Solo Leveling
DO NOT discuss the source material beyond this episode. If you want to discuss future events or theories, please use separate threads.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
| masterpiece pile of hot steaming garbage a guilty pleasure watch with godly animation, cool fight scenes and great production value but also idiotic plot, cringe dialogue and paper thin characters written so poorly it's hard to even like or dislike anyone, because they have no human traits 8,8 avg score wut? y'all one passionate but insane group of children |
| One of the best Anime episodes of the genre ever, hands down |
 |
Reply to Me_Mario
@Avicebrons No I fully agree I hate both mindless side of the spectrum equally lol. But it's obviously "worse" when the show is objectively closer to an 8 you're gonna dislike the 1/10 people more. And if the show is objectively closer to a 4 you're gonna dislike the mindless 10/10 people more.
| @Me_Mario Agreed. However, the problem arises when you try to figure out what it actually "objectively" is. Just as an example, I would say Solo Leveling is objectively not even close to an 8, probably even closer to a 4. However, I'm sure to find plenty who would say the opposite. That it's objectively closer to an 8. Who is right? Well, most likely neither but also possibly both. Since I strongly doubt both are looking and judging in the same manner, and that's why there's such a big discrepancy. I just think it's overall important to recognize both sides of the spectrum, not just one side. Love a show or hate a show, you don't want the ones who mindlessly gives 1/10s or 10/10s. |
| Subarashii |
| ABSOLUTE CINEMA! |
| It doesn't matter if you like LoGH,Monster etc.If you are a jobless or college/school dropout living in your mom basement, you are still an unintelligent loser. Taste in anime does not make you a better person. |
| This was absolutely stunning to watch. Cinema worthy. Best fight in Solo leveling so far. |
If you enjoyed the time you wasted, then its not a waste of time.  |
Reply to Me_Mario
@Avicebrons Yeah I was hesitant to use the word "objectively" as there's no such thing but it was to get the point across.
By "objectively" I mean it like this: Objectively a 5 star restaurant is better and higher quality food than let's say a fast food place or McDonalds (though for the sake of the example let's say the McDonalds of like 10-20 years ago cuz I'm sure it's relatively better now than it used to be)
Even though on average there's plenty of people who would rate both the same or might even prefer McDonalds especially if we look at just "general population" and not at experts you could even try to argue that more people enjoy fastfood on average. But that doesn't make it "better" objectively.
That's the kind of objectiveness I mean, not necessarily "most votes count" though that's certainly an aspect of it at the same time. Because I also can't flat out deny that fast food is good because even though it's quality might not be, the taste is clearly good enough or at least addicting enough to convince most people that it is really good. But like democracy it isn't just "most votes count" it's "Most votes count while accounting for the minority vote" essentially, if you have a smaller group of experts like say Chefs or simply people born with a better sense of taste and texture than you should account for the "extra data" they have/provide to determine the overall quality of a food.
You can kind of apply the same here, though yes it obviously still depends on what you are comparing it to. As a story? sure than I would agree with the 4~5 assessment because it'd be going up against stuff like LOTR which puts it to shame easily.
But if you're viewing it merely/specifically as Anime I think the bar is a lot lower. Even some of the biggest/successful and "high quality" anime to exist don't all have particularly astonishing writing either though they might blink out in certain other areas.
Be it animation, choreography, voice acting, enjoy-ability as an anime etc.
All these thing would have to be taken into account and judged separately, writing is merely one aspect of that even though sure generally I think it's one of the more important ones.
The current rating of this show: 8.85 might be a bit on the high side if you just look at writing for sure. it certainly doesn't "really" deserve to have a higher rating than let's say One Piece. But if you take into account the run time, filler, some awful pacing here and there etc of that show, it makes sense, this show has been relatively short in comparison and each episode does "what it's good at" so if you enjoy one episode you'll probably enjoy most of the others as well. So I think you should focus on what "the intent/goal" of the series is. Kind of like just because you don't like a genre doesn't make everything in that genre bad because you think the genre itself is bad. That'd be like me saying all Sushi sucks equally because I don't like it. That'd be absurd. Even I will have to admit that obviously some guy dedicating 20 years of his life to make good sushi and having a huge reputation make very high quality food even if possibly I still won't like it much more than the cheap store bought sushi that imo tastes terrible.
Even if you hate classical music you can't deny someone like Mozart, Back or Beethoven is a genius.
I think overall a fair score would be closer to an IGN 7/10 lol, but yes that's account for the fact that "it knows what it is", it knows it's audience, it genre and in that particular field it does really well maybe even a 9/10 but I have to be reasonable and see it flaws despite it being good at what it does in it's particular "bubble". A show which sucks at that imo would be something like Fairy Tail which constantly suffers from trying to be more than it is. If that was simply a B series, it would be a peak B series show, semi mindless enjoyment and relatively funny. But it often tries to be an "A series" and take on a level of writing it's not capable of which just results in it being messy and convoluted and leaving a bad taste with it's countless nonsensical plot holes which it created by adding things which don't serve the story or the show in any way. Essentially you could say that McDonalds is a 9/10 fastfood place, but it shouldn't try to be a high end restaurant because it will fail and "leave a bad taste" because it's trying to be something it's not.
I'd probably judge Solo Levelling a lot more harshly as a comic than as an anime for example, just because they are very different medium's and it's getting a lot of benefits from being an anime which it wouldn't have in comic/manga/novel form. (Animation quality, fight scenes etc.)
Every good movie doesn't necessarily make for a good book.
Every good game doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.
And every good book doesn't necessarily make for a good comic.
Maybe me having a lower bar for anime series than for a book or comic is a bit unfair, but clearly it's a sentiment many people share judging by the rating of this show. Just like with video games though you have to remember that much of rating is "is it enjoyable/fun to watch/play" and I think in that regard it does really well. So as a piece of art or good writing it's a 4/10 but as "a fast food joint" an 8/10 or 9/10 does seem fairly accurate.
By "objectively" I mean it like this: Objectively a 5 star restaurant is better and higher quality food than let's say a fast food place or McDonalds (though for the sake of the example let's say the McDonalds of like 10-20 years ago cuz I'm sure it's relatively better now than it used to be)
Even though on average there's plenty of people who would rate both the same or might even prefer McDonalds especially if we look at just "general population" and not at experts you could even try to argue that more people enjoy fastfood on average. But that doesn't make it "better" objectively.
That's the kind of objectiveness I mean, not necessarily "most votes count" though that's certainly an aspect of it at the same time. Because I also can't flat out deny that fast food is good because even though it's quality might not be, the taste is clearly good enough or at least addicting enough to convince most people that it is really good. But like democracy it isn't just "most votes count" it's "Most votes count while accounting for the minority vote" essentially, if you have a smaller group of experts like say Chefs or simply people born with a better sense of taste and texture than you should account for the "extra data" they have/provide to determine the overall quality of a food.
You can kind of apply the same here, though yes it obviously still depends on what you are comparing it to. As a story? sure than I would agree with the 4~5 assessment because it'd be going up against stuff like LOTR which puts it to shame easily.
But if you're viewing it merely/specifically as Anime I think the bar is a lot lower. Even some of the biggest/successful and "high quality" anime to exist don't all have particularly astonishing writing either though they might blink out in certain other areas.
Be it animation, choreography, voice acting, enjoy-ability as an anime etc.
All these thing would have to be taken into account and judged separately, writing is merely one aspect of that even though sure generally I think it's one of the more important ones.
The current rating of this show: 8.85 might be a bit on the high side if you just look at writing for sure. it certainly doesn't "really" deserve to have a higher rating than let's say One Piece. But if you take into account the run time, filler, some awful pacing here and there etc of that show, it makes sense, this show has been relatively short in comparison and each episode does "what it's good at" so if you enjoy one episode you'll probably enjoy most of the others as well. So I think you should focus on what "the intent/goal" of the series is. Kind of like just because you don't like a genre doesn't make everything in that genre bad because you think the genre itself is bad. That'd be like me saying all Sushi sucks equally because I don't like it. That'd be absurd. Even I will have to admit that obviously some guy dedicating 20 years of his life to make good sushi and having a huge reputation make very high quality food even if possibly I still won't like it much more than the cheap store bought sushi that imo tastes terrible.
Even if you hate classical music you can't deny someone like Mozart, Back or Beethoven is a genius.
I think overall a fair score would be closer to an IGN 7/10 lol, but yes that's account for the fact that "it knows what it is", it knows it's audience, it genre and in that particular field it does really well maybe even a 9/10 but I have to be reasonable and see it flaws despite it being good at what it does in it's particular "bubble". A show which sucks at that imo would be something like Fairy Tail which constantly suffers from trying to be more than it is. If that was simply a B series, it would be a peak B series show, semi mindless enjoyment and relatively funny. But it often tries to be an "A series" and take on a level of writing it's not capable of which just results in it being messy and convoluted and leaving a bad taste with it's countless nonsensical plot holes which it created by adding things which don't serve the story or the show in any way. Essentially you could say that McDonalds is a 9/10 fastfood place, but it shouldn't try to be a high end restaurant because it will fail and "leave a bad taste" because it's trying to be something it's not.
