- Last OnlineMay 29, 8:57 PM
- JoinedFeb 28, 2013
No friend yet.
RSS Feeds
|
Sep 20, 2014
Ghost Hunt's backstory and setups of how the various supernatural forces operate are well done, as well as the actual mysteries they are involved in. However, what distracted its best qualities are the forced relationships and relying on predictable tropes to advance plot elements. My impression is that Ghost Hunter may have been altered to cater to target audiences by dumbing down the plot and dialog at some points, but when the actual investigation storyline calls for complex explanations and logic, the characters inexplicably gains 200 points in IQ to figure everything out.
Case in point: after almost a year working for ghost hunter experts, the
...
main protagonist was told they there were two children of the family being investigated were behaving strangely, and when she meets them, they are constantly repeating about they wish how their relatives would die. While it's obvious to the audience they are possessed, the protagonist is completely oblivious to this possibility until the plot conveniently calls for that moment later on for dramatic effect. Better options would have been to make their possessed personalities less black and white or simply not mention these kids beforehand. Throughout the series contain very poorly implemented scenarios of a) main characters become oblivious to obvious clues, b) withholding key information (i.e., the girl has ESP, gets a vision but doesn't tell anyone about it until the 3rd act) c) unconvincing situations forcing characters to become alone or in danger and d) overtly reliant in chibi style comedy to excuse logic gaps.
The culmination of these effects ultimately makes the main protagonist Mai a every unpleasant character. She's supposed to be the everyday girl, but is stupid while the story needs other plot elements to take shape, super-talented and powerful when when the story calls for a solution, overdramatic to force tension between her and her friends, and is somehow excused from her ignorance because she's supposed to be 'just like us'.
But this is somewhat bearable, since the actual cases they are investigating are truly well fascinating. What made them great was that we cared about the people involved in the cases, we were sympathetic to their plight. Unfortunately, the series gradually moved away into 2-dimensional antagonists and threats in order 'power-up' the main characters.
I was interested enough about the case to bypass the faults in order to find out the resolutions. But really, I just wish they were confident enough in their core story to not have to throw in these cliches to appeal to young kids. I wish the main characters were competent, mature, present their relationships with subtlety, so that I don't have scream at my laptop at that the main culprit is the teacher and not the girl while the characters are wasting my time.
Reviewer’s Rating: 6
What did you think of this review?
Nice
0
Love it
0
Funny
0
Confusing
0
Well-written
0
Creative
0Show all
Jul 12, 2014
Gundam Age is an attempt to attract a new, younger audience by re-packaging the core Gundam lore that has been established over the years into story arcs that follows three generations of Gundam pilots. While the premise is cool, the majority of its flaws comes from having to tell all three arcs within a 49-episode constraint.
Because there are so many characters in so little time, they are given few opportunities to develop. When a loved one is killed by malice and drives the hero to be consumed by revenge, it's very hard to fully buy into such extreme motivations even in the face of overwhelming
...
commons sense without willfully suspend one's own disbelief. Side characters come and go seemingly for the sole purpose of reproducing, and antagonists exist as plot devices to force dramatic situations. While I'm not opposed to wanting to attract a new audience, there is a contradiction in telling a story about the complex emotional and moral landscape of war to a younger crowd by simplifying it. Which is a shame, because the main characters are actually interesting and full of potential.
In terms of visuals, I was initially caught off-guard by the disparity between character design and mech design. This is due to how Gundam series work: the mechs are always designed with the same look (brand consistency), but each series' characters are drawn with different styles by different creatives. For someone to watch Gundam series in succession, it takes a few episodes to adjust. As for animation, it's noticeably less detailed and with fewer frames than 00 / Seed, although there are some bright spots in key battles.
I'm a not fan of combat sequences determined by plot armor, and Gundam has always been notorious for that; a major antagonist pilots the most advanced Gundam would easily destroy the heroes in one scene but is defeated in the next by the same said hero without actually illustrating how, which renders of the tech advancement that matters so much in the storyline into window dressing... or an excuse to promo a new toy. I wish, at some point, there would be a Gundam series that shows combat which better illustrates the relative performance between Mech A and Mech B, and then how each pilot uses them to determine the outcome. But I suppose that would not be in the best interest of a series that is dependent on continuously rebooting itself: setting too high of a standard makes the next reboot even harder.
