fallacy here - just because we use medication without knowing their exact neurological effects doesn't prohibit us from observing the cause-and-effect relationship of different things to the best of our ability and in a strict scientific manner.
This is how science works.
And no, that's not how psychiatry works.
You can not "cure" schizophrenia dumbass. Not even psychiatry themselves has made that claim.
Refer to this: >>101233046
>not so when going off.
Seems as though you didn't read my post. I don't think you realize how powerful withdrawals from psychiatric drugs can be.
>For future reference, if he ever does stop taking Lithium, please be aware that every psychiatric drug comes with withdrawals. Before you ever make a claim like "he's crazy when he doesn't take them, therefor he needs them", PLEASE be aware that the withdrawals of these drugs have the ability to make a sane person crazy.
>Where is your medical degree.
Refer to this: >>101233046
Delusional thinking, hallucinations, and any other "symptom" you can think of are real. Just like hate and happiness are real. The label schizophrenia itself is a pseudoscientific fabrication.
You know very well what I meant. Schizophrenics stop taking their meds because they think they are cured.
A mental disease is just like every other disease of the body, except that it harms your ability to think clearly.
The human mind depends on very specific variables to work correctly else there are behaviors that would not correspond to the person's sane pattern of thinking.
>You are committing a fallacy here - just because we use medication without knowing their exact neurological effects doesn't prohibit us from observing the cause-and-effect relationship of different things to the best of our ability and in a strict scientific manner.
I am well aware that the "science" behind it is entirely based on giving people drugs, and then asking them how they feel or how they overtly react.
This is exactly WHY I am calling it a pseudoscience. It is how psychiatry works. You're personality traits, emotions, and behaviors fit inside a certain criteria, they deem them to be a neurological disease without any proof, and then attempt to treat them with mind-altering drugs.
Rinse and repeat.
Your hair-splitting is irrelevant. Schizophrenic psychosis is not a state people want to be in. The meds work, and help them not to be in that state. They do not "sedate" them, they literally prevent psychosis from breaking out and the barrier between imagination and reality from falling apart.
Who is this "they"? If I hurt, I take aspirin. If I go psychotic, I take anti-psychotics. I don't get the point you're trying to make here?
>You know very well what I meant. Schizophrenics stop taking their meds because they think they are cured.
Perhaps they would have been "cured" faster if they never started taking the mind-altering drugs. Perhaps whatever obviously temporary situation causing them to go crazy would have been finished a lot faster that way.
They also would have left without that label. They will know FOREVER be labeled as a schizophrenic, regardless of whether or not they were actually crazy, and it was just something like drug-induced temporary psychosis. Their credibility is forever ruined.
>A mental disease is just like every other disease of the body, except that it harms your ability to think clearly.
This is not true. If you look at real diseases, Strep throat, Cancer, Huntington's disease, migraines, Meningitis, etc. There is all clear science behind and science behind the diagnosis.
With "mental illness", there isn't science. It's someone's opinions and observations of your emotions and behaviors. This isn't science, it's not accurate, and it's not real medicine.
>What makes an intellectual series TOO complex
bad writing, bad story board, attempt to mash up 20 different philosophical ideals, use of pseudoscience to explain who, what, why ect.
basically, don't do what eva did.
Schizophrenia does not work that way, no. Left untreated it gets worse and worse over time.
Acute reactive psychosis does work like that, but that's not treated like schizophrenia.
Is Alzheimer's not real, then?
Satou pls go.
>The meds work, and help them not to be in that state.
The drugs do not work. They are actually harmful to your brain and body, and furthermore your mind.
What they can do is retard your brain function in such a way that makes it so you can't be as crazy, among other things. This is not the drug working, this is not medicine. It's similar to how amputating your leg because of a broken ankle will cure a broken ankle.
There's quite a large difference between taking mind-altering drugs in an attempt to change your mind, and taking a pain-killer to kill pain.
Explain every single dementia ever.
Schizophrenia is not a broken ankle, it's more like a gangrenous ankle. I assume you'd actually amputate your ankle if the alternative was death by gangrene?
king of 2deep4u
Dude, you are right for many many illnesses but schizophrenia is not one of them. It is a really fucked up mental disease which gets worse and worse. I know two people with schizophrenia.
Where are your sources?
>Left untreated it gets worse and worse over time.
We are straying into the realm of circular reasoning. I'd have to agree that "schizophrenia" was a real disease, rather than an umbrella term of emotions/behaviors with no science behind it, to even argue about you on this.
>Acute reactive psychosis does work like that, but that's not treated like schizophrenia.
The way psychiatry/psychology works "diagnosing" people is not very accurate at all. People with real diseases have been killed because they didn't receive real medical treatment because of being marked off as just being "mentally ill". They fuck up with their own labels all the time.
Yes, I suppose I'd need to accede to that argument. If you don't think Schizophrenia is a disease or harmful then it's like a Christian and a Muslim arguing about whose holy book is the right one.
Alzheimer's is a legitimate neurological disease, among some of the other neurological diseases I mentioned in that post (Huntington's, migraines).
There is a large difference between neurological diseases and "mental illness".
Perhaps you should of actually read my post.
You don't seem to get it.
Hallucinations, delusional thinking, and all the other "symptoms" of schizophrenia are real. Call it whatever you want, just don't say they "have" schizophrenia. This is my problem.
Crazy people exist and I am well fucking aware of that. Mental issues exist and I am well aware of that. My problem is the system of psychiatry/psychology and the doctrines that come with the fabricated labels they apply.
Interaction and observation with the system of psychiatry/psychology, seeing how they operate, and hearing about/seeing many cases of people who have been through it. It gets quite obvious what's going on.
If you want everything in life to be backed up with a "scientific article" that's okay. There are things in life that cannot be, however because they can't that does not mean they are incorrect.
Fiction can be as complex as it wants, as long as it's cohesive and not too self-contradicting.
But if these labels are used for valid treatments that work against a set of symptoms, then they are valid in a way.
How come mental patients that decide to stay untreated only become increasingly pathological and/or end up chanting in the middle of the street, while treated patients can resume their lives well.
>But if these labels are used for valid treatments that work against a set of symptoms, then they are valid in a way.
I do not want to repeat myself more than I already have. Simply put, I do not believe there is real science when you get "diagnosed" with one of these labels, and that the "treatment" has caused many, many people to end up in FAR worse positions than where they started.
Refer to: >>101233718
>How come mental patients that decide to stay untreated only become increasingly pathological and/or end up chanting in the middle of the street
Now you know that's not true. Everyone has mental problems to some extent. The alarmingly fucking crazy ones are just the only ones you notice.
>while treated patients can resume their lives well.
God I wish you could see some of the people who have been harmed by it. I want you to talk to the person having a seizure because they took benzos as prescribed by a psychiatrist, and couldn't get a refill on time. Or furthermore the potentially fatal withdrawals that last for months on end.
How about someone who stayed in a psych ward and was a victim of forced drugging.
How about the child who is fucked up from taking amphetamines, a neurotoxic drug, for their entire childhood because he misbehaved and didn't pay attention in class, which triggered a quack to say they have "ADHD".
How about the person on the receiving end of electro-shock therapy?
How about the person who has lost all credibility because they were mis-diagnosed with a "mental illness"?
How about a person who has received any of the plethora of serious negative health effects that come from taking psychiatric drugs, some permanent?
People who have become more mentally fucked up from the drugs and end up killing themselves?
Just a short list examples.
Ok, present your marvelous evidence, go on.
I don't know how a DEEP/Lain thread suddenly steered into some discussion about psychology and mental illnesses (from what I understand) but this is fucking gold.