I'd probably judge Solo Levelling a lot more harshly as a comic than as an anime for example, just because they are very different medium's and it's getting a lot of benefits from being an anime which it wouldn't have in comic/manga/novel form. (Animation quality, fight scenes etc.)
Every good movie doesn't necessarily make for a good book.
Every good game doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.
And every good book doesn't necessarily make for a good comic.
Maybe me having a lower bar for anime series than for a book or comic is a bit unfair, but clearly it's a sentiment many people share judging by the rating of this show. Just like with video games though you have to remember that much of rating is "is it enjoyable/fun to watch/play" and I think in that regard it does really well. So as a piece of art or good writing it's a 4/10 but as "a fast food joint" an 8/10 or 9/10 does seem fairly accurate.
| @Me_Mario But that's also probably why there can never really be a consensus on this even taking the redefined "objective" way to judge the series. Because even if I were to purely look at it from what it's attempting to do, then I still think it's miles and miles from an 8/10. And still probably closer to an 4/10. Because it drops the ball on so many things it itself is trying to do. Also, I think you can't really judge each aspect of a show separately. They all feed into each other one way or another. The story feeds into the action. The action is enhanced by the animation. The animation is elevated by soundtrack/sound design. And so on and so forth. So while I understand where you're coming from, I sort of reject the idea that the writing isn't a core component in making the actual action power fantasy work, and that you can judge these aspects separately. The action hits much harder if the writing sets it up. The stakes feels more intense if you actually care about the characters involved. That's why I just personally can't get behind the idea that it's closer to an 8 or a 9 even as a "fast food" sort of product. When I know it could've been so much better even without compromising what it is. |
| Subarashii |
Reply to Me_Mario
@Avicebrons Well it would compromise what it is in the sense that it would cease being a show that doesn't focus much on story. It would cease being a "B series". I mean trust me I've pointed out nearly every problem with the plot and writing throughout season 1. But I still think it does other things incredibly well. And I disagree that you shouldn't separate it at least, I think to some degree I have to otherwise I will let the good things of a show be ruined by bad things. Sometimes that inevitably happens, but for example I'm not gonna let bad writing ruin the action scenes and good choreography or a show like Naruto for example. Because yes otherwise I would end up giving everything a way lower score, which I think would be unfair considering they are better than most shows. Think about One Punch there's a ton of things it sucks at but it's amazing in the things it focuses on and is good at.
Obviously all aspects compliment each other but how important each aspect is, is purely subjective. Hence like I said there's no such thing as "objectivity" but "accounting for other subjective points of views" gets you closer. For example most of the time I couldn't give a rat's ass about animation quality. If anything I often prefer older animation like Hunter Hunter 1999 which I prefer over 2011 or even Stardust Crusaders 1999 which I prefer over the modern adaptation. Something like audio and good voice acting is way more important to me. I don't even really notice or am disturbed by bad animation at all. But then for the sake of being less biased, I still do acknowledge when it is in fact there, I don't write off the whole show as 1/10 or 2/10 because it's biggest quality is good animation. Maybe it's to combat my own natural pessimistic nature, but I try to avoid judging something on it's worst aspects because that'd just result in me hating everything because it can *always* be better. Or how someone once put it "in the morning it's always Leah".
I don't want to hate One Piece because of it's flaws, or hate LOTR because of it's flaws or slow writing. Both of those can also be waaaay better than they are.
And sure yes that hurts to see, especially the more you like it I mean heck look at star wars. Or how the MCU went downhill real fast but even early on could be way better than it was. But you have to have some level of tolerance otherwise you won't enjoy watching anything. 4/10 to me sounds like "I don't enjoy it/I dislike watching it" I don't watch things (for long) that I dislike watching, so why would I rate something I do like watching a 4/10.
So sure if a 10/10 is literal godly perfection then no show or piece of art ever created in the history of man comes even remotely close to a 10/10 if you're lucky the best pieces of work are like "a 7/10". So if that's the case the scale is pointless and broken and you're better off lowering the standard.
This show is about a 7/10 in the sense that it's better than most other shows/anime. But not quite up there with the big ones. And in some of it's own separate categories I do think it's higher because it executes action a lot better than a lot of other shows certainly in the genre "isekai game".
Even though it's not "quite" an isekai it pretty much is. Dies, reborn with the ability to level up stats and do other video game things.
And yes relatively shit shows like Shield Hero technically have better writing which might invoke more emotion or satisfaction from the action. But in the field of actual animation and action most of those shows aren't even remotely close. Of course there's always gonna be sense of "comparing apples to oranges" but that's why I think you shouldn't try to force it to be something it's not. It's quite simply not a narrative driven show, it could be but it's not and it's not gonna be so why judge it as one. Obviously you still have every right to come to the conclusion it's a 4/10, but at the very least I think it's important to be able to see why "democracy" decides it's a 8-9/10. Same goes for me when it comes to Overlord, that's like a 4/10 to me but I understand very well why people rate that a 7-8/10
Obviously all aspects compliment each other but how important each aspect is, is purely subjective. Hence like I said there's no such thing as "objectivity" but "accounting for other subjective points of views" gets you closer. For example most of the time I couldn't give a rat's ass about animation quality. If anything I often prefer older animation like Hunter Hunter 1999 which I prefer over 2011 or even Stardust Crusaders 1999 which I prefer over the modern adaptation. Something like audio and good voice acting is way more important to me. I don't even really notice or am disturbed by bad animation at all. But then for the sake of being less biased, I still do acknowledge when it is in fact there, I don't write off the whole show as 1/10 or 2/10 because it's biggest quality is good animation. Maybe it's to combat my own natural pessimistic nature, but I try to avoid judging something on it's worst aspects because that'd just result in me hating everything because it can *always* be better. Or how someone once put it "in the morning it's always Leah".
I don't want to hate One Piece because of it's flaws, or hate LOTR because of it's flaws or slow writing. Both of those can also be waaaay better than they are.
And sure yes that hurts to see, especially the more you like it I mean heck look at star wars. Or how the MCU went downhill real fast but even early on could be way better than it was. But you have to have some level of tolerance otherwise you won't enjoy watching anything. 4/10 to me sounds like "I don't enjoy it/I dislike watching it" I don't watch things (for long) that I dislike watching, so why would I rate something I do like watching a 4/10.
So sure if a 10/10 is literal godly perfection then no show or piece of art ever created in the history of man comes even remotely close to a 10/10 if you're lucky the best pieces of work are like "a 7/10". So if that's the case the scale is pointless and broken and you're better off lowering the standard.
This show is about a 7/10 in the sense that it's better than most other shows/anime. But not quite up there with the big ones. And in some of it's own separate categories I do think it's higher because it executes action a lot better than a lot of other shows certainly in the genre "isekai game".
Even though it's not "quite" an isekai it pretty much is. Dies, reborn with the ability to level up stats and do other video game things.
And yes relatively shit shows like Shield Hero technically have better writing which might invoke more emotion or satisfaction from the action. But in the field of actual animation and action most of those shows aren't even remotely close. Of course there's always gonna be sense of "comparing apples to oranges" but that's why I think you shouldn't try to force it to be something it's not. It's quite simply not a narrative driven show, it could be but it's not and it's not gonna be so why judge it as one. Obviously you still have every right to come to the conclusion it's a 4/10, but at the very least I think it's important to be able to see why "democracy" decides it's a 8-9/10. Same goes for me when it comes to Overlord, that's like a 4/10 to me but I understand very well why people rate that a 7-8/10
| @Me_Mario Well again I just simply disagree with essentially most things here. You can't really separate the aspects since like I said they feed into each other. Sometimes animation is only good BECAUSE of the context of the writing, as weird as that sounds. But Miles Morale's half frame-rate or Ekko and Powder's dance scene that plays at low frames as well. Completely separate from the context of the story/writing, that would most likely be considered poor animation. But it's because of the context that it becomes the exact opposite instead, good. You can't just separate these elements and judge them individually, they work together. Of course something can always be better, but when I said that I meant that for Solo Leveling specifically it VERY CLEARLY could be MILES better. Not that it has some minor flaws here and there. I mean that it has massive flaws that holds the show down immensely. A 10/10 doesn't need to be completely void of flaws. But it also shouldn't have such majorly glaring flaws. At least that's what I think. But if someone wants to rate it 10/10 simply cause they like it, fair enough, it's their rating not mine. But then they would also have to accept that some might want to rate it 1/10 and it would be equally as fair. This show is about a 7/10 in the sense that it's better than most other shows/anime I assume you mean in your opinion? Cause otherwise I would STRONGLY disagree with that statement. And yes relatively shit shows like Shield Hero technically have better writing which might invoke more emotion or satisfaction from the action. But in the field of actual animation and action most of those shows aren't even remotely close. Perhaps. But who is to say which is the more important aspect? In my opinion, the action in Solo Leveling sucks because the writing sucks. Doesn't matter how much shine they put on it with good animation. I don't care about the characters/MC. I don't care about the opposition. There's zero meaningful stakes. There's no dilemma. No tough choices. Nothing. It's just nothing. Some people may of course like just "pew pew, explosions". But Solo Leveling, if it had been well written, could've actually made the action meaningful without compromising what it is by giving meaningful context to the action events and characters involved. It's quite simply not a narrative driven show, it could be but it's not and it's not gonna be so why judge it as one Nor does it need to be. But does that mean the MC has to be flatter than a cardboard cutout? Or all side characters are NPCs that only serves as narrative tools? Or have a formula that refuses to mix itself up? Not really. It doesn't need to be super deep and complex and narrative driven and everything. But it also doesn't need to be so lazily written either. You don't need to change what the entire show is about just to make the MC have a bit of a character, or the action events more interesting/meaningful. I think people are lowering their standards a bit excessively much and giving essentially everything a pass because "action and animation". |
| Subarashii |
| Jinwoo really got into the zone in this episode. Everyone saw how much of a one man army he actually is! |
 |
| Damn that was a good episode. Obviously Jinwoo's fighting scenes were crazy. And the way the orc leader saw his own men get turned and then was taken out by his own generals, holy shit. Nice thing about the cat being out of the bag is he's got help covering this stuff up until he has to officially change to S-rank. |
| the exchange about the piickaxe made me laugh i liked that. you'd think they'd at least have like hammer Cha could use to weird that but nope just a pick axe |
| PEAKKK!!! THIS EPISODE DEFINITELY LIVE UP TO THE HYPED!! Cha Hae-In definitely falling love with Jin-woo, we all saw that blushing. Thank You A-1 Pictures!! |
 |
| The action and animation looked incredible. Jinwoo was badass as always. I feel bad for the captain. Jinwoo let him rush head first into a hopeless battle. Unfortunately I wasn't a fan of the boss's voice... |
 |
| The Animation of the flags in that orc hall is so smooth. I also love gore-iness and slaugher. |
 |
| pretty cool fight. some of the imagery was badass. one thing ill say is: this anime always looks hella zoomed in. i think showing off the setting more would gain more traction with potential fans |
| boredboredbored |
Reply to Me_Mario
@Avicebrons Well yes "imo" but if you think it's worse I think you're underestimating how much Bloat the anime industry is full off. Obviously if you just look at the popular parts it's not gonna match up at all. But for every show like this there's at least 10 dogshit isekai. So in that regard it's "better than most" and obviously I fully understand that context matters, things compliment each other etc. But your view on this seems very black and white to me. It's not one or the other, with the miles Morales example yes the whole "dish" compliments each other but I disagree that the animation is inherently bad and I also disagree that the bad things about that animation go away just because of the context. My mother hated it for example and it just made her nauseous and she didn't want to watch XD.
