Vinland Saga Episode 19 Discussion

Offline

Mar 2018

1435

@Yautja Indeed, that's sort of how it went. Only when I read the bolded parts I became interested in what you meant by that phrase, and understood it after further clarification. You conveniently ignore how my point was how you misuse the word 'objective' and pretend to apply it to art.

But you had to prove yourself, that you meant something else with "on a less objective scale", I never cared, it wasn't the point, didn't have enough relevance to our discussion.

Fact is, it's really shallow to focus on that when the focus was discussing Canute's character, it's really sad you had to continue with your ramblings and not stay on topic. Yet again you have the balls to blame me. How cute.

Thorkell already had the motivation to fight the king.... yet you claim Canute has "new magical leadership qualities, charisma and argumentative skills".

Attitude is interwined with personality, yet you lost your shit when I wrote "change in attitude". You do know how ridiculous that was? Especially given my first elaborate post to you?

Read all my arguments again aimed at your false criticisms and realise you never had valid point.

"Bandwagon fallacy" rofl, just pointing out majority of people aren't as stupid as you, you are one of the few who spouts nonsensical false criticisms.

I speak the truth, what you criticize is your own headcanon, same with your issues with my phrasing, too eager to have a point because otherwise you have none, vapid boy.

Forgot how you took issue with my sentence "And wow, still complaining about the action in this series" and tried to make an argument. Talk about reading comprehension.

I'm on a phone so I can't bother to quote my own arguments and yours when it comes to Canute... in the coffeeshop high asf and my laptop died.

I'll call upon judge and executioner @Daniel_Naumov to decide the winner, and maybe he can even bless us with a different godly interpretation of Canute's character.

poop

Nov 26, 2019 5:08 AM

#154

shane_nichols

Offline

Jun 2015

1116

Adnash93 said:
Thorkell was great as always! So was Askeladd as well. :)

Canute's transformation into a chad is completed.

I didn't know that vikings played shougi, lmao. Another dumb historical unaccuracy. I know it is kinda Japanese version of chess, but why didn't they use Japanese equivalent of a word describing European chess, instead of using Japanese variant's name?

No I think it's just Amazons lazy translations.

Nov 26, 2019 5:54 AM

#155

emraanash

Offline

Oct 2018

762

Super overrated!!!!

Warning: Spoilers
After watching 12 episodes I lost my patience. Basically, It's a story about a viking boy who got his father killed because of his fault and now he's trying to get avenge his father by working under the mercenary who killed his father. Blinded by his rage, the boy wants nothing but revenge, if you are into meaningless fights without any good story then this is a MUST WATCH!!!! Anyway, If you are looking for a good war anime or something then you should try watching Dororo or Kingdom instead, don't waste your time on this if you are not jobless.

“You can always die. It's living that takes real courage." - Himura Kenshin”

.

Nov 26, 2019 6:14 AM

#156

shane_nichols

Offline

Jun 2015

1116

emraanash said:
Super overrated!!!!

Warning: Spoilers
After watching 12 episodes I lost my patience. Basically, It's a story about a viking boy who got his father killed because of his fault and now he's trying to get avenge his father by working under the mercenary who killed his father. Blinded by his rage, the boy wants nothing but revenge, if you are into meaningless fights without any good story then this is a MUST WATCH!!!! Anyway, If you are looking for a good war anime or something then you should try watching Dororo or Kingdom instead, don't waste your time on this if you are not jobless.

Watch Legend of Galactic Heroes or Gundam 79 and Zeta if you want a good war story.

Nov 26, 2019 6:52 AM

#157

NotFred

Offline

Feb 2019

204

emraanash said:
Super overrated!!!!

Warning: Spoilers
After watching 12 episodes I lost my patience. Basically, It's a story about a viking boy who got his father killed because of his fault and now he's trying to get avenge his father by working under the mercenary who killed his father. Blinded by his rage, the boy wants nothing but revenge, if you are into meaningless fights without any good story then this is a MUST WATCH!!!! Anyway, If you are looking for a good war anime or something then you should try watching Dororo or Kingdom instead, don't waste your time on this if you are not jobless.

It's more than just meaningless fights. I mean your only critisicm was lack of action, not that it's a bad thing. Also small correction: *read kingdom. Anime is abysmall, read the manga instead.

Nov 26, 2019 7:17 AM

#158

Wicker_Senpai93

Offline

Jun 2019

385

This episode was pretty good! Thorkell really went apeshit near the end. Thorfinn poked his fucking eye in!

Canute has really changed, it'll be interesting to see where this goes!

Nov 26, 2019 7:22 AM

#159

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Esquirtit said:
@Yautja Indeed, that's sort of how it went. Only when I read the bolded parts I became interested in what you meant by that phrase, and understood it after further clarification. You conveniently ignore how my point was how you misuse the word 'objective' and pretend to apply it to art.

But you had to prove yourself, that you meant something else with "on a less objective scale", I never cared, it wasn't the point, didn't have enough relevance to our discussion.

Fact is, it's really shallow to focus on that when the focus was discussing Canute's character, it's really sad you had to continue with your ramblings and not stay on topic. Yet again you have the balls to blame me. How cute.

Thorkell already had the motivation to fight the king.... yet you claim Canute has "new magical leadership qualities, charisma and argumentative skills".

Attitude is interwined with personality, yet you lost your shit when I wrote "change in attitude". You do know how ridiculous that was? Especially given my first elaborate post to you?

Read all my arguments again aimed at your false criticisms and realise you never had valid point.

"Bandwagon fallacy" rofl, just pointing out majority of people aren't as stupid as you, you are one of the few who spouts nonsensical false criticisms.

I speak the truth, what you criticize is your own headcanon, same with your issues with my phrasing, too eager to have a point because otherwise you have none, vapid boy.

Forgot how you took issue with my sentence "And wow, still complaining about the action in this series" and tried to make an argument. Talk about reading comprehension.

I'm on a phone so I can't bother to quote my own arguments and yours when it comes to Canute... in the coffeeshop high asf and my laptop died.

I'll call upon judge and executioner @Daniel_Naumov to decide the winner, and maybe he can even bless us with a different godly interpretation of Canute's character.

Epic flamewar was epic. Not going to reply again

*Replies again*
Could have seen that coming.

Yea, sure thing, it's not your fault that basic English had to repeatedly be spelled out for you. It's not like you yourself conceded to that "misuse" of the word after repeatedly contradicting yourself.

Esquirtit said:

You can't rate art objectively even if you use an objective metric because your own interpretation of art will always be subjective.

Esquirtit said:

I agree art can be judged objectively to an extent, I didn't mean to imply you said it can be done 100%, just gave my thoughts on it.

