Are genuinely enjoyable characters and characters that never show any character development mutually exclusive?
Like, is it objectively possible to enjoy a character for who they are and not because they underwent some sort of personal growth?
>is it objectively possible to enjoy a character for who they are and not because they underwent some sort of personal growth
Well, sure. But I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to. Care to elaborate?
Look at literally any SoL. People love them, but the characters very rarely change over the course of show.
I'm rewatching all the stuff I used to like as a kid before I move on to the new(er) things that are "must watch"es
It's baffling to me how arrogant, prideful, and petty Vegeta can be yet I still think he's an excellent character at doing what that kind of personality was made for.
SoL? Where I'm from that means shit outta luck.
>no character development
I find it rather surprising when people say that anime is a character-focused medium. Most anime characters are really shallow and uninteresting.
Don't you mean sub-humans?
That applies to most mediums as well. Anime isn't an exception.
Haven't hit it yet, if it happens. I'm at the part where he lets Cell complete his perfect form.
For the life of me, I can't remember what The Nightmare Before Christmas was about even though I watched it as a kid.
Well, because many Western films/cartoons focus on the story.
So does anime. Or are you excluding action as part of story for some reason?
All I remember is Oogie Boogie.
Halloween mascot wants to be santa.
jack finds the portal to other holidays
stumbles on christmas land
decides to spread halloween-style christmas to kids in the real world, freaks everyone out
santa gets kidnapped by the boogeyman
jack saves the day
that's about it
I don't think they are mutually exclusive but enjoyable characters pretty much always developed for multiple reasons. One of the few exceptions are Isaac and Miria
People with shit tastes love them, this is a serious discussion
It's part of the reason why I think character development is honestly really overrated. Not every character needs it.
>not liking sol
Uh. As someone who has never seen DBZ, I'm nearly certain Vegeta has character development.
Anyway, judging characters 'objectively' isn't so straight-forward. it really depends on the genre, and what the purpose of including the character was. The most important thing in my opinion, is how true the actions of a character relate to their personality, and how 'realistic' that is. By realistic, I mean, assuming it's not a comedy, is their personality one that seems to be humanly possible. Does the character appear to be acting off of a personal belief system? Do they have some flaws/conflicts with their actions, etc, etc.
The thing is, many times if a writer is good enough to portray a well-written character, they also are good enough writers that they know how valuable character development can be. But then again, there are characters who are intentially made to have little to no develpment. Someone that would be described as a 'simpleton' or someone who is 'stubbon/hardheaded' a lot of times won't have much development, because their personality doesn't call for it.
It's a really vague topic on what deems a character to be objectively good. It really depends on context, and it is much easier to look at a character and discuss if he is objectively a good character or not.
A lot of people like Kamina, Strait Cougar and Alex Louis Armstrong, but I don't think any of them go through any real character development or major change. That's not their function in the story.
For example, many people like Gintoki and he's a static character.
As opposed to subjectively, retard.
If it was only a subjective matter then it would just be a matter of opinion. Whether or not it is objective would require delving into the study of storytelling, and what makes characters genuinely enjoyable or not.
Stop criticizing people for using words properly.
Not criticizing people for using words properly. I'm criticizing them for over-using them to the point that they loose meaning.
Except even educated opinions are still fucking opinions.
I like good sol like NHK, nichibro, honey & clover
Yuyushiki and other similar garbage are shit
Nichibro isn't that different from comedy slice of life with girls.
Japanese like every shitty, shallow girl archetype with barely any personality, let alone character development and you're asking something like this?
Westerners love cool motherfuckers (Arnold in many of his roles - Commando, Predator, etc) or iconic monsters (Freddy Krueger, Alien etc.).
Character development often is completely unnecessary.
The main difference is that it succeeds at being funny. That's pretty important
I'm gonna criticize you for not knowing the difference between "lose" and "loose."
For you. It wasn't very funny in my opinion.
>Where I'm from that means shit outta luck
Well you certainly aren't from /a/ then. It means Slice of Life.
>Most anime characters are really shallow and uninteresting
Well, most characters are made to fit into a certain model that has worked for countless series before them. The characters will many times come of as uninteresting, just because it seems like you have seen that exact character 500 times before. That said, being that most anime is not episodic, it usually has character development, and there are usually characters with a lot of personality (despite how idiotic/poorly-written/etc the personality may be).
