Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 3764688" data-attributes="member: 32536">Do you even know much about .hack? Argh, there is no such thing as a "first" season or not. .hack//SIGN is a standalone series (presumably the "first season" you ramble on about), and also functions as a prequel to the first set of .hack videogames. Another anime, .hack//Legend of the Twilight, however, is just a bad, butchered adaptation of the very good manga of the same name, which is the epilogue to the first set of .hack videogames. The .hack//Liminality anime OVa is packaged with the games, and serves as a side-story. .hack//Roots is seperate, serving as the prologue to the .hack//G.U. videogames. There is no such thing as a "first" season, or a continuation for the first season. They are all seperate things..hack is deep because it thoroughly confronts the issues of life in the internet age. It deals with real issues about the disparity between someone's internet persona and their real self, gender issues that result from that confusion, parental issues from all kinds of perspectives, and many other major and minor things.NGE is shallow because it is little more than a Super Robot series by the numbers, which go hijacked by its director's bout with depression, and ended with a complete collapse of the series' production budget, resuting in a good anime that turned horribly sour at the end. The creators have said that if they knew the series would be brought to the Western market, they probably wouldn't have used Christian elements (none of the creators were Christians). As a whole, there isn't a single thing in there that hasn't been done better by other anime series.Also, you fail to see that I am not disagreeing with you about your judgements of quality, I am completely disagreeing with your measure of quality. The only thing that should be used to judge fantasy is its entertainment value. Saying something is "entertaining, but bad" is a complete logical contradiction to me. If it is entertaining (like Naruto is), then it is good. If it doesn't entertain anyone, then it is bad. Popularity occurs because of quality, not in spite of quality.Your measures of Originality and Evolutionary qualities of a work are completely tangential to any real measure of value. If something is original, then the original elements will either work to add to or detract from the entertainment value. If it adds to the entertainment value, then it is good. If it detracts from the entertainment value, then it is bad. Either way, originality in of itself has no value worth considering.Besides, you contradict yourself. You argue that originality is good, but insult Naruto. Like it or not, Naruto is an anime which heavily breaks away from existing conventions within its genre, and has many fresh and original takes on old ideas. It is anything but a story by the numbers.</blockquote>

Verification