If you want me to beat this into your head again, we can revisit it. And before you try and act like you won something, I was the one who said "No one is pretending it's possible to be 100% objective all the time"

Lmao, yea, "I meant something else", not you misunderstanding how English works, as you've literally admitted.

Esquirtit said:
Already explained why I misunderstood it. I'm kinda happy you went through the effort of explaining your phrasing because I literally never paid attention to it, just glanced over it and thought "wait I don't care about this".

You know I don't about care such a phrase in such a manner that's just plain bad.

I don't "disagree", I accept that you used it in a proper way, it's just literally pointless and I don't know why you would do it on a episode discussion thread.

I knew that truck was going to stop backing up and eventually double down.

Sneeze = Cancer. Keep dancing around it all you want, keep pretending like you've achieved something all you want. The point remains, you've pointed to like three scenes / episodes to justify a radical change in fundamental personality over a weeks time in story. What you're justifying is no different than saying Thorfinn's personality pre and post time skip would have been totally reasonable even without the timeskip. Sorry pumpkin, but it just doesn't work that way. We've been here and done this a dozen times, and until you actually say something meaningfully contradictory to what I've said, I'm not going to repeat myself.
And the same applies to you and then some, reread what I've said, because as far as I'm concerned, you plugged your ears and screamed "I'm right" since the first comment and have not adequately addressed a single response on this point you both bitch about me ignoring, but run away from by say "You're a troll, contrarian, hater" whenever I say something you dislike.
And no shit I'm going to blame your dumbass when you've contradicted yourself a dozen times in this comment alone.

Yea, sure, you speak the truth, mhmmm. God, an weeb with an sjw attitude. That's a new one. You totally didn't just describe the bandwagon fallacy.

Really? You're going to pretend that I'm the one with reading problems at this point? Good luck with that. Keep trying, not like I've spent all damn day educating your dumbass on English.

Nov 26, 2019 7:23 AM

#160

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 7:28 AM

#161

Bowman145

Offline

Oct 2017

565

Great episode! Loved the backstory between Thors and Thorkell.

Now Canute has Thorfinn, Askeladd, and Thorkell with him.

Nov 26, 2019 7:52 AM

#162

Adnash

Offline

Oct 2013

8584

shane_nichols said:
No I think it's just Amazons lazy translations.

I must disagree. I clearly heard Asleladd saying "shougi" instead of "chesu".

✨Saint Seiya Club🌠

Nov 26, 2019 7:53 AM

#163

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Three things.

1. Who are you? Genuine question, I don't get why you're being called to be an "executioner or judge", and I seem to be missing out on a meme.

2. That conclusion on Canute, unless I'm misunderstanding, is quite similar to what I've been saying, albeit on a slightly different road. You bring up how real people in that time would react and I focused solely on real people, regardless of time. I don't think him changing so drastically would be any more believable if he was a character living in the 21st century going through an equivalent of what he's gone through in this anime, though that's irrelevant because he isn't. The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."
Thors and Thorkell are a whole other bag of worms that are not the focus of what you've been "summoned" for, so I'm not going to say my piece, while I do agree with what's been said by you, mostly.

3. If people cannot communicate a discussion cannot be had. And considering your summoner still doesn't understand half of what I've said, willingly or otherwise, continues to contradict himself, etc, etc, what I'm trying to remedy is showing itself all the more now isn't it? Something I think would be evident if you had "enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language".
And I have responded to the "discussion" on Canute repeatedly, it's just buried in that shit storm you don't want to read and has not progressed exactly because of poor English, among other issues such as any disgreement on my part being labeled a "troll", "hater", or "contrarian".

Nov 26, 2019 7:54 AM

#164

dasprn

Offline

Feb 2014

2102

Askeladd finally finds the master he's meant to serve. He even reveals his misdeed to pledge his loyalty for life.
Next up we get Canute's conquest!!

When someone asks me why I like anime, I'd say Just Because.

Nov 26, 2019 7:58 AM

#165

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Three things.

1. Who are you? Genuine question, I don't get why you're being called to be an "executioner or judge", and I seem to be missing out on a meme.

2. That conclusion on Canute, unless I'm misunderstanding, is quite similar to what I've been saying, albeit on a slightly different road. You bring up how real people in that time would react and I focused solely on real people, regardless of time. I don't think him changing so drastically would be any more believable if he was a character living in the 21st century going through an equivalent of what he's gone through in this anime, though that's irrelevant because he isn't. The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."
Thors and Thorkell are a whole other bag of worms that are not the focus of what you've been "summoned" for, so I'm not going to say my piece, while I do agree with what's been said by you, mostly.

3. If people cannot communicate a discussion cannot be had. And considering your summoner still doesn't understand half of what I've said, willingly or otherwise, continues to contradict himself, etc, etc, what I'm trying to remedy is showing itself all the more now isn't it? Something I think would be evident if you had "enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language".
And I have responded to the "discussion" on Canute repeatedly, it's just buried in that shit storm you don't want to read and has not progressed exactly because of poor English, among other issues such as any disgreement on my part being labeled a "troll", "hater", or "contrarian".

It is a custom on these "forums", you might as well get used to be called names instead of being courteously disproven. It would be for the best to keep oneself above the name-calling and stay on topic 110% of times.
As to who I am, just one of the loudest hams and an advocate for "True Art is a thing","Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated" and "Burying of author is a multi-level crime" on these forums.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 8:03 AM

#166

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Three things.

1. Who are you? Genuine question, I don't get why you're being called to be an "executioner or judge", and I seem to be missing out on a meme.

2. That conclusion on Canute, unless I'm misunderstanding, is quite similar to what I've been saying, albeit on a slightly different road. You bring up how real people in that time would react and I focused solely on real people, regardless of time. I don't think him changing so drastically would be any more believable if he was a character living in the 21st century going through an equivalent of what he's gone through in this anime, though that's irrelevant because he isn't. The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."
Thors and Thorkell are a whole other bag of worms that are not the focus of what you've been "summoned" for, so I'm not going to say my piece, while I do agree with what's been said by you, mostly.

3. If people cannot communicate a discussion cannot be had. And considering your summoner still doesn't understand half of what I've said, willingly or otherwise, continues to contradict himself, etc, etc, what I'm trying to remedy is showing itself all the more now isn't it? Something I think would be evident if you had "enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language".
And I have responded to the "discussion" on Canute repeatedly, it's just buried in that shit storm you don't want to read and has not progressed exactly because of poor English, among other issues such as any disgreement on my part being labeled a "troll", "hater", or "contrarian".

It is a custom on these "forums", you might as well get used to be called names instead of being courteously disproven. It would be for the best to keep oneself above the name-calling and stay on topic 110% of times.
As to who I am, just one of the loudest hams and an advocate for "True Art is a thing","Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated" and "Burying of author is a multi-level crime" on these forums.