Well yes, but he asked "objectively" not 'subjectively'.
Each holiday is it's own place. Jack Skellington is sort of the mascot of the Halloween place. Upon stumbling in the Christmas place, he is overwhelmed with feelings he hasn't experienced, and he wants to try and bring these to the Halloween place. He fails miserable and can't figure out why, so he captures Santa and tries to become the new Santa, which again fails miserably. It's a good movie, and was done with very limited computer models/effects.
Of coarse anime focuses on the story as well, but more about how it pertains to the individual characters.There's also the fact that many of the shows on television here are episodic. But this is all generally speaking of coarse.
>Isaac and Miria
I've been trying to think of a perfect example, and I could not. That is definitely it though. Thanks.
This evening someone took nightmare before christmas from my brother's room.
I was thinking about that scene in black lagoon when Gretel is killed and someone made a topic on that scene.
I was thinking about gatotsu and someone made a topic about side characters with Saito on the OP
Is there some sort of world casualty that, like a domino effect impacts many minds who may in a very short lapse coincide?
I did see it. When someone's argument is "stop trying to sound smart" and their evidence is "you used this word", it doesn't deem a reply. On top of that, OP was literally just asking a question. If it sounded pretentious to you, that's your thinking that is the problem.
He used it properly, and it didn't have loose meaning.
You don't quite understand. Beethoven was objectively a good musician. I am objectively a bad musician. Subjectively though, someone may disagree. For example, if a toddler was the judge of which song he liked better, and an unfamiliar Beethoven piece was put on, verse me playing his favorite theme song, he would probably choose me. Objectively, Beethoven clearly had much more talent, training, etc, and his song most likely reflected that in multiple ways. Objective vs subjective is not a mater of "opinion" vs "educated opinion". It usually takes an educated person to understand it though. It's like looking at chess game and asking a professional and someone who barely knows the rules which move is better. I can go on with more examples/explanation, but if you don't understand yet you are just being stubborn.
Again, it's not a matter of what one likes. I like watching hentai, there are less than 5 that I have seen that I would consider moderately well written.
Of course it is. We are talking about enjoyable characters, not good characters.
>I like watching hentai
>hentai well writter
Characterization and good performance are important, not "character development".
>Beethoven was objectively a good musician
Good and bad are heavily subjective though. A good musician is somebody who produces pleasing sounding music, and whether or not music is pleasant depends whether or not it has an affinity with your senses.
Some fucking frog might hear your trash and end up enjoying it more than Beethovens loud ruckus because it sounds more like the ambiance of the swamp it lives in.
I believe that people who are interested in anime/film have better taste than casual watchers. And by interested I don't mean watching mindlessly many shows, like most of /a/.
I'm talking about real fans. People interested in anime history, Japanese culture, influences, etc.
>People interested in anime history, Japanese culture, influences
So people who are interested in things other than anime are interested in anime, and the people who watch a fuckton of anime aren't interested in anime?
Nice logic bro.
No doubt there are countless amount of people who don't even realise why they enjoyed whatever it was they just watched, but they enjoy anime in a very real sense all the same.
What the fuck exactly does this have to do with "objectivity"?
Why do you believe this?
That's not what that is. The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is when you watch redline for the first time and can't stop seeing redline threads, even though you never have seen them before.
It has to do with your attention being selectively drawn to things recently experienced or remembered.
My bad on the second quote, for some reason I thought you were responding to something different. Your usage is correct.
It's logical. Anime is deeply rooted in Japanese history and culture. Watching tons of modern anime and not knowing anything about anime history doesn't make you a fan.
It's like with horror "fans" who never heard about Bela Lugosi or Boris Karloff.
>Why do you believe this?
Because it's true.
>Because it's true.
This topic is stupid and you're stupid. There isn't a single atom of literary merit, a single molecule of objective masterpiece. Any definition by which a work could be objectively good despite nobody on Earth liking it is a BAD definition.
And Japanese history and culture is deeply rooted in Chinese history and culture. So does that mean some fucking professor in japanese and chinese history is a fan of anime if he enjoyed watching merely one show?
For fucks sake anon, you don't need to know history in order to enjoy anime.
You also failed to answer my question as to why any of this meandering bullshit is relevant.
>A good musician is somebody who produces pleasing sounding music.