Well again that's subjective, but you're doing the same by prioritizing it, you're saying "action sucks because writing sucks" that's very subjective otherwise some guy like Micheal Bay would have been out of a job real quick.
And yeah obviously there's "if it had been well written" but I can say that for any show, it's easy to point out countless imperfections in nearly every show. But again if I prioritize rating based on "something it doesn't have" than all my ratings would be shit. So instead I focus on what it does have.
For the sake of improvement it's useful to do such things but not really for the sake of "finding it's qualities" that's like saying "this cow would be a lot better if it were a horse" like yeah... sure. But it's cow. So although I think it's certainly not unimportant to look "at what it isn't" for the sake of giving a score I think it's better to look at "what it is." I fully understand the drive to look at imperfections if anything anyone who knows me will say I do so to much, I always see the negative things, provide critique and don't give compliments etc. But that's exactly why I have to push back against ONLY focusing on that aspect. Because at some point you're gonna run into an issue because Either 1. You won't enjoy anything or 2. If you enjoy something it's just because you've reached "your limit" and this is as high as "your bar" is. It's still imperfect and there's still plenty to hate or dislike but you're at the limit of your critical ability and therefor no longer see it and thus can enjoy and perceive it as a 10/10 because you're not capable of seeing the flaws. Or say a 9/10 because you only see a few flaws.
That way of measuring is measuring on your ability to see flaws, and again although I appreciate my ability to see flaws just fine, if I judged even just fairy tail on that it'd get a 1/10 which I think would be a stupid rating.
Because that's failing to see that despite it being horribly flawed there's a reason it's popular and people enjoy it.
It's kind of like some teachers, some give points for every good answer, whereas some detract point for every bad answer. The latter one is a lot less lenient because most of the times you can hypothetically reach a negative amount of points. Whereas the former you always are building up from 0, and for every good thing moving further away from it.
And so therefor I think that's the better approach to rate things. Don't subtract points, start from 0 and add points from there.
Now you can still reach a 1/10 but that just means you subjectively don't perceive or appreciate any additional qualities beyond that 1/10.
Well again there's plenty of shows that do that it just focuses on something else it's not focusing on inner character motivations and such apart from for example his mother in the more recent episodes. Which personally I thought was a half decent character moment, in the sense that although they don't "spell it out for you" there's clearly a moment of him reverting back to his "old self" because of his mother except there's this weird somewhat uncomfortable mismatch between him crying and having that more vulnerable and open personality and his now "grotesquely reshaped face and body" XD.
But yes a lot of the "character" in this show isn't spelled out or told, or heck even showed in the way most shows might. But there is a decent amount you can interpret same goes for some of the Jeju Island raiders and such.
So I disagree with all the notions of zero meaningfulness, no dilemma etc. But sure it's defenitly a more "lighthearted show" when it comes to the stakes for the MC but that's the case for a lot of power fantasy shows. And just like those shows in general there is consequences and stakes outside of the MC themself. People do die, they do show their family and heck with the one guy they even showed him telling his daughter he won't die which is an obvious death flag. But yeah it's "surface level" so you have to read the depth into it or else it certainly won't have it, you have to interpret it and have the ability to "care" despite not knowing these characters deeply but rather caring out of the idea itself and thinking it through. The same way you might care about WW2 victims, obviously knowing their story brings it closer but that's still very surface level the empathy part you have to do yourself unless it's a movie or something. And I do think they give you enough to "work with" for that I can easily see people with large amount of empathy crying at this show. Why? because they do what we call "they live themselves in" and quickly and easily put themselves in the shoes of set fictional character which doesn't require them knowing them deeply because "they can imagine".
So I certainly don't think it offers "0" in that regard either I've certainly seen worse plenty of times certainly western cartoons and shows, most things after early 2000's had like zero emotional depth. Just look at something like Avenger's Assemble and pretty much most more modern animated shows.
There's plenty of GOOD exceptions but overall I'd say like 80% is fairly soulless.
So do people lower their standards? I dunno, I don't think so I think people's standards are far lower than you realize.
So yeah of like the 11,000-12,000 anime that were ever made so far I do think this would probably rank above place #4800 in terms of popularity heck I'm fairly confident to even say it might also rank above #3600.
Yes it's not "the best thing ever" but a 7/10 would only put it around there. There's really not much doubt in my mind that there's 7000-8000 show's worse than this. Now it currently being top 1000 (617 atm) even just on this site is probably not justified but I think top 3000 or top 4000 would be pretty accurate.
And so assuming I balance my rating by giving the worse shows a 1/10 and the best ones a 10/10 than this show would indeed be around a 7/10 give or take. Currently by popularity alone it would be a 9, but I think that's unfounded hype. Top 3000-4000 would be more like a 6/10~7/10.
Which if given time for the hype to die down it might eventually end up around.
Now obviously hypothetically nothing is stopping you from rating 80% of all anime a 1/10 and only starting to go up from there and so essentially only rating the "top 20%". But like I said I'm rating it compared to "anime/shows in general" and so I try to balance it out to where the worst show is a 1/10 or a 0/10 and the best ones a 10/10. Obviously giving space for my own subjective differences and my order not being the same as the order of popularity. But in the end there's still the same amount of shows on this planet no mattter how differently I rank them and I don't think this is in the worst 60% of that because of how much "bloat" there is.
Avicebrons said:
But who is to say which is the more important aspect? In my opinion, the action in Solo Leveling sucks because the writing sucks. Doesn't matter how much shine they put on it with good animation. I don't care about the characters/MC. I don't care about the opposition. There's zero meaningful stakes. There's no dilemma. No tough choices. Nothing. It's just nothing. Some people may of course like just "pew pew, explosions". But Solo Leveling, if it had been well written, could've actually made the action meaningful without compromising what it is by giving meaningful context to the action events and characters involved.
But who is to say which is the more important aspect? In my opinion, the action in Solo Leveling sucks because the writing sucks. Doesn't matter how much shine they put on it with good animation. I don't care about the characters/MC. I don't care about the opposition. There's zero meaningful stakes. There's no dilemma. No tough choices. Nothing. It's just nothing. Some people may of course like just "pew pew, explosions". But Solo Leveling, if it had been well written, could've actually made the action meaningful without compromising what it is by giving meaningful context to the action events and characters involved.
Well again that's subjective, but you're doing the same by prioritizing it, you're saying "action sucks because writing sucks" that's very subjective otherwise some guy like Micheal Bay would have been out of a job real quick.
And yeah obviously there's "if it had been well written" but I can say that for any show, it's easy to point out countless imperfections in nearly every show. But again if I prioritize rating based on "something it doesn't have" than all my ratings would be shit. So instead I focus on what it does have.