I don't care about being called names or calling people names, I care about being on the same page because it leads to exactly what you didn't want to read, something he and I are not, and something I've been trying and failing to remedy, for whatever reason.

Just to be clear, have I misunderstood your conclusions / interpretations and their likeness to mine considering the little tl;dr I summed my position as?

"Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated"
Does that mean you believe there's a significant degree of objectivity in judging "art", whether it be anime, manga, movies, tv shows, etc?

Nov 26, 2019 8:10 AM

#167

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Three things.

1. Who are you? Genuine question, I don't get why you're being called to be an "executioner or judge", and I seem to be missing out on a meme.

2. That conclusion on Canute, unless I'm misunderstanding, is quite similar to what I've been saying, albeit on a slightly different road. You bring up how real people in that time would react and I focused solely on real people, regardless of time. I don't think him changing so drastically would be any more believable if he was a character living in the 21st century going through an equivalent of what he's gone through in this anime, though that's irrelevant because he isn't. The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."
Thors and Thorkell are a whole other bag of worms that are not the focus of what you've been "summoned" for, so I'm not going to say my piece, while I do agree with what's been said by you, mostly.

3. If people cannot communicate a discussion cannot be had. And considering your summoner still doesn't understand half of what I've said, willingly or otherwise, continues to contradict himself, etc, etc, what I'm trying to remedy is showing itself all the more now isn't it? Something I think would be evident if you had "enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language".
And I have responded to the "discussion" on Canute repeatedly, it's just buried in that shit storm you don't want to read and has not progressed exactly because of poor English, among other issues such as any disgreement on my part being labeled a "troll", "hater", or "contrarian".

It is a custom on these "forums", you might as well get used to be called names instead of being courteously disproven. It would be for the best to keep oneself above the name-calling and stay on topic 110% of times.
As to who I am, just one of the loudest hams and an advocate for "True Art is a thing","Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated" and "Burying of author is a multi-level crime" on these forums.

I don't care about being called names or calling people names, I care about being on the same page because it leads to exactly what you didn't want to read, something he and I are not, and something I've been trying and failing to remedy, for whatever reason.

Just to be clear, have I misunderstood your conclusions / interpretations and their likeness to mine considering the little tl;dr I summed my position as?

"Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated"
Does that mean you believe there's a significant degree of objectivity in judging "art", whether it be anime, manga, movies, tv shows, etc?

No, I believe we are in concord that the transformation of Canute is not a natural phenomenon, as it would happen otherwise, but a push by the author to have a driving force for the story. If Canute did not "snap" the other way back, he would get murdered by that mouth-breather, and they would not let Askeladd and Thorfinn go that easlity.
Yes I believe there is a significant degree of objectivity in judging Art. Art, creation of artificial, is fundamentally anchored to the reality the artificial comes from. While we might not have all the information, experiences, emotions the author poured into his work while creating it, we are ultimately born on the same planet, and keep reproducing same values throughout the centuries. To outright deny objectivity is to deny the fact of shared reality of humans.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 8:29 AM

#168

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Three things.

1. Who are you? Genuine question, I don't get why you're being called to be an "executioner or judge", and I seem to be missing out on a meme.

2. That conclusion on Canute, unless I'm misunderstanding, is quite similar to what I've been saying, albeit on a slightly different road. You bring up how real people in that time would react and I focused solely on real people, regardless of time. I don't think him changing so drastically would be any more believable if he was a character living in the 21st century going through an equivalent of what he's gone through in this anime, though that's irrelevant because he isn't. The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."
Thors and Thorkell are a whole other bag of worms that are not the focus of what you've been "summoned" for, so I'm not going to say my piece, while I do agree with what's been said by you, mostly.

3. If people cannot communicate a discussion cannot be had. And considering your summoner still doesn't understand half of what I've said, willingly or otherwise, continues to contradict himself, etc, etc, what I'm trying to remedy is showing itself all the more now isn't it? Something I think would be evident if you had "enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language".
And I have responded to the "discussion" on Canute repeatedly, it's just buried in that shit storm you don't want to read and has not progressed exactly because of poor English, among other issues such as any disgreement on my part being labeled a "troll", "hater", or "contrarian".

It is a custom on these "forums", you might as well get used to be called names instead of being courteously disproven. It would be for the best to keep oneself above the name-calling and stay on topic 110% of times.
As to who I am, just one of the loudest hams and an advocate for "True Art is a thing","Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated" and "Burying of author is a multi-level crime" on these forums.

I don't care about being called names or calling people names, I care about being on the same page because it leads to exactly what you didn't want to read, something he and I are not, and something I've been trying and failing to remedy, for whatever reason.

Just to be clear, have I misunderstood your conclusions / interpretations and their likeness to mine considering the little tl;dr I summed my position as?

"Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated"
Does that mean you believe there's a significant degree of objectivity in judging "art", whether it be anime, manga, movies, tv shows, etc?

No, I believe we are in concord that the transformation of Canute is not a natural phenomenon, as it would happen otherwise, but a push by the author to have a driving force for the story. If Canute did not "snap" the other way back, he would get murdered by that mouth-breather, and they would not let Askeladd and Thorfinn go that easlity.
Yes I believe there is a significant degree of objectivity in judging Art. Art, creation of artificial, is fundamentally anchored to the reality the artificial comes from. While we might not have all the information, experiences, emotions the author poured into his work while creating it, we are ultimately born on the same planet, and keep reproducing same values throughout the centuries. To outright deny objectivity is to deny the fact of shared reality of humans.

So we are in agreement, and you sum it up as story > realism? Cool, thanks for the clarification.

You've just angered the guy who summoned you because he really doesn't like and keeps flip flopping on the term "objectivity", and 95% of his anger and the entire formation of this argument, the one you were summoned to adjudicate, is due to the fact that I believe there is objectivity, that can be applied to almost all aspects of art and to things in general. Whether or not it's "100%" I'm willing to debate.

It's kind of childish of me to do so, but I'm going to anyways because I feel vindicated; you've largely disagreed with the person who's called you and more or less agreed with me on Canute, and we are completely aligned on objectivity.
You've also, somewhat understandably, labelled me a "kid" who "is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something."
I know people can be in agreement and think poorly of each other, but I just think it's quite funny and ironic considering the discussion you've just had with me and how it proves exactly what I've been bitching about in regards to English and how important it is to be on the same page.

Nov 26, 2019 8:33 AM

#169

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

Three things.

1. Who are you? Genuine question, I don't get why you're being called to be an "executioner or judge", and I seem to be missing out on a meme.