There's your problem. That's not what makes a musician good or not. A good musician is someone who has the ability to make music that succeeds with it's desired effect. Not all music is made to be 'pleasantly' sounding. Most music is intended to make the listener experience a certain 'emotion' (more or less). Maybe you are trying to get the listener to experience the saddening depression you felt, or to feel tense/frightened/etc. These probably won't sound pleasing. Some music is made purely to try and make the listener want to "dance".
I am of course simplifying, but this is more of something that would require pages upon pages to explain. The point being, being able to produce 'pleasing' sounding music isn't enough to be considered an objectively good musician.
Oh, you're still talking about this nonsense? I'm just saying that people who are real fans of animation know it much better than casual fans. And their taste is superior in every way.
Their taste isn't superior in terms of modeling the mind of a casual.
In other words, a casual is more likely to understand if an anime will be successful among other casuals.
This is highly relevant if you feel like selling your anime.
>So does that mean some fucking professor in japanese and chinese history is a fan of anime if he enjoyed watching merely one show?
Did I say that? No.
>you don't need to know history in order to enjoy anime.
Sure, but then you'll just a shitty casual without much knowledge about the medium.
>why any of this meandering bullshit is relevant
Because people who aren't really interested in anime shouldn't talk about it.
>A good musician is someone who has the ability to make music that succeeds with it's desired effect
According to your logic if Beethoven wanted to make music that made EVERYBODY on earth fall to their knees in pleasure and you wanted to make music that would make anybody who heard it cringe at how retarded it sounds, that would make you the better musician because Beethoven would surely fail.
Also if something was truly unpleasant you wouldn't fucking listen to it, PERIOD. It would be an offense to your senses to the point where you wouldn't even be ABLE to feel any emotion other than disgust at the sound your ears are hearing.
>a shitty casual without much knowledge about the medium
That has nothing to do with being a fan of something. Fans are fans because they love something, not because they know anything about it.
>Also if something was truly unpleasant you wouldn't fucking listen to it, PERIOD.
Critics can't get enough of this shit.
No, fans are fans because they are interested in something.
>An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
If you just fap to anime characters all day, like most people on this shitty board, then you aren't a fan. 4chan overall is very casual with just few real enthusiasts.
And somebody interested in something obviously must love it first.
You are a moron.
It's hardly an offense to the senses. Though anybody claiming to be a critic has to have a very convincing argument as to why they enjoy listening to this tripe, otherwise they're just pretentious faggots.
>people who watch anime all the time aren't interested in it
Most of them are interested in girls and 4chan, not anime. Watching mindlessly shit doesn't make you an expert.
Good thing we aren't talking about experts, and are talking about fans.
Casual fans. People who just want to shitpost on 4chan, not people genuinely interested in animation.
>I believe that people who are interested in anime/film have better taste than casual watchers.
Well no shit.
>And by interested I don't mean watching mindlessly many shows, like most of /a/.
I don't think that applies as much as you think it does. I think most people choose the shows they watch for a reason, and even though they enjoy watching shows that are rather terrible, they understand that the shows aren't actually good. I could be wrong, but I don't see the relevance either way.
>I'm talking about real fans. People interested in anime history, Japanese culture, influences, etc.
Well, more importance lies on understanding the art of storytelling and the different elements the creators used for what reason, and how effective they are. Knowing the culture and influence does certainly help with this, but I think you are putting much more importance on it than there really is.
You have a strange definition for the word 'fan'. I think you mean 'enthusiast' or something of the sort.
>Because it's true
That's not a reason...
Are you widening the scope to cover studios, directors and character designers? Because rather than being a fan of anime, you're dipping into a whole other topic.
Of course. In fact, I believe that people interested in anime shouldn't disregard Western animation. But like I said, 4chan (or rather the whole Internet) caters to casuals.
/tv/ is full of memes (FOR YOU!) and modern TV seriers (all those shitty generals)
/co/ full of modern comics and generals that are barely about the shows/films (Frozen).
/a/ full of manchildren jacking off to cartoons and waifufags.
I was referring to Japan animation aspects. Trying to drag western animation in is an even more retarded idea and not even /a/. Please go back to /tv/.
I don't see any worth in today's cartoons so I finally stopped watching TV entirely.
Last good ones I can think of were Flapjack and Chowder.
Adventure Time was building itself up fine before it went insane with forced drama.
>their taste is superior in every way.
I wouldn't go that far, but generally, yeah. That's kind of common sense, and I don't know what point you are trying to make by stating it.