For the sake of improvement it's useful to do such things but not really for the sake of "finding it's qualities" that's like saying "this cow would be a lot better if it were a horse" like yeah... sure. But it's cow. So although I think it's certainly not unimportant to look "at what it isn't" for the sake of giving a score I think it's better to look at "what it is." I fully understand the drive to look at imperfections if anything anyone who knows me will say I do so to much, I always see the negative things, provide critique and don't give compliments etc. But that's exactly why I have to push back against ONLY focusing on that aspect. Because at some point you're gonna run into an issue because Either 1. You won't enjoy anything or 2. If you enjoy something it's just because you've reached "your limit" and this is as high as "your bar" is. It's still imperfect and there's still plenty to hate or dislike but you're at the limit of your critical ability and therefor no longer see it and thus can enjoy and perceive it as a 10/10 because you're not capable of seeing the flaws. Or say a 9/10 because you only see a few flaws.
That way of measuring is measuring on your ability to see flaws, and again although I appreciate my ability to see flaws just fine, if I judged even just fairy tail on that it'd get a 1/10 which I think would be a stupid rating.
Because that's failing to see that despite it being horribly flawed there's a reason it's popular and people enjoy it.
It's kind of like some teachers, some give points for every good answer, whereas some detract point for every bad answer. The latter one is a lot less lenient because most of the times you can hypothetically reach a negative amount of points. Whereas the former you always are building up from 0, and for every good thing moving further away from it.
And so therefor I think that's the better approach to rate things. Don't subtract points, start from 0 and add points from there.
Now you can still reach a 1/10 but that just means you subjectively don't perceive or appreciate any additional qualities beyond that 1/10.
Avicebrons said:
Nor does it need to be. But does that mean the MC has to be flatter than a cardboard cutout? Or all side characters are NPCs that only serves as narrative tools? Or have a formula that refuses to mix itself up? Not really. It doesn't need to be super deep and complex and narrative driven and everything. But it also doesn't need to be so lazily written either. You don't need to change what the entire show is about just to make the MC have a bit of a character, or the action events more interesting/meaningful. I think people are lowering their standards a bit excessively much and giving essentially everything a pass because "action and animation".
Nor does it need to be. But does that mean the MC has to be flatter than a cardboard cutout? Or all side characters are NPCs that only serves as narrative tools? Or have a formula that refuses to mix itself up? Not really. It doesn't need to be super deep and complex and narrative driven and everything. But it also doesn't need to be so lazily written either. You don't need to change what the entire show is about just to make the MC have a bit of a character, or the action events more interesting/meaningful. I think people are lowering their standards a bit excessively much and giving essentially everything a pass because "action and animation".
Well again there's plenty of shows that do that it just focuses on something else it's not focusing on inner character motivations and such apart from for example his mother in the more recent episodes. Which personally I thought was a half decent character moment, in the sense that although they don't "spell it out for you" there's clearly a moment of him reverting back to his "old self" because of his mother except there's this weird somewhat uncomfortable mismatch between him crying and having that more vulnerable and open personality and his now "grotesquely reshaped face and body" XD.
But yes a lot of the "character" in this show isn't spelled out or told, or heck even showed in the way most shows might. But there is a decent amount you can interpret same goes for some of the Jeju Island raiders and such.
So I disagree with all the notions of zero meaningfulness, no dilemma etc. But sure it's defenitly a more "lighthearted show" when it comes to the stakes for the MC but that's the case for a lot of power fantasy shows. And just like those shows in general there is consequences and stakes outside of the MC themself. People do die, they do show their family and heck with the one guy they even showed him telling his daughter he won't die which is an obvious death flag. But yeah it's "surface level" so you have to read the depth into it or else it certainly won't have it, you have to interpret it and have the ability to "care" despite not knowing these characters deeply but rather caring out of the idea itself and thinking it through. The same way you might care about WW2 victims, obviously knowing their story brings it closer but that's still very surface level the empathy part you have to do yourself unless it's a movie or something. And I do think they give you enough to "work with" for that I can easily see people with large amount of empathy crying at this show. Why? because they do what we call "they live themselves in" and quickly and easily put themselves in the shoes of set fictional character which doesn't require them knowing them deeply because "they can imagine".
So I certainly don't think it offers "0" in that regard either I've certainly seen worse plenty of times certainly western cartoons and shows, most things after early 2000's had like zero emotional depth. Just look at something like Avenger's Assemble and pretty much most more modern animated shows.
There's plenty of GOOD exceptions but overall I'd say like 80% is fairly soulless.
So do people lower their standards? I dunno, I don't think so I think people's standards are far lower than you realize.
So yeah of like the 11,000-12,000 anime that were ever made so far I do think this would probably rank above place #4800 in terms of popularity heck I'm fairly confident to even say it might also rank above #3600.
Yes it's not "the best thing ever" but a 7/10 would only put it around there. There's really not much doubt in my mind that there's 7000-8000 show's worse than this. Now it currently being top 1000 (617 atm) even just on this site is probably not justified but I think top 3000 or top 4000 would be pretty accurate.
And so assuming I balance my rating by giving the worse shows a 1/10 and the best ones a 10/10 than this show would indeed be around a 7/10 give or take. Currently by popularity alone it would be a 9, but I think that's unfounded hype. Top 3000-4000 would be more like a 6/10~7/10.
Which if given time for the hype to die down it might eventually end up around.
Now obviously hypothetically nothing is stopping you from rating 80% of all anime a 1/10 and only starting to go up from there and so essentially only rating the "top 20%". But like I said I'm rating it compared to "anime/shows in general" and so I try to balance it out to where the worst show is a 1/10 or a 0/10 and the best ones a 10/10. Obviously giving space for my own subjective differences and my order not being the same as the order of popularity. But in the end there's still the same amount of shows on this planet no mattter how differently I rank them and I don't think this is in the worst 60% of that because of how much "bloat" there is.
| @Me_Mario I feel like you're going under a lot of misunderstanding of my point. For instance: Well again that's subjective, but you're doing the same by prioritizing it, you're saying "action sucks because writing sucks" that's very subjective otherwise some guy like Micheal Bay would have been out of a job real quick. Which is exactly my point. Who is to say which aspect is more important? No one. That's a subjective thing. So when you try to make an argument for why criticism towards certain parts of SL is not as valid, then you are making the assertion of what is more important despite you also agreeing that it's not really something you can decide, since it's subjective.For the sake of improvement it's useful to do such things but not really for the sake of "finding it's qualities" that's like saying "this cow would be a lot better if it were a horse" like yeah... sure. But it's cow. So although I think it's certainly not unimportant to look "at what it isn't" for the sake of giving a score I think it's better to look at "what it is." I fully understand the drive to look at imperfections if anything anyone who knows me will say I do so to much, I always see the negative things, provide critique and don't give compliments etc. But that's exactly why I have to push back against ONLY focusing on that aspect. Because at some point you're gonna run into an issue because Either 1. You won't enjoy anything or 2. If you enjoy something it's just because you've reached "your limit" and this is as high as "your bar" is. Well no, because as I even mentioned I was talking about it all within the framework of it not sacrificing what it is. A cow becoming a horse would be sacrificing what it is. These are two fundamentally different things. I'm not going to say SL is bad because it's not a highschool romance drama. Obviously it's not, nor is it trying to be. I am however criticizing it for things that are very well within its capabilities without sacrificing its identity. And to be clear, I'm not focusing ONLY on that aspect. What I am saying is that you sort of have to focus on both aspects equally. What it is and what it isn't. Both are important. Both can't be ignored. I think if we flip what you're saying then you might run into the issue instead that everything passes your bar because it is set too low. And if everything passes your bar, then no author/studio will have any reason to put more effort than the minimum into it, since people would praise it regardless. We probably don't want that. We probably should be harsh when it is valid. Because we want the things we consume to be good. Not just good enough. And yeah obviously there's "if it had been well written" but I can say that for any show, it's easy to point out countless imperfections in nearly every show. But again if I prioritize rating based on "something it doesn't have" than all my ratings would be shit. So instead I focus on what it does have. The point is that you sort of have to look at what it doesn't have as well. It would sort of be like trying to judge the animation for a show, but if it doesn't have frames, we can't criticize it for that since that's something it doesn't have and we should only look at what it does have. It's nonsensical. Of course you should keep in mind what it doesn't have because it may very well compliment or detriment what it does have. And if we're most likely judging it relative to other shows that are in a similar vein, which makes it even more fair to note what it lacks in comparison to these other shows. And to flip it, what it does have that other shows doesn't. And so therefor I think that's the better approach to rate things. Don't subtract points, start from 0 and add points from there. Again, I think that's a worse way of rating. Something being bad or lacking might bring down the qualities of other things. Which is why it would be very fair and reasonable to subtract points rather than just keep adding. We don't need to be lenient, nor should we. The shows aren't given to us for free, we have to pay to watch them. So I'm not going to say like "You did your best, 10/10". Now you can still reach a 1/10 but that just means you subjectively don't perceive or appreciate any additional qualities beyond that 1/10. And just like those shows in general there is consequences and stakes outside of the MC themself. People do die, they do show their family and heck with the one guy they even showed him telling his daughter he won't die which is an obvious death flag. But yeah it's "surface level" so you have to read the depth into it or else it certainly won't have it, you have to interpret it and have the ability to "care" despite not knowing these characters deeply but rather caring out of the idea itself and thinking it through. That's not really stake in any real or meaningful sense. Because stakes needs to be built with proper writing. We need to actually care about the people (not even necessarily people, just something) for the stakes to be there. Some randos dying or getting hurt is of no real consequence. That's not stakes. And I'm not going to do the show's job for it and pretend/interpret meaningful writing where there really is none. Yes it's not "the best thing ever" but a 7/10 would only put it around there. There's really not much doubt in my mind that there's 7000-8000 show's worse than this. Now it currently being top 1000 (617 atm) even just on this site is probably not justified but I think top 3000 or top 4000 would be pretty accurate. I would personally at best put it at 5/10, maaaaaybe 6/10 if I'm being super charitable. But not higher than that. Obviously if you were to compare it to literally every anime in existence, then yeah maybe it's better than average. But I think that's not really a smart way to consider ratings. Cause then just having basic animation, 20 minute episodes, voice acting and a somewhat coherent story is all you would need to break through "above average", and at which point the ratings would be rendered meaningless. |
| Subarashii |
Reply to Me_Mario
Look man I've understood you this entire time I'm just trying to have you see my pov, you don't have to agree with me I never once expected you to, I'm just trying to explain to you why this show is rated the way it is and why many people including myself would rate it around a 7, despite seeing all the same flaws that you see. I'm not saying the criticism is not valid or not *as* valid, I'm saying if I get stuck up on all those things I'm gonna give most shows a low score. And yes in the end it's all subjective and someone can say "there's no dogs" and give it a 1/10 because that criticism was really valid to them. But I think that person would clearly not even be attempting to be objective in any way. So it's not about validity it's about striving for objectivity despite it being impossible.