2. That conclusion on Canute, unless I'm misunderstanding, is quite similar to what I've been saying, albeit on a slightly different road. You bring up how real people in that time would react and I focused solely on real people, regardless of time. I don't think him changing so drastically would be any more believable if he was a character living in the 21st century going through an equivalent of what he's gone through in this anime, though that's irrelevant because he isn't. The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."
Thors and Thorkell are a whole other bag of worms that are not the focus of what you've been "summoned" for, so I'm not going to say my piece, while I do agree with what's been said by you, mostly.

3. If people cannot communicate a discussion cannot be had. And considering your summoner still doesn't understand half of what I've said, willingly or otherwise, continues to contradict himself, etc, etc, what I'm trying to remedy is showing itself all the more now isn't it? Something I think would be evident if you had "enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language".
And I have responded to the "discussion" on Canute repeatedly, it's just buried in that shit storm you don't want to read and has not progressed exactly because of poor English, among other issues such as any disgreement on my part being labeled a "troll", "hater", or "contrarian".

It is a custom on these "forums", you might as well get used to be called names instead of being courteously disproven. It would be for the best to keep oneself above the name-calling and stay on topic 110% of times.
As to who I am, just one of the loudest hams and an advocate for "True Art is a thing","Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated" and "Burying of author is a multi-level crime" on these forums.

I don't care about being called names or calling people names, I care about being on the same page because it leads to exactly what you didn't want to read, something he and I are not, and something I've been trying and failing to remedy, for whatever reason.

Just to be clear, have I misunderstood your conclusions / interpretations and their likeness to mine considering the little tl;dr I summed my position as?

"Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated"
Does that mean you believe there's a significant degree of objectivity in judging "art", whether it be anime, manga, movies, tv shows, etc?

No, I believe we are in concord that the transformation of Canute is not a natural phenomenon, as it would happen otherwise, but a push by the author to have a driving force for the story. If Canute did not "snap" the other way back, he would get murdered by that mouth-breather, and they would not let Askeladd and Thorfinn go that easlity.
Yes I believe there is a significant degree of objectivity in judging Art. Art, creation of artificial, is fundamentally anchored to the reality the artificial comes from. While we might not have all the information, experiences, emotions the author poured into his work while creating it, we are ultimately born on the same planet, and keep reproducing same values throughout the centuries. To outright deny objectivity is to deny the fact of shared reality of humans.

So we are in agreement, and you sum it up as story > realism? Cool, thanks for the clarification.

You've just angered the guy who summoned you because he really doesn't like and keeps flip flopping on the term "objectivity", and 95% of his anger and the entire formation of this argument, the one you were summoned to adjudicate, is due to the fact that I believe there is objectivity, that can be applied to almost all aspects of art and to things in general. Whether or not it's "100%" I'm willing to debate.

It's kind of childish of me to do so, but I'm going to anyways because I feel vindicated; you've largely disagreed with the person who's called you and more or less agreed with me on Canute, and we are completely aligned on objectivity.
You've also, somewhat understandably, labelled me a "kid" who "is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something."
I know people can be in agreement and think poorly of each other, but I just think it's quite funny and ironic considering the discussion you've just had with me and how it proves exactly what I've been bitching about in regards to English and how important it is to be on the same page.

Well, he is welcome to come at me if he feels like. I do not discriminate, and I honestly address what I see before me. OR I run away, if I am too humiliated to even address it. Does not mean your approach to discussion has to conflict with my agreement on your, I dare say, proper understanding of criticism.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 8:51 AM

#170

Dariat

Offline

May 2018

559

So he won by cheating, what a let-down

Nov 26, 2019 9:25 AM

#171

Totsu23

Offline

Nov 2019

5

Another thread, another argument. I'll just give my personal thoughts on Canute. While I don't think instant changes in personality are impossible, I'm willing to admit that being able to suddenly scare down a guy whose going berserk due to eating a mushroom drug that he barely knows is a bit much for a shift. So, anyone criticizing Canute should be treated fairly because there is some truth in it being handled a bit poorly. Along with his entire mindset suddenly changing into being able to convince Thorkell to join his group.

Nov 26, 2019 9:38 AM

#172

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Abel97 said:
Another thread, another argument. I'll just give my personal thoughts on Canute. While I don't think instant changes in personality are impossible, I'm willing to admit that being able to suddenly scare down a guy whose going berserk due to eating a mushroom drug that he barely knows is a bit much for a shift. So, anyone criticizing Canute should be treated fairly because there is some truth in it being handled a bit poorly. Along with his entire mindset suddenly changing into being able to convince Thorkell to join his group.

You are wrong in your assumptions, Thorkell was going to face against Danes to begin with, he is not joining Canute because he suddenly respects him (which seems to be implied as well), but because their objectives align either way.
As for Canute and that mouth-breather mushroom-muncher, it also goes well with symbolism - Canute who was not afraid of that guy scared the berserk instead, and giving him understanding, love (when Canute hugged him), was what he needed to calm down from his beastly state, to return to his senses as a human. It is definitely done poorly, because we are borderline forced to either suspend our disbelief or to admit the bordering realism denial, realism twisting to account for symbolism/story progression. Not in this setting.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 9:46 AM

#173

Totsu23

Offline

Nov 2019

5

@Daniel_Naumov

Yeah, the Bjorm scene is my only real issue concerning Canute. Thorkell I can kinda look past because like you said he'll fight anyone for the pure sport of it, he's...a loose cannon in that regard?

Nov 26, 2019 9:54 AM

#174

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Abel97 said:
@Daniel_Naumov

Yeah, the Bjorm scene is my only real issue concerning Canute. Thorkell I can kinda look past because like you said he'll fight anyone for the pure sport of it, he's...a loose cannon in that regard?

If we put a lot of effort we can also explain Thorkell - a big guy who was always fighting, but never understood why. He respected Thors and that Thors told him something he still cannot fathom. Naturally, Thorkell is trying to understand just what happened, what made Thors snap, why he does not see it himself. He cannot understand the look in their eyes, look of dedication. And then he joins the British.
Always serving under the Danes kings brought him no closer to understanding Thors. So instead he is fighting them now, defiling the people who gave him nothing. This is all wrapped in a lot of Bravado, Valhalla nonsense and overall viking redneckery. But if I can twist Thorkell narrative like this, I am sure the author could make it the emotional explanation behind Thorkell's agency. Or an excuse post-series when everyone asks him why did he come up with such an irredeemable retard.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 10:25 AM

#175

Offline

Mar 2018

1435

Yautja said:

Esquirtit said:

You can't rate art objectively even if you use an objective metric because your own interpretation of art will always be subjective.

Esquirtit said:

I agree art can be judged objectively to an extent, I didn't mean to imply you said it can be done 100%, just gave my thoughts on it.

Look, if you propose to objectively rate art, as in objectively analyzing it and give it a score according to a supposedly objective metric, it won't be 100% objective because of your own individual subjective interpretation, however, there are aspects where it's easier to be unbiased.