>you'll (be) just a shitty casual
Well, if that's your definition of what it means to be a casual, then yeah. But that's a rather idiotic notion.
>According to your logic if Beethoven...
Well, that's exactly why I stated it was overly simplified. It would take me quite some time, and pages of explanation for me to define what exactly it means to be a good musician. The point was, someone has to know how to use sound to evoke certain feelings in the listener. If the only feeling I can evoke is disgust at how shitty my music sounds, that wouldn't make me a good musician, even if that was the only thing I wanted to do with my music.
>if something was truly unpleasent you wouldn't fucking listen to it, PERIOD
No. An easy example, the soundtrack to a horror film will likely have music that is truly unpleasant. But anyway, I think you are mixing up 'pleasant' with 'enjoyable in some way'. Because, clearly death metal isn't pleasant, but (some would say some if) it is enjoyable in some way. But anyway, there are good musicians who will make things that truly aren't enjoyable to listen to, to serve a purpose. Maybe there is a part of a song that just sounds so disgustingly off key, and then later in the song they bring back the same melody, but in key. Or maybe like in some classically music, they are trying to portray the sounds of a battle/storm/etc, and they want to the listener to be frustrated/annoyed/etc, so that the music that follows/proceeded is more in contrast more enjoyable.
>An ardent devotee; an enthusiast
I don't know where you found that definition, but that's not what it means to be a 'fan' of something.
>interested in girls and 4chan, not anime
Well, the girls in anime are certainly part of anime.
Except Japanese animation in its infancy was influenced by Western animation.
>I don't know where you found that definition
>Well, the girls in anime are certainly part of anime.
Like fanart or doujinshi, right?
I'm not sure what's going on in your head. The 4chan anime board known as /a/ is not a place only for people looking to have serious discussion about the art-forms of animation and storytelling. You can do that if you want, but that doesn't mean discussing such things as "who is best girl" is shit-posting.
Anyway, the connotation for the term "casual" here is that of someone who hasn't actually delved into anime, but has just seen a select few of likely the 'popular' ones.
You are looking for a place for professionals to discuss high level aspects of art forms? Get a doctrine, do some studying, and then you can go discuss things with other professionals. I'm not sure how many serious professionals you will find in the study of Japanese animation, but there are some out there. Until then, welcome to the internet. Where people discuss things, and generally come to have a laugh or two while communicating with other people who have similar interests or put down others who do not.
Also, a tip. Ignore things you don't like. For example, shitty threads, boards, websites, etc. You not liking them isn't relevant to all the people who do like them. Might as well go to mlp forums and say "You guys don't truly appreciate 2d art, such as Rembrandt's portraits".
Gumball is decent. Regular Show has quite the following, I can't say I have seen enough of it to judge though.
>is not a place only for people looking to have serious discussion about the art-forms of animation and storytelling.
Yes, it's a place for people who love blogging and talking about their dicks. It's certainly not a place for people interested in anime.
>"who is best girl" is shit-posting.
Meaningless "discussion" about nothing. Great threads.
You understand there isn't a single dictionary in this world, correct? You also understand, words change their meaning based on context, right? For example, when someone says they are an anime fan, it means they have seen some anime, and enjoyed it enough that they are currently, or are planning on, watching more of it. It doesn't mean they have seen over __ amount of series, or can name the year __ came out, it just means they enjoy some of what the medium(?) has to offer.
>Meaningless "discussion" about nothing.
Discussion about their favorite character in a particular series/season/etc, and why they like that character best.
>Threads that many of the users of this site thoroughly enjoy, and the users that don't quietly pass by.
Agreed, good threads.
Anyway, we are at the point that you are ignoring 99% of what is said, just to pick out one thing you disagree with, and provide zero meaningful evidence to back up your opinion. Unless you have anything of actual value to add here, don't expect a reply.
You must be an art student.
>making shit music to serve a purpose
MD Geist is all action all the time. I'd get more character development playing three days of an asian f2p mmo.
He's also the baddest, coolest motherfucker to walk the earth.
I feel that this is somehow related.
Yes. It's more realistic, i think(albeit less engrossing). Outside of fiction, hardly anyone experiences some great upheaval or epiphany that radically alters their character/attitude.
>hardly anyone experiences some great upheaval or epiphany that radically alters their character/attitude.
I don't... I don't believe that's true.
Anyway, most anime with that large of character development have settings that contribute to that.