I knew you were gonna misunderstand that because of the shitty example.
Look I don't care what example you can come up with. Let's say it's Honda Civic and not a Ferrari, it's not sacrificing being a car it's still a car. And yes it makes for a shitty ferrari and it could be a way better car, but like I said improvement is always possible. That alone shouldn't be "negative points"
Once again I never stated that it isn't important or should be ignored, I said that it shouldn't be your main focus.
This is just again, putting words in my mouth and fallacious argumentation. I never said you should say "you did your best 10/10" but sure it's fine if you think subtracting points is the better scoring system I had a feeling you'd say that, I just disagree. And luckily most teachers seemed to agree as the subtraction system was defenitly less common and in general is disliked more by most as it creates more failure. It's essentially just the positive reinforcement vs negative reinforcement argument, it's subjective and situational. Only once again the part you're skipping is how in this particular case that would mean I'd rate 80% of shows a 1/10 instead of rating 10% a 1/10, 10% a 2/10, 10% a 3/10 etc. As that would be the more functional/balanced way of using the point system. Otherwise it's like those teachers that never give higher than a 7/10 because there's always room for improvement, Like that's even worse tbf. But in this case it's more like you might as well not rate the bottom 80% at all than because you're not distinguishing between Bad and Garbage. There's no difference between top 30% or literally the worst anime to ever be created, you'd end up rating them the same.
Well again that's all subjective an up to you, I know that's how you see it but I'm explaining the bigger picture and how there's other ways people look at it. Just because you don't see it as real or meaningful doesn't mean other people don't. Caring about people isn't something that "is the shows job" for a lot of people. Again like with the WW2 example, plenty of people do care and some can't because they weren't there, didn't live it and so it's hard for them to care because they don't have that same kind of empathetic ability, they need more to be able to put themselves in another person's shoes.
As for the last part "where there is none" it's like... even that is subjective. I get what you mean but thousands of literature books and pieces of art DO NOT WORK unless you interpret them in a meaningful way. So yes for a lot of different styles of writing or art you need to do the brain work/heavy lifting yourself that's often even the point, though in this case I don't think it's quite as purposeful, but you are kind of supposed to connect the emotional dots.
Yeah I think 5 or 6 are also still plenty reasonable. Though I disagree with your second notion. I think it's the best way to make use of the full 10 point system. If I only look at the top 20% of anime, than that means I lose all nuance in rating between the other 80% even though there's differences between them.
So I don't think that renders ratings meaningless at all. As a matter of fact if a show is rated a 5 or a 6. Than yes that's about what I'd expect: Basic Animation, 20 min episodes, voice acting and a somewhat coherent story. And that's generally what you'll get if you take the ratings on this site.
Anyway like I said, this is my last comment, I see and understand your points I was just trying to show you *why* the median ratings are the way they are and how that is largely an effective use of the "wisdom of the crowd" effect. And the things that ruins or throws off that effect the most is people communicating and either review boosting or review bombing something because that effectively takes away their independent thinking, which breaks the wisdom of the crowd effect.
Avicebrons said:
Well no, because as I even mentioned I was talking about it all within the framework of it not sacrificing what it is. A cow becoming a horse would be sacrificing what it is. These are two fundamentally different things. I'm not going to say SL is bad because it's not a highschool romance drama. Obviously it's not, nor is it trying to be. I am however criticizing it for things that are very well within its capabilities without sacrificing its identity. And to be clear, I'm not focusing ONLY on that aspect. What I am saying is that you sort of have to focus on both aspects equally. What it is and what it isn't. Both are important. Both can't be ignored. I think if we flip what you're saying then you might run into the issue instead that everything passes your bar because it is set too low. And if everything passes your bar, then no author/studio will have any reason to put more effort than the minimum into it, since people would praise it regardless. We probably don't want that. We probably should be harsh when it is valid. Because we want the things we consume to be good. Not just good enough.
Well no, because as I even mentioned I was talking about it all within the framework of it not sacrificing what it is. A cow becoming a horse would be sacrificing what it is. These are two fundamentally different things. I'm not going to say SL is bad because it's not a highschool romance drama. Obviously it's not, nor is it trying to be. I am however criticizing it for things that are very well within its capabilities without sacrificing its identity. And to be clear, I'm not focusing ONLY on that aspect. What I am saying is that you sort of have to focus on both aspects equally. What it is and what it isn't. Both are important. Both can't be ignored. I think if we flip what you're saying then you might run into the issue instead that everything passes your bar because it is set too low. And if everything passes your bar, then no author/studio will have any reason to put more effort than the minimum into it, since people would praise it regardless. We probably don't want that. We probably should be harsh when it is valid. Because we want the things we consume to be good. Not just good enough.
I knew you were gonna misunderstand that because of the shitty example.
Look I don't care what example you can come up with. Let's say it's Honda Civic and not a Ferrari, it's not sacrificing being a car it's still a car. And yes it makes for a shitty ferrari and it could be a way better car, but like I said improvement is always possible. That alone shouldn't be "negative points"
Avicebrons said:
The point is that you sort of have to look at what it doesn't have as well. It would sort of be like trying to judge the animation for a show, but if it doesn't have frames, we can't criticize it for that since that's something it doesn't have and we should only look at what it does have. It's nonsensical. Of course you should keep in mind what it doesn't have because it may very well compliment or detriment what it does have. And if we're most likely judging it relative to other shows that are in a similar vein, which makes it even more fair to note what it lacks in comparison to these other shows. And to flip it, what it does have that other shows doesn't.
The point is that you sort of have to look at what it doesn't have as well. It would sort of be like trying to judge the animation for a show, but if it doesn't have frames, we can't criticize it for that since that's something it doesn't have and we should only look at what it does have. It's nonsensical. Of course you should keep in mind what it doesn't have because it may very well compliment or detriment what it does have. And if we're most likely judging it relative to other shows that are in a similar vein, which makes it even more fair to note what it lacks in comparison to these other shows. And to flip it, what it does have that other shows doesn't.
Once again I never stated that it isn't important or should be ignored, I said that it shouldn't be your main focus.
Avicebrons said:
Again, I think that's a worse way of rating. Something being bad or lacking might bring down the qualities of other things. Which is why it would be very fair and reasonable to subtract points rather than just keep adding. We don't need to be lenient, nor should we. The shows aren't given to us for free, we have to pay to watch them. So I'm not going to say like "You did your best, 10/10".
Again, I think that's a worse way of rating. Something being bad or lacking might bring down the qualities of other things. Which is why it would be very fair and reasonable to subtract points rather than just keep adding. We don't need to be lenient, nor should we. The shows aren't given to us for free, we have to pay to watch them. So I'm not going to say like "You did your best, 10/10".
This is just again, putting words in my mouth and fallacious argumentation. I never said you should say "you did your best 10/10" but sure it's fine if you think subtracting points is the better scoring system I had a feeling you'd say that, I just disagree. And luckily most teachers seemed to agree as the subtraction system was defenitly less common and in general is disliked more by most as it creates more failure. It's essentially just the positive reinforcement vs negative reinforcement argument, it's subjective and situational. Only once again the part you're skipping is how in this particular case that would mean I'd rate 80% of shows a 1/10 instead of rating 10% a 1/10, 10% a 2/10, 10% a 3/10 etc. As that would be the more functional/balanced way of using the point system. Otherwise it's like those teachers that never give higher than a 7/10 because there's always room for improvement, Like that's even worse tbf. But in this case it's more like you might as well not rate the bottom 80% at all than because you're not distinguishing between Bad and Garbage. There's no difference between top 30% or literally the worst anime to ever be created, you'd end up rating them the same.
Avicebrons said:
That's not really stake in any real or meaningful sense. Because stakes needs to be built with proper writing. We need to actually care about the people (not even necessarily people, just something) for the stakes to be there. Some randos dying or getting hurt is of no real consequence. That's not stakes. And I'm not going to do the show's job for it and pretend/interpret meaningful writing where there really is none.