In my next reply I deliberately use the word judge, because you can objectively analyze certain aspects and come to conclusions.

You could've just messaged me on my profile that day we had this convo if you wanted to further question me. Lol.

I had a problem with your pretentious talk about objectivity, because on that day, you randomly put series together and said ''I think this is objectively better than X blablabla and this'', thought it was unneeded.

Either way, I already acknowledged I started this flame war. Still, you never countered my criticisms and kept shoving away blatant truths, like Thorkell following the prince didn't take much ''magical charisma, leadership qualities and argumentative skills'' from Canute. Daniel_Naumov agrees on this part as well it seems. I'll just move on to him then. I invited him because I saw he was active on the forums, and I've always liked his posts to some degree

Sorry for the insults, I'm still more right than you are though when it comes to Canute.

EsquirtitNov 26, 2019 10:29 AM

poop

Nov 26, 2019 10:42 AM

#176

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Daniel_Naumov said:
Does not mean your approach to discussion has to conflict with my agreement on your, I dare say, proper understanding of criticism.

The grammar there confuses me; should I take that as a compliment or an insult or something else? My approach you disagree with but my conclusions or criticisms & my understanding of yours are valid.

The point I was trying to make is it's funny and somewhat wrong that you were labeling me as you did, but consoling the person who tagged you when it was he who "started it" and was arguably far worse than I considering he's doing exactly what you criticized me for and then some, and I was perfectly able to communicate with you as you advocate for.

Esquirtit said:

Yautja said:

Look, if you propose to objectively rate art, as in objectively analyzing it and give it a score according to a supposedly objective metric, it won't be 100% objective because of your own individual subjective interpretation, however, there are aspects where it's easier to be unbiased.

In my next reply I deliberately use the word judge, because you can objectively analyze certain aspects and come to conclusions.

You could've just messaged me on my profile that day we had this convo if you wanted to further question me. Lol.

I had a problem with your pretentious talk about objectivity, because on that day, you randomly put series together and said ''I think this is objectively better blablabla'', thought it was unneeded.

Either way, I already acknowledged I started this flame war. Still, you never countered my criticisms and kept shoving away blatant truths, like Thorkell following the prince didn't take much ''magical charisma, leadership qualities and argumentative skills'' from Canute. Daniel_Naumov agrees on this part as well it seems. I'll just move on to him then. I invited him because I saw he was active on the forums, and I've always liked his posts to some degree

Sorry for the insults, I'm still more right than you are though when it comes to Canute.

Here's the part of that quote you cut out:

And before you try and act like you won something, I was the one who said "No one is pretending it's possible to be 100% objective all the time

And he disagreed with just about all of your criticisms, namely the change being a reasonable one and objectivity. I guess you're not right and things were judged against you. He also admitted to not reading our little flame war so /shrug.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins

No, I believe we are in concord that the transformation of Canute is not a natural phenomenon, as it would happen otherwise, but a push by the author to have a driving force for the story. If Canute did not "snap" the other way back, he would get murdered by that mouth-breather, and they would not let Askeladd and Thorfinn go that easlity.

Yes I believe there is a significant degree of objectivity in judging Art. Art, creation of artificial, is fundamentally anchored to the reality the artificial comes from. While we might not have all the information, experiences, emotions the author poured into his work while creating it, we are ultimately born on the same planet, and keep reproducing same values throughout the centuries. To outright deny objectivity is to deny the fact of shared reality of humans.

Please do show me another example of you discarding everything you disagree with and taking only what you agree with. Please, please prove me right. Please show me an example of you disregarding the judgement of the person you tagged in hopes that he'd agree with you. Please show me an example of you tossing out the judgement you asked for because it did not fall in your favor.

Nov 26, 2019 10:47 AM

#177

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

I really suggest you hug it out like Canute and Bjorn and prepare for the next flame war instead, on the Episode 20 Discussion Thread.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 10:51 AM

#178

strategian

Offline

May 2013

38

This episode was so hype, but Confident Canute interrupting the fight so immediately made me think of Giorno that I had to make this...

https://youtu.be/tg6f_64u9nk

Nov 26, 2019 11:01 AM

#179

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Esquirtit said:

Yautja said:

Look, if you propose to objectively rate art, as in objectively analyzing it and give it a score according to a supposedly objective metric, it won't be 100% objective because of your own individual subjective interpretation, however, there are aspects where it's easier to be unbiased.

In my next reply I deliberately use the word judge, because you can objectively analyze certain aspects and come to conclusions.

You could've just messaged me on my profile that day we had this convo if you wanted to further question me. Lol.

I had a problem with your pretentious talk about objectivity, because on that day, you randomly put series together and said ''I think this is objectively better than X blablabla and this'', thought it was unneeded.

Either way, I already acknowledged I started this flame war. Still, you never countered my criticisms and kept shoving away blatant truths, like Thorkell following the prince didn't take much ''magical charisma, leadership qualities and argumentative skills'' from Canute. Daniel_Naumov agrees on this part as well it seems. I'll just move on to him then. I invited him because I saw he was active on the forums, and I've always liked his posts to some degree

Sorry for the insults, I'm still more right than you are though when it comes to Canute.

I mean, I do understand why Canute did what he did. But the transition itself is too sudden, it just does not happen like that. Medical psychology does not speak of such cases of suddenly going from wimp to a hero in a snap. It is fiction, after all. Thanks for inviting me to this heated discussion, though. By no means hesitate next time you would like a third opinion.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 11:26 AM

#180

Offline

Mar 2018

1435

@Yautja What is a your problem my dude? I don't even understand, in that quote I wrote ''I didn't mean to imply you said it can be done 100%''. There is nothing to win here because I literally do not care about that conversation anymore, stop bringing it up. I already know you do not pretend to be 100% objective. Wtf.

And now you want to fight over someone else his words too, wow. He agrees with the fact Thorkell following him didn't take much effort from Canute.

You are wrong in your assumptions, Thorkell was going to face against Danes to begin with, he is not joining Canute because he suddenly respects him (which seems to be implied as well), but because their objectives align either way.

Sure, he saw something in Canute's eyes, same as Thors perhaps, not really out of character for any of them.

Now the discussion is more about suspension of disbelief instead of character writing. Let's agree to disagree then.

@Daniel_Naumov

I opened my view on Canute with this. If you can ignore insults and foul language you can read more of what I had to say about Canute

In episode 13, we got told (during his quarrel with Thorfinn) Canute has a side to him he normally only shows to Ragnar, that he can have conviction. Episode 15, during the prayer, we see Canute struggle with his father's love for him and he had an outburst. In episode 18 he awakens because he realized the position he is in, he couldn't choose to live like a commoner after Ragnar's death, and accepts his real father will never love him. Ultimately he just embraced a side that was always part of him, royalty and conviction. That you don't like the priest's talking doesn't change anything when in the context of the story it drives Canute's newfound philosophy.