In the meantime, I suppose GA is worth a look for those who don't want to invest much time into the Gundam franchise, as it's meant to be an updated and condensed collection of past Gundam themes and mech designs. But for those who have watched enough Gundam series, it feels like a medley.
Reviewer’s Rating: 5
What did you think of this review?
Nice
0
Love it
0
Funny
0
Confusing
0
Well-written
0
Creative
0Show all
Dec 20, 2013
This series is overrated.
For the most part, anime is a very difficult genre to critique because you can basically judge it in two perspectives: how it fairs within the context of the anime genre (or subgenre) and how it compares with the whole concept of a story, whether it's animated or not. For some titles, say Bacano, you accept the anime-ism, since it does certain things that's innovative and original in the anime format, and it works. Take it out of the anime style and anime tropes and the anime mannerisms, some things may not work the same. Other titles doesn't rely on anime-ism, ie,
...
Seirei no Moribito, Prince Mononoke, etc, strive for mass appeal.
So what does all this have to do with Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu? Well, people watch anime primarily for two reasons, 1) you like anime as a medium and it tells stories in ways that no other formats can, and 2) you watch anime because they are often times self-gratifying melodramatic fantasies for you to escape. There's nothing wrong with this, but Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu just happens to be the type of series that seems like a sophisticated premise on the outside, but the actual meat and bones of the story is a self-gratifying melodramatic fantasy. This makes people who normally watch anime as a means of escape to both enjoy the cheesiness, and yet at the same time feel like they're watching something 'sophisticated' on a superficial level, classical music included.
At the core, Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu is an idealization of the ultimate nerd genius (the author), with a foster son serving as a Mary Sue in Julian to carry on is legacy, essential becoming a 'legend'. Reinhard acts as the sympathetic antagonist in order offset the author's idealized version of himself. There's nothing wrong with that; many anime titles are built on this formula and I've enjoyed them; I like to escape too. But to rate this as masterpiece is a fluke, because if it weren't the spaceship battles, and classical music, and the length of the series, it would be at best mediocre.
And let's talk about the battles. The majority of the tactics and strategies used were basic combat 101 maneuvers, some of which you can find in history books (surprise surprise). But ok, if you didn't know anything about large-scale Roman battles, then it must have been exciting for you. However, because the main characters are supposed to be geniuses, these tactical moves fall short of what the battles are truly capable of.
For a 110-long series filled with spaceship battles, it gives us shockingly very little detail on how the ships function in space. Do the cannons have a certain effective range? If so, how does that work in the vacuum of space, where there's no resistance and no loss of kinetic energy? In reality, the ships can fire at any range and with deadly accuracy, but the battles show the ships moving around traditional formations to 'get in range.' Why? They could have made it so that the cannons fire energy blast and that at a certain distance they gradually lose some of their strength, which could explain why some hits don't do as much damage as others, or that the battles carry on for days and days, firing as if though they never run out of ammo. Maybe this was in the books, who knows.
If you want an example of creating a convincing framework for a fight, look for a series like Initial D or Claymore, in which they clearly explain the mechanics and rules of their powers and vehicles. Operating within that framework gives audience the sense that the writer is not using plot armor. Even non-action titles like Death Note does a splendid job of creating the right framework for the main characters to fight in. Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu does not do this. Adding the fact that everyone except for the main characters are incompetent, it undermines any sort of 'strategy' they're employing.
Having said all that, this series have its good moments, but it really isn't the masterpiece that people make it out to be. If you want strategic fights, there are other series that does it better and took less episodes to accomplish. If you want spaceship battles with lots of boom, look for Yamato. The only thing that makes Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu stand out is its monstrous length, which isn't enough to rate it so high.
Reviewer’s Rating: 6
What did you think of this review?
Nice
0
Love it
0
Funny
0
Confusing
0
Well-written
0
Creative
0Show all
|