That's not really stake in any real or meaningful sense. Because stakes needs to be built with proper writing. We need to actually care about the people (not even necessarily people, just something) for the stakes to be there. Some randos dying or getting hurt is of no real consequence. That's not stakes. And I'm not going to do the show's job for it and pretend/interpret meaningful writing where there really is none.
Well again that's all subjective an up to you, I know that's how you see it but I'm explaining the bigger picture and how there's other ways people look at it. Just because you don't see it as real or meaningful doesn't mean other people don't. Caring about people isn't something that "is the shows job" for a lot of people. Again like with the WW2 example, plenty of people do care and some can't because they weren't there, didn't live it and so it's hard for them to care because they don't have that same kind of empathetic ability, they need more to be able to put themselves in another person's shoes.
As for the last part "where there is none" it's like... even that is subjective. I get what you mean but thousands of literature books and pieces of art DO NOT WORK unless you interpret them in a meaningful way. So yes for a lot of different styles of writing or art you need to do the brain work/heavy lifting yourself that's often even the point, though in this case I don't think it's quite as purposeful, but you are kind of supposed to connect the emotional dots.
Avicebrons said:
I would personally at best put it at 5/10, maaaaaybe 6/10 if I'm being super charitable. But not higher than that. Obviously if you were to compare it to literally every anime in existence, then yeah maybe it's better than average. But I think that's not really a smart way to consider ratings. Cause then just having basic animation, 20 minute episodes, voice acting and a somewhat coherent story is all you would need to break through "above average", and at which point the ratings would be rendered meaningless.
I would personally at best put it at 5/10, maaaaaybe 6/10 if I'm being super charitable. But not higher than that. Obviously if you were to compare it to literally every anime in existence, then yeah maybe it's better than average. But I think that's not really a smart way to consider ratings. Cause then just having basic animation, 20 minute episodes, voice acting and a somewhat coherent story is all you would need to break through "above average", and at which point the ratings would be rendered meaningless.
Yeah I think 5 or 6 are also still plenty reasonable. Though I disagree with your second notion. I think it's the best way to make use of the full 10 point system. If I only look at the top 20% of anime, than that means I lose all nuance in rating between the other 80% even though there's differences between them.
So I don't think that renders ratings meaningless at all. As a matter of fact if a show is rated a 5 or a 6. Than yes that's about what I'd expect: Basic Animation, 20 min episodes, voice acting and a somewhat coherent story. And that's generally what you'll get if you take the ratings on this site.
Anyway like I said, this is my last comment, I see and understand your points I was just trying to show you *why* the median ratings are the way they are and how that is largely an effective use of the "wisdom of the crowd" effect. And the things that ruins or throws off that effect the most is people communicating and either review boosting or review bombing something because that effectively takes away their independent thinking, which breaks the wisdom of the crowd effect.
| @Me_Mario Look man I've understood you this entire time I'm just trying to have you see my pov, you don't have to agree with me I never once expected you to, I'm just trying to explain to you why this show is rated the way it is and why many people including myself would rate it around a 7, despite seeing all the same flaws that you see. I'm not saying the criticism is not valid or not *as* valid, I'm saying if I get stuck up on all those things I'm gonna give most shows a low score. And yes in the end it's all subjective and someone can say "there's no dogs" and give it a 1/10 because that criticism was really valid to them. But I think that person would clearly not even be attempting to be objective in any way. So it's not about validity it's about striving for objectivity despite it being impossible. I knew you were gonna misunderstand that because of the shitty example. You are correct in "that alone shouldn't be negative points". However, I never said that alone gives it a negative. I am always talking about it in conjunction within other aspects that it does have. And things it is very much capable of doing. Look I don't care what example you can come up with. Let's say it's Honda Civic and not a Ferrari, it's not sacrificing being a car it's still a car. And yes it makes for a shitty ferrari and it could be a way better car, but like I said improvement is always possible. That alone shouldn't be "negative points" Once again I never stated that it isn't important or should be ignored, I said that it shouldn't be your main focus. But you're trying to spin it as being much less of a focus, which I don't agree with. And I never said it should be the "main" focus, I said it should be considered equally with what it does have. I never said you should say "you did your best 10/10" I didn't say you said that. If that wasn't clear, it was hyperbolic. A mocking statement to enhance the idea that we shouldn't just settle for mediocrity or "good enough" when this is something we actually have to pay for. We want it to be good. They're not getting a pat on the back for not being trash. That should be the bare minimum, not something praiseworthy.Only once again the part you're skipping is how in this particular case that would mean I'd rate 80% of shows a 1/10 instead of rating 10% a 1/10, 10% a 2/10, 10% a 3/10 etc. As that would be the more functional/balanced way of using the point system. Otherwise it's like those teachers that never give higher than a 7/10 because there's always room for improvement, Like that's even worse tbf. But in this case it's more like you might as well not rate the bottom 80% at all than because you're not distinguishing between Bad and Garbage. It fully depends on how you view the rating system. Anything below a 7 here would be considered "bad" and anything below a 6 would be considered "really bad". When in reality a 5 should be considered "average". That's just not the rating system the community has collectively agreed on. I agree it's a flawed rating system, so it would depend on if you're rating it on your own personalized system or the "standardized" system. There are about ~13800 animes rated here. Less than 1000 are rated below 5/10. The supposed "average". Except, it's very much not the average now is it. If it was, then we would've seen about 6900 animes rated 5 or below. This is what I mean by the rating system being rendered meaningless if we give 7-8+s to animes that do the bare essentials to be considered a coherent anime. Well again that's all subjective an up to you, I know that's how you see it but I'm explaining the bigger picture and how there's other ways people look at it. Just because you don't see it as real or meaningful doesn't mean other people don't. Caring about people isn't something that "is the shows job" for a lot of people. Again like with the WW2 example, plenty of people do care and some can't because they weren't there, didn't live it and so it's hard for them to care because they don't have that same kind of empathetic ability, they need more to be able to put themselves in another person's shoes. I feel like you're taking a super weird turn here. Especially comparing it to actual real life events. But when it comes to a fictional story, it is very much the story's job to make the audience care. If someone would care without the story having to do anything to really earn that care, then that's most likely emotional manipulation (tearbaits often use this) or low standards. Or possibly a combination of both. Neither is something praiseworthy. Otherwise, pretty much every anime in existence have already done the minimum to pass this bar. Because you can simply tell the audience to emphasize, interpret and read into the situation and thus it will be sad. When obviously we both know that's not how it works. Even Solo Leveling to some extent understands this. It's like kicking the puppy example. Kicking a puppy is something basically everyone would find sad and despicable. And it's often a cheap and lazy thing authors write into a story when they want something sad and make a person look evil. But is it good writing? No. It's cheap emotional manipulation, that's all. It often doesn't play thematically into the story, no deeper message, no nuanced reasoning behind the event, we usually don't have an established relationship with the dog (or often even the villain). Obviously, not every story, especially not Solo Leveling, needs or even necessarily should have this level of depth. But it's more to showcase the difference between bad and/or lazy writing, and actual good/thoughtful writing. The latter actually relies on the connection you have with the written story and it gives you meaning and substance to the event. The former relies on your basic human empathy and doesn't further your connection to the story nor will it most likely even be remembered. As for the last part "where there is none" it's like... even that is subjective. I get what you mean but thousands of literature books and pieces of art DO NOT WORK unless you interpret them in a meaningful way. So yes for a lot of different styles of writing or art you need to do the brain work/heavy lifting yourself that's often even the point, though in this case I don't think it's quite as purposeful, but you are kind of supposed to connect the emotional dots. Yes. But the story have to make a meaningful effort for us to interpret it in any real sense. Many fictional works do this. If they don't, then we're essentially just imagining fanfic and pretend it's well written. It's not about the story needing to spell it out for us, but they also can't just spell out essentially nothing of real value. Again, this is the story's job. I'm not going to sit here and make fanfic of how deep and meaningful his connection with his mom was/is. Obviously you can read into it to some extent more than the story spells out, I don't disagree there. I just disagree on the magnitude. People talking as if the relationship with his mom is the most well written relationship in fiction even rivaling Tolkien's best work. I'm not going to do THAT much work and charitability for the story. That's when you get to a point where they read so much into it that they're doing the story's job for it and throw their standards out the window. If I only look at the top 20% of anime, than that means I lose all nuance in rating between the other 80% even though there's differences between them. It depends. You rate relatively. Have you actually seen those other 80%? Probably not. So you can't exactly rate with those in mind. You're most likely rating by some general level of standard. You probably have a vague sense of quality that befits a 5/10 and then you see what goes above or below that. Even if where your mind place this 5/10 might just be in the top 20% of animes. Sure, maybe you will retroactively and dynamically adjust this, but generally speaking this is most likely true. I was just trying to show you *why* the median ratings are the way they are No I get why they are the way they are. I simply don't agree with the sentiment of those who would rate it as high as they do. Just as even if 99% of the world said the earth is flat, I would still say it's round. Obviously there's a difference since one is objective and other is subjective, but it's essentially a similar idea. I don't really care if it's the minority or majority, I simply think those people probably have low standards. Or alternatively they can't appreciate the value of good writing, which is equally sad. Because that's exactly why we see trash isekai after isekai being pumped out. Because people consume them like fast food and give them a big thumbs up with a smile on their face. Just like they do for Solo Leveling. Which to be clear, is fully in their prerogative. But just as it should be in my prerogative to disagree and criticize. I just think that Solo Leveling could've kept its core identity, not becoming Ferrari from a Honda Civic or a horse to a cow or however you want to put it, I mean actually keeping its identity, but still being written way better. Something that would genuinely be praiseworthy. But in my opinion, they instead sacrificed all of that to appeal to the lowest common denominator. |
| Subarashii |
Reply to Me_Mario
Fine a final reply then,
Obviously not all of it but yes I've defenitly seen stuff that's in the worst 10-30%
To all the above I'd simply say, "that's exactly why" the reason why I'd say a giving frieren a 1/10 is less fair than giving a bad show a 10/10. Because that's simply how democracy has decided the system works, partially because all those really bad shows a lot of people simply haven't watched and by the logic of survivorship bias, the people that do obviously enjoy them more than most would. I wouldn't say this has rendered the rating system meaningless as you can still filter out the good from the bad quite easily, and it prevents people from not watching a show they might enjoy just because it's lowly rated. in that sense the "6" means it's not good but it's possible to find enjoyment in it. And anything a 5 or lower is likely simply not even enjoyable for basically anyone because that means nearly everyone who watched it had a negative experience, which like it or not (like the fast food restaurant example) is simply not gonna be the case for most shows. But I do agree that you yourself should aim to rate in a balanced way. Though even than it's bound to be more of curve. In the end there's simply gonna be more 6's and 7's than 1's or 10's just because that statistically makes sense but that should be spread in a "logical way" so that you can still differentiate between them. And that if you rate two shows a 7 that they are in fact basically on par with each other in you opinion.