Why are you talking about cooking? I spoke of 13, where it's literally explained through Ragnar's inner monologue that Canute has a confident side he normally conceals. With episode 15 ,I meant that Canute had an outburst when the priest doubted God's (Father) love, because it reminded him of his own father's lack of love.

You're basically saying it's out of character for a sheltered prince to stand up for himself after his mentor and family left him behind, because you don't like it. He's not some random villager. He has the chance to become king and spread his convictions.

Possibly he already doubted God's love.

Your position on Canute is entirely different than @Yautja.

Yours is from an historically accurate perspective, while we discussed on the character writing thus far. It's near impossible to counter yours, and I don't even need to, because it's not the same way as to how I view the story.

I find it put together nicely with everything that has been setup so far, it makes sense thematically, and I love how Thors is almost a symobolic idea in the world of VS.

If you disregard the unrealism, his change through an epiphany is logical and was setup long ago. The awakening wasn't 'out of character' as @Yautja says.

Agree that the play with Christiany is tricky tho, they are barely actual Christians who fit in with the time period. I did still find his reasoning fascinating, and he is a prince so he has the chance to become king and spread his convictions, something I already posted before. More reason why his change isn't out of character.

Fine maybe the change is too sudden, requires suspension of disbelief, but not entirely out of character and well foreshadowed, I like his whole character development.

Will do, your input is that of a God compared to MAL standards, pls never leave boomer

EsquirtitNov 26, 2019 11:43 AM

poop

Nov 26, 2019 11:45 AM

#181

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Why did boomer suddenly became a word :(((((((((((((

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 11:50 AM

#182

Offline

Mar 2012

632

Daniel_Naumov said:

I mean, I do understand why Canute did what he did. But the transition itself is too sudden, it just does not happen like that. Medical psychology does not speak of such cases of suddenly going from wimp to a hero in a snap. It is fiction, after all. Thanks for inviting me to this heated discussion, though. By no means hesitate next time you would like a third opinion.

Canute didn't just suddenly change though. That day he was yelling at Thorfinn for his indignant attitude, proved then that he always had spunk in him and could raise his voice whenever he wanted. He even explained that he never spoke because anything he says has consequences. He was never psychologically incapable. He was just shy and reserved and used Ragnar as a shield and it was already explained that it was a survival mechanism for him growing up with ruthless nobles that would kill him if they thought he was capable. With the shield Ragnar was gone, what the priest told him, his anger at God, he finally decided he had to stop being shy and reserved in order to step up and put these Vikings under control. Even Thorfinn had already noticed that Canute is very smart even if he didn't buy his excuses for being shy and reserved. So it wasn't sudden complete change in character. Canute just finally stepped up to his role as a prince and not a pampered baby.

@Esquirtit stop arguing with that idiot @Yautja. He's like those people who don't care about facts and only about how they feel and will make any excuse to support their stupid feelings.

Nov 26, 2019 11:57 AM

#183

Offline

Mar 2018

1435

Daniel_Naumov said:
Why did boomer suddenly became a word :(((((((((((((

I'm sorry I couldn't help it, I assume you're much older than most people here. My bad if you aren't. I genuinely didn't mean it negatively... ok maybe a bit because you hate a lot of modern approaches towards art/entertainment

@MetaKite You are objectively 100% right about Yautja and Canute. I said the same too about him being reserved in front of others but capable of upholding different attitudes. Ragnar was holding him back completely.

EsquirtitNov 26, 2019 12:08 PM

poop

Nov 26, 2019 12:01 PM

#184

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

MetaKite said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

I mean, I do understand why Canute did what he did. But the transition itself is too sudden, it just does not happen like that. Medical psychology does not speak of such cases of suddenly going from wimp to a hero in a snap. It is fiction, after all. Thanks for inviting me to this heated discussion, though. By no means hesitate next time you would like a third opinion.

Canute didn't just suddenly change though. That day he was yelling at Thorfinn for his indignant attitude, proved then that he always had spunk in him and could raise his voice whenever he wanted. He even explained that he never spoke because anything he says has consequences. He was never psychologically incapable. He was just shy and reserved and used Ragnar as a shield and it was already explained that it was a survival mechanism for him growing up with ruthless nobles that would kill him if they thought he was capable. With the shield Ragnar was gone, what the priest told him, his anger at God, he finally decided he had to stop being shy and reserved in order to step up and put these Vikings under control. Even Thorfinn had already noticed that Canute is very smart even if he didn't buy his excuses for being shy and reserved. So it wasn't sudden complete change in character. Canute just finally stepped up to his role as a prince and not a pampered baby.

@Esquirtit stop arguing with that idiot @Yautja. He's like those people who don't care about facts and only about how they feel and will make any excuse to support their stupid feelings.

Alright I can believe in that. The Christianity subplot which existed precisely just to be denied by Canute is, however, a big bad idea how to deal with Christianity in a viking story.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 12:08 PM

#185

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Esquirtit said:
@Yautja What is a your problem my dude? I don't even understand, in that quote I wrote ''I didn't mean to imply you said it can be done 100%''. There is nothing to win here because I literally do not care about that conversation anymore, stop bringing it up. I already know you do not pretend to be 100% objective. Wtf.

And now you want to fight over someone else his words too, wow. He agrees with the fact Thorkell following him didn't take much effort from Canute.

You are wrong in your assumptions, Thorkell was going to face against Danes to begin with, he is not joining Canute because he suddenly respects him (which seems to be implied as well), but because their objectives align either way.

Sure, he saw something in Canute's eyes, same as Thors perhaps, not really out of character for any of them.

Now the discussion is more about suspension of disbelief instead of character writing. Let's agree to disagree then.

@Daniel_Naumov

I opened my view on Canute with this. If you can ignore insults and foul language you can read more of what I had to say about Canute

In episode 13, we got told (during his quarrel with Thorfinn) Canute has a side to him he normally only shows to Ragnar, that he can have conviction. Episode 15, during the prayer, we see Canute struggle with his father's love for him and he had an outburst. In episode 18 he awakens because he realized the position he is in, he couldn't choose to live like a commoner after Ragnar's death, and accepts his real father will never love him. Ultimately he just embraced a side that was always part of him, royalty and conviction. That you don't like the priest's talking doesn't change anything when in the context of the story it drives Canute's newfound philosophy.

Your position on Canute is entirely different than @Yautja.

Yours is from an historically accurate perspective, while we discussed on the character writing thus far. It's near impossible to counter yours, and I don't even need to, because it's not the same way as to how I view the story.