Right but such a statement isn't an argument and it misrepresents the situation, it might not quite be a strawman but it isn't accurate either.
Settling for mediocrity is simply gonna be something you have to deal with as a human being, you can strive for perfection and greatness but at the end of the day even most positive things in life ere gonna be like 6.You can hate or dislike that but that's just the way it is. Movies, TV Shows, Music, Food pretty much "always has been". Maybe my comfort with that situation is because of my Dutch "Zesjes cultuur" but I feel like generally what you see instead in many asian cultures with this "striving for perfection" is going to make you stress out, lose more hair and age faster and just in general make you less happy if you're constantly "refusing to settle" it can be a good quality from time to time. Certainly if you seek to achieve something. But when applied to everything or simply in the long run I think that's a self destructive mentality and I think it's good thing that most humans gravitate towards "settling for mediocrity" certainly on a large scale I think this world would be even worse off without it. 90-99% of this planet is forced to settle for mediocrity or chooses to. If they didn't we'd be at constant war, if everyone aims to live "like an american" or simply a rich person, you'd need another 30 planets. Whereas if everyone settles for a basic comfortable life including all the rich people we could easily double or quadruple the population and all be comfortable and still have a world without hunger or poverty. Obviously human behavior makes that unrealistic in practice but in theory it'd be no issue.
I think someone once put it like this "if one goes into life expecting a 5 star hotel they'll experience hell, but if one goes expecting a prison they might at times find it oddly comfortable".
You deem that 99% of people have too low standards, I just think that's rather arrogant. What makes you think "you deserve" better apart from "your money" because I could easily say you don't deserve "your money" either after all if you look at the big picture that's 99% luck.
I know this is getting philosophical but I think that's the core of our issue here, culture and philosophy.
Most people in this world aren't entitled enough to think they deserve things, certainly not those born in poor circumstances, your mindset on this is very western and "prosperity culture". That's the same reason why you prefer subtracting points to adding them. If your mindset is "I don't deserve anything" than everything you have is something positive.
However if your mindset is "I deserve the best" than any and all flaws are negatives.
A man moved over here, fled from war from his country he had decades of experience as a doctor and degree, Yet in this country where we lacked doctors they would not accept any of his papers or practical and factual experience, instead he spent years once again learning how to become a welder and get a degree. And despite of all that which we so quickly would call "unfairness" and "injustice" he was nothing but thankful and grateful.
Is he fully right? no I think that is a problem that they simply ignored the facts especially when we lack doctors. But at the same time, western/prosperity culture is much more quick to focus on every single problem rather than looking at the fact that he gets to live in a country with peace, has food to eat, a roof over his head and even has a job.
So settling for less isn't "failing to appreciate good writing" (although sure like fast food in some cases it can be) nor is it inherently sad.
It's simply not taking it for granted, yes obviously we should strive for better things, but if that is all you do you will always be unsatisfied and unhappy with whatever you have. There is no inherent evil or issue with people enjoying Solo Leveling, giving it a thumbs up with a smile on their face. They enjoyed it, they are happy and they are satisfied. At least with fast food you can make the argument it's bad for them. But with this that certainly isn't really the case. Obviously you can criticize and yes I agree it can do all those things and keep it's identity. But at the end of the day, most things don't live up to their potential, heck nothing fully lives up to it's potential. As for "being praiseworthy" that's again a matter of perspective, most people see it like this "the fact that it was made and I can enjoy it, makes it praiseworthy everything else is an added bonus."
I am an extremely picky eater because of my asperger and countless food allergies causing me to have to eat often lower quality "special food", even so despite always criticizing my food, it is important to keep it up front that I should be happy for the sake that I have food.
If I offended you in anyway, I am sorry that was not my intention but this will truly be my last comment here.
I hope if nothing else that you at least equally come to the understanding that our differences on this subject is largely a matter of perspective, philosophy, culture and worldview and that I by no means reject your opinion, or you yourself as a person but am rather disagreeing and criticizing the underlying philosophy, culture and worldview. Not completely of course because like you can see, I fully agree that it is important to be able to criticize.
Though in the end I do think that being unaware or rather having a different perspective, or taking things for granted can cause the definition of "equally" to shift and I think that in the case of most of the western world (including over here) it generally shifted more towards criticism than gratefulness.
And that's a big part of the reason why twitter, and cancel culture media are the way they are. Because we seek to criticize above all else.
Like Bill Burr's comedy skit, on Arnold Schwarzenegger these higher standards we force on everything including ourselves aren't reasonable nor rational.
They are good ideals, but they shouldn't be "the rule."
Just remember that we agree on more than we disagree on, I just have a bad habit of enjoying to play devil's advocate and arguing against points which would generally be "my own side" of any given argument.
Avicebrons said:
Have you actually seen those other 80%? Probably not.
Have you actually seen those other 80%? Probably not.
Obviously not all of it but yes I've defenitly seen stuff that's in the worst 10-30%
Avicebrons said:
I don't really need someone to explain to me why it's highly rated. I know why it is. Although I personally don't agree with it and think people have too low standards. But the point about it all was that you tried to spin it like it being "objectively" (although not objectively in the true sense, but as close as you can in a subjective manner) 1/10s were worse than 10/10s. Which I just fundamentally don't agree with.
I don't really need someone to explain to me why it's highly rated. I know why it is. Although I personally don't agree with it and think people have too low standards. But the point about it all was that you tried to spin it like it being "objectively" (although not objectively in the true sense, but as close as you can in a subjective manner) 1/10s were worse than 10/10s. Which I just fundamentally don't agree with.
Avicebrons said:
You are correct in "that alone shouldn't be negative points". However, I never said that alone gives it a negative. I am always talking about it in conjunction within other aspects that it does have. And things it is very much capable of doing.
You are correct in "that alone shouldn't be negative points". However, I never said that alone gives it a negative. I am always talking about it in conjunction within other aspects that it does have. And things it is very much capable of doing.
Avicebrons said:
But you're trying to spin it as being much less of a focus, which I don't agree with. And I never said it should be the "main" focus, I said it should be considered equally with what it does have.
But you're trying to spin it as being much less of a focus, which I don't agree with. And I never said it should be the "main" focus, I said it should be considered equally with what it does have.
Avicebrons said:
It fully depends on how you view the rating system. Anything below a 7 here would be considered "bad" and anything below a 6 would be considered "really bad". When in reality a 5 should be considered "average". That's just not the rating system the community has collectively agreed on. I agree it's a flawed rating system, so it would depend on if you're rating it on your own personalized system or the "standardized" system. There are about ~13800 animes rated here. Less than 1000 are rated below 5/10. The supposed "average". Except, it's very much not the average now is it. If it was, then we would've seen about 6900 animes rated 5 or below. This is what I mean by the rating system being rendered meaningless if we give 7-8+s to animes that do the bare essentials to be considered a coherent anime.
It fully depends on how you view the rating system. Anything below a 7 here would be considered "bad" and anything below a 6 would be considered "really bad". When in reality a 5 should be considered "average". That's just not the rating system the community has collectively agreed on. I agree it's a flawed rating system, so it would depend on if you're rating it on your own personalized system or the "standardized" system. There are about ~13800 animes rated here. Less than 1000 are rated below 5/10. The supposed "average". Except, it's very much not the average now is it. If it was, then we would've seen about 6900 animes rated 5 or below. This is what I mean by the rating system being rendered meaningless if we give 7-8+s to animes that do the bare essentials to be considered a coherent anime.