I find it put together nicely with everything that has been setup so far, it makes sense thematically, and I love how Thors is almost a symobolic idea in the world of VS.

If you disregard the unrealism, his change through an epiphany is logical and was setup long ago. The awakening wasn't 'out of character' as @Yautja says.

Agree that the play with Christiany is tricky tho, they are barely actual Christians who fit in with the time period. I did still find his reasoning fascinating, and he is a prince so he has the chance to become king and spread his convictions, something I already posted before. More reason why his change isn't out of character.

Fine maybe the change is too sudden, requires suspension of disbelief, but not entirely out of character and well foreshadowed, I like his whole character development.

Will do, your input is that of a God compared to MAL standards, pls never leave boomer

"Don't bring up that conversation"
-Guy who brought up that conversation

No, I'm pointing how the guy you called to judge our respective positions agreed that he and I have the same position. Now what's more likely, him and I both misunderstand each other after half a dozen comments and repeated clarification, or you misunderstand? I'm guessing it's the latter.
I'm pointing out how you're doing everything you can to either dismiss what I said, contradict his agreement that he and I agree, and are backtracking as fast as possible.

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Your calls have been answered.

Now I did not have enough courage to read through all those insults and strong, excessive language, so I am not sure where the argument begins or what it even is BUT there is a word - Canute. So I will elaborate on that.

Also fighting still sucks blah blah Saga

Canute seems like a well-written character, and as I have no knowledge of how historical counterparts fared, I cannot comment on whether the series is just a nice fairy tale or a serious historical work. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of art and character development, Canute seems fine... except for that one leap of faith.

His whole character was supposed to be a mild, good-natured believer who did not want a part in the political struggle of his kin. He was, however, strongly impacted by two people - his de-facto father Ragnar, who, in turn, was impacted by the Christian priest who got lost in that dirty North, alright believable.

Christian priest's fall from his faith is understandable, he was not the first and there are documented stories and essays as to why one would suddenly renounce faith in a savage medieval world. Canute, however, transforms in a blink of an eye - he renounces the belief in a benevolent being, and instead decides to become a benevolent being himself. Here lies big problem - this is quite a modern idea of taking things into your own hands and doing good regardless of what one might believe. Whoever did it before did not anyhow associate it with Christianity or other religions.

Canute, like Thors, is way too advanced for his time. It is seldom believable, although not impossible. Thorkell is also a manifestation of viking stereotypes - getting up after losing an eye, brushing it off and saying "Huh nice duel kid I lost it though, so you are not going to get murdered" - said no one ever in the known history of... logic, common sense or whatever. The whole series is a big stereotype.

The author admittedly did not do much research for his Planetes series, which was bordering science-fallacy, but he did so he would not be chained by "reality" while creating his piece of art. HERE though it does not work as well - the exaggeration of what is happening is... disheartening.

To be honest I liked the old Canute more, but he would not become a tool to advance the story. The priest, Ragnar and Canute being morally superior to the rest of dog-people made a great contrast in contexts of time and religion, but it was never about the contrast it seems - the whole point was to show how Canute and co. shed that religious belief and instead take on a more realistic approach (e.g. doing it themselves), although not anyhow different from what the Christianity teaches. That trick is a dirty one, indeed.

So as the ultimate law entity here I will conclude - MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY - but Askeladd makes for a great character to follow, even if I disagree with most other takes on characters, he seems not only believable, but also well thought-out. A man living just to see a whole species of Nordic people fall as a revenge for his whole civilization, not only parents and childhood, is a rather strong trait of anti-hero.

P.S.
That other kid is not even trying to participate in a discussion, he is merely chewing your sentences and throwing back witty or so he thinks insults as to why you should have never spoken English or something. How you dare call me to this humiliation of the human race...

The tl;dr of this is "Canute changing that much, that fast, from that little is ridiculous."

It is a custom on these "forums", you might as well get used to be called names instead of being courteously disproven. It would be for the best to keep oneself above the name-calling and stay on topic 110% of times.
As to who I am, just one of the loudest hams and an advocate for "True Art is a thing","Subjectivity is a virtue of uneducated" and "Burying of author is a multi-level crime" on these forums.

Just to be clear, have I misunderstood your conclusions / interpretations and their likeness to mine considering the little tl;dr I summed my position as?

No, I believe we are in concord that the transformation of Canute is not a natural phenomenon, as it would happen otherwise, but a push by the author to have a driving force for the story. If Canute did not "snap" the other way back, he would get murdered by that mouth-breather, and they would not let Askeladd and Thorfinn go that easlity.

So we are in agreement, and you sum it up as story > realism? Cool, thanks for the clarification.

MetaKite said:
@Esquirtit stop arguing with that idiot @Yautja. He's like those people who don't care about facts and only about how they feel and will make any excuse to support their stupid feelings.

That is unironically what you and the person you're at'ing are you. You've either not read the shit storm you're inserting yourself into or are prioritizing your positive opinion of this series over honesty.

Disagreeing about the the story and how well done it's one thing, but actually claiming I'm the one who's lying about facts is straight up delusion.

YautjaNov 26, 2019 12:12 PM

Nov 26, 2019 12:12 PM

#186

Offline

Mar 2012

632

Daniel_Naumov said:

Alright I can believe in that. The Christianity subplot which existed precisely just to be denied by Canute is, however, a big bad idea how to deal with Christianity in a viking story.

The Christianity subplot is just there for Canute's character development and highlight his nihilistic outlook on life. It helped to round out how his piety played in his wanting to please a father that doesn't love him and everything he has witnessed out on the battlefield. Remember, Canute was also there when those 62 villagers were murdered for "his sake". He's now taking responsibility after having rejected his faith.

Esquirtit said:

@MetaKite You are objectively 100% right about Yautja and Canute. I said the same too about him being reserved in front of others but capable of upholding different attitudes. Ragnar was holding him back completely.

Seriously, don't bother with him. I'm putting him on ignore because his posts are freaking pointless and devoid of any insight.

MetaKiteNov 26, 2019 12:17 PM

Nov 26, 2019 12:18 PM

#187

Offline

Mar 2018

1435

@Yautja Am I the one who brought up those 2 posts of me on that Chihaya thread. Read back our exchange in this thread and it becomes even more clear to who this was more important. Leave it behind already.

You can't hide behind @Daniel_Naumov's viewpoint when not once did you write something similar... but fiiiine.

Also look at a post above you. He agreed with someone who said the same thing I told you in this thread, something you couldn't counter so went back on fruitless endeavors.

Bruh let's just meet at ep 24 discussion thread this is getting really naughty.

@MetaKite Agreed, and thanks for the insight, further proof of splendid writing, WE SHALL RECONCILE.

EsquirtitNov 26, 2019 12:23 PM

poop

Nov 26, 2019 12:21 PM

#188

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Yes I just suggest you all duke it out when all the cards are laid bare, evil apes.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 12:25 PM

#189

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Esquirtit said:
@Yautja Am I the one who brought up those 2 posts of me on that Chihaya thread. Read back our exchange in this thread and it becomes even more clear to who this was more important. Leave it behind already.

You can't hide behind @Daniel_Naumov's viewpoint when not once did you write something similar... but fiiiine.

Also look at a post above you. He agreed with someone who said the same thing I told you in this thread, something you couldn't counter so went back on fruitless endeavors.

Bruh let's just meet at ep 24 discussion thread this is getting really naughty.

@MetaKite Agreed, and thanks for the insight, further proof of splendid writing

You're the one who brought up that thread and repeatedly reference both your and my position on objectivity in reference to both this thread and that one.

My Comment You Initially Responded to said:
I also can't wait to hear what you think about the magical 180 in personality, knowledge and skill that occur over a week and are apparently completely reasonable, believable and possible when someone you care about dies and you're fed a bunch of pseudo-philosophical bullshit.

His Response to You said:
But the transition itself is too sudden, it just does not happen like that. Medical psychology does not speak of such cases of suddenly going from wimp to a hero in a snap.

So "alright I can believe that" = "I no longer hold the opinion I've just wrote" and somehow means I'm incorrect when I said "he agreed we have the same position".
Yea, okay.

If you actually want to make the mistake of starting another argument like this, you can do so with someone else.

Nov 26, 2019 12:29 PM

#190

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

Yautja said:

Esquirtit said:
@Yautja Am I the one who brought up those 2 posts of me on that Chihaya thread. Read back our exchange in this thread and it becomes even more clear to who this was more important. Leave it behind already.

You can't hide behind @Daniel_Naumov's viewpoint when not once did you write something similar... but fiiiine.

Also look at a post above you. He agreed with someone who said the same thing I told you in this thread, something you couldn't counter so went back on fruitless endeavors.

Bruh let's just meet at ep 24 discussion thread this is getting really naughty.

@MetaKite Agreed, and thanks for the insight, further proof of splendid writing

You're the one who brought up that thread and repeatedly reference both your and my position on objectivity in reference to both this thread and that one.

My Comment You Initially Responded to said:
I also can't wait to hear what you think about the magical 180 in personality, knowledge and skill that occur over a week and are apparently completely reasonable, believable and possible when someone you care about dies and you're fed a bunch of pseudo-philosophical bullshit.

His Response to You said:
But the transition itself is too sudden, it just does not happen like that. Medical psychology does not speak of such cases of suddenly going from wimp to a hero in a snap.

So "alright I can believe that" = "I no longer hold the opinion I've just wrote" and somehow means I'm incorrect when I said "he agreed we have the same position".
Yea, okay.

If you actually want to make the mistake of starting another argument like this, you can do so with someone else.

As MetaKite pointed out, there really were signs that Canute is not exactly a wimp. It is still a big leap, sudden realization and denial of his faith, but as far as the art and story are concerned, it really was foreshadowed before hand that Canute has the leader qualities. This series is rough around the corners, and it can make us forget these little details that. It's rough but its trying, which is why I am still here, following it, hoping it will not wreck by the end. Hoping Thorkell won't start throwing ships or something...

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 12:31 PM

#191

Offline

Mar 2012

632

Daniel_Naumov said:
Yes I just suggest you all duke it out when all the cards are laid bare, evil apes.

"Evil apes"?

In any case, as a manga reader, this is pretty ridiculous to me when anybody can just read the source and find out for themselves. Anime sometimes doesn't properly explain things in detail.

Nov 26, 2019 12:36 PM

#192

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

MetaKite said:

Daniel_Naumov said:
Yes I just suggest you all duke it out when all the cards are laid bare, evil apes.

"Evil apes"?

In any case, as a manga reader, this is pretty ridiculous to me when anybody can just read the source and find out for themselves. Anime sometimes doesn't properly explain things in detail.

It's a quote. Check out Disco Elysium. Real Art.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 12:38 PM

#193

Offline

Mar 2012

632

Daniel_Naumov said:

MetaKite said:

"Evil apes"?

In any case, as a manga reader, this is pretty ridiculous to me when anybody can just read the source and find out for themselves. Anime sometimes doesn't properly explain things in detail.

It's a quote. Check out Disco Elysium. Real Art.

Never played it. Definitely will try it out. I figured it was a quote but I didn't know from what (you seemed to be saying it in a sarcastic way like "Keep the change you filthy animals".

Nov 26, 2019 12:42 PM

#194

Offline

Feb 2015

1103

Daniel_Naumov said:

Yautja said:

You're the one who brought up that thread and repeatedly reference both your and my position on objectivity in reference to both this thread and that one.

So "alright I can believe that" = "I no longer hold the opinion I've just wrote" and somehow means I'm incorrect when I said "he agreed we have the same position".
Yea, okay.

If you actually want to make the mistake of starting another argument like this, you can do so with someone else.

As MetaKite pointed out, there really were signs that Canute is not exactly a wimp. It is still a big leap, sudden realization and denial of his faith, but as far as the art and story are concerned, it really was foreshadowed before hand that Canute has the leader qualities. This series is rough around the corners, and it can make us forget these little details that. It's rough but its trying, which is why I am still here, following it, hoping it will not wreck by the end. Hoping Thorkell won't start throwing ships or something...

My opinion on the signs was this analogy:
"You're saying that a sneeze was a big enough flag for a character developing cancer."
Yea, there were some signs but I don't think they were significant enough to justify this degree of change as fast as it came. It's not like he was always on the edge of becoming the character he currently is and just needed a push to get there, he had the potential to be fostered into what he is, not fast tracked and shot out of a cannon.
I also referenced Thorfinn's change pre and post timeskip. What makes Thorfinn's change reasonable is the significant amount of time in-between his personality changes and the serious things that happened to him. If Thorfinn became what he was like in these episodes immediately after his father died, I'd have had the same issue.

Nov 26, 2019 12:42 PM

#195

Offline

Apr 2016

4788

MetaKite said:

Daniel_Naumov said:

It's a quote. Check out Disco Elysium. Real Art.

Never played it. Definitely will try it out. I figured it was a quote but I didn't know from what (you seemed to be saying it in a sarcastic way like "Keep the change you filthy animals".

More like "keep your insults to yourselves you malicious forumgoers". We can converse without a need to make attempts at someone's else dignity. At least that is what I would like to believe. For a moment there we had that dynamic going. Let's all respectfully fade to shadows until the moment the need arises again.

Re:formed

Nov 26, 2019 12:45 PM

#196