To all the above I'd simply say, "that's exactly why" the reason why I'd say a giving frieren a 1/10 is less fair than giving a bad show a 10/10. Because that's simply how democracy has decided the system works, partially because all those really bad shows a lot of people simply haven't watched and by the logic of survivorship bias, the people that do obviously enjoy them more than most would. I wouldn't say this has rendered the rating system meaningless as you can still filter out the good from the bad quite easily, and it prevents people from not watching a show they might enjoy just because it's lowly rated. in that sense the "6" means it's not good but it's possible to find enjoyment in it. And anything a 5 or lower is likely simply not even enjoyable for basically anyone because that means nearly everyone who watched it had a negative experience, which like it or not (like the fast food restaurant example) is simply not gonna be the case for most shows. But I do agree that you yourself should aim to rate in a balanced way. Though even than it's bound to be more of curve. In the end there's simply gonna be more 6's and 7's than 1's or 10's just because that statistically makes sense but that should be spread in a "logical way" so that you can still differentiate between them. And that if you rate two shows a 7 that they are in fact basically on par with each other in you opinion.
Avicebrons said:
I didn't say you said that. If that wasn't clear, it was hyperbolic. A mocking statement to enhance the idea that we shouldn't just settle for mediocrity or "good enough" when this is something we actually have to pay for. We want it to be good. They're not getting a pat on the back for not being trash. That should be the bare minimum, not something praiseworthy.
I didn't say you said that. If that wasn't clear, it was hyperbolic. A mocking statement to enhance the idea that we shouldn't just settle for mediocrity or "good enough" when this is something we actually have to pay for. We want it to be good. They're not getting a pat on the back for not being trash. That should be the bare minimum, not something praiseworthy.
Right but such a statement isn't an argument and it misrepresents the situation, it might not quite be a strawman but it isn't accurate either.
Settling for mediocrity is simply gonna be something you have to deal with as a human being, you can strive for perfection and greatness but at the end of the day even most positive things in life ere gonna be like 6.You can hate or dislike that but that's just the way it is. Movies, TV Shows, Music, Food pretty much "always has been". Maybe my comfort with that situation is because of my Dutch "Zesjes cultuur" but I feel like generally what you see instead in many asian cultures with this "striving for perfection" is going to make you stress out, lose more hair and age faster and just in general make you less happy if you're constantly "refusing to settle" it can be a good quality from time to time. Certainly if you seek to achieve something. But when applied to everything or simply in the long run I think that's a self destructive mentality and I think it's good thing that most humans gravitate towards "settling for mediocrity" certainly on a large scale I think this world would be even worse off without it. 90-99% of this planet is forced to settle for mediocrity or chooses to. If they didn't we'd be at constant war, if everyone aims to live "like an american" or simply a rich person, you'd need another 30 planets. Whereas if everyone settles for a basic comfortable life including all the rich people we could easily double or quadruple the population and all be comfortable and still have a world without hunger or poverty. Obviously human behavior makes that unrealistic in practice but in theory it'd be no issue.
I think someone once put it like this "if one goes into life expecting a 5 star hotel they'll experience hell, but if one goes expecting a prison they might at times find it oddly comfortable".
You deem that 99% of people have too low standards, I just think that's rather arrogant. What makes you think "you deserve" better apart from "your money" because I could easily say you don't deserve "your money" either after all if you look at the big picture that's 99% luck.
I know this is getting philosophical but I think that's the core of our issue here, culture and philosophy.
Most people in this world aren't entitled enough to think they deserve things, certainly not those born in poor circumstances, your mindset on this is very western and "prosperity culture". That's the same reason why you prefer subtracting points to adding them. If your mindset is "I don't deserve anything" than everything you have is something positive.
However if your mindset is "I deserve the best" than any and all flaws are negatives.
A man moved over here, fled from war from his country he had decades of experience as a doctor and degree, Yet in this country where we lacked doctors they would not accept any of his papers or practical and factual experience, instead he spent years once again learning how to become a welder and get a degree. And despite of all that which we so quickly would call "unfairness" and "injustice" he was nothing but thankful and grateful.
Is he fully right? no I think that is a problem that they simply ignored the facts especially when we lack doctors. But at the same time, western/prosperity culture is much more quick to focus on every single problem rather than looking at the fact that he gets to live in a country with peace, has food to eat, a roof over his head and even has a job.
Avicebrons said:
No I get why they are the way they are. I simply don't agree with the sentiment of those who would rate it as high as they do. Just as even if 99% of the world said the earth is flat, I would still say it's round. Obviously there's a difference since one is objective and other is subjective, but it's essentially a similar idea. I don't really care if it's the minority or majority, I simply think those people probably have low standards. Or alternatively they can't appreciate the value of good writing, which is equally sad. Because that's exactly why we see trash isekai after isekai being pumped out. Because people consume them like fast food and give them a big thumbs up with a smile on their face. Just like they do for Solo Leveling. Which to be clear, is fully in their prerogative. But just as it should be in my prerogative to disagree and criticize. I just think that Solo Leveling could've kept its core identity, not becoming Ferrari from a Honda Civic or a horse to a cow or however you want to put it, I mean actually keeping its identity, but still being written way better. Something that would genuinely be praiseworthy. But in my opinion, they instead sacrificed all of that to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
No I get why they are the way they are. I simply don't agree with the sentiment of those who would rate it as high as they do. Just as even if 99% of the world said the earth is flat, I would still say it's round. Obviously there's a difference since one is objective and other is subjective, but it's essentially a similar idea. I don't really care if it's the minority or majority, I simply think those people probably have low standards. Or alternatively they can't appreciate the value of good writing, which is equally sad. Because that's exactly why we see trash isekai after isekai being pumped out. Because people consume them like fast food and give them a big thumbs up with a smile on their face. Just like they do for Solo Leveling. Which to be clear, is fully in their prerogative. But just as it should be in my prerogative to disagree and criticize. I just think that Solo Leveling could've kept its core identity, not becoming Ferrari from a Honda Civic or a horse to a cow or however you want to put it, I mean actually keeping its identity, but still being written way better. Something that would genuinely be praiseworthy. But in my opinion, they instead sacrificed all of that to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
So settling for less isn't "failing to appreciate good writing" (although sure like fast food in some cases it can be) nor is it inherently sad.
It's simply not taking it for granted, yes obviously we should strive for better things, but if that is all you do you will always be unsatisfied and unhappy with whatever you have. There is no inherent evil or issue with people enjoying Solo Leveling, giving it a thumbs up with a smile on their face. They enjoyed it, they are happy and they are satisfied. At least with fast food you can make the argument it's bad for them. But with this that certainly isn't really the case. Obviously you can criticize and yes I agree it can do all those things and keep it's identity. But at the end of the day, most things don't live up to their potential, heck nothing fully lives up to it's potential. As for "being praiseworthy" that's again a matter of perspective, most people see it like this "the fact that it was made and I can enjoy it, makes it praiseworthy everything else is an added bonus."
I am an extremely picky eater because of my asperger and countless food allergies causing me to have to eat often lower quality "special food", even so despite always criticizing my food, it is important to keep it up front that I should be happy for the sake that I have food.
If I offended you in anyway, I am sorry that was not my intention but this will truly be my last comment here.
I hope if nothing else that you at least equally come to the understanding that our differences on this subject is largely a matter of perspective, philosophy, culture and worldview and that I by no means reject your opinion, or you yourself as a person but am rather disagreeing and criticizing the underlying philosophy, culture and worldview. Not completely of course because like you can see, I fully agree that it is important to be able to criticize.
Avicebrons said:
I said it should be considered equally with what it does have.
I said it should be considered equally with what it does have.
Though in the end I do think that being unaware or rather having a different perspective, or taking things for granted can cause the definition of "equally" to shift and I think that in the case of most of the western world (including over here) it generally shifted more towards criticism than gratefulness.
And that's a big part of the reason why twitter, and cancel culture media are the way they are. Because we seek to criticize above all else.
Like Bill Burr's comedy skit, on Arnold Schwarzenegger these higher standards we force on everything including ourselves aren't reasonable nor rational.
They are good ideals, but they shouldn't be "the rule."
Just remember that we agree on more than we disagree on, I just have a bad habit of enjoying to play devil's advocate and arguing against points which would generally be "my own side" of any given argument.
| @Me_Mario Obviously not all of it but yes I've defenitly seen stuff that's in the worst 10-30% Did you perhaps not understand the point I made with that?Me_Mario said: There's a gigantic difference between partaking in a democratic process that has been established by the community, and the result of the democratic process being taken as facts. It would be akin to saying "Oh well majority said the earth is flat so I guess we have to agree that the earth is flat now". Obviously not. To all the above I'd simply say, "that's exactly why" the reason why I'd say a giving frieren a 1/10 is less fair than giving a bad show a 10/10. Because that's simply how democracy has decided the system works, partially because all those really bad shows a lot of people simply haven't watched and by the logic of survivorship bias, the people that do obviously enjoy them more than most would. I wouldn't say this has rendered the rating system meaningless as you can still filter out the good from the bad quite easily, and it prevents people from not watching a show they might enjoy just because it's lowly rated. in that sense the "6" means it's not good but it's possible to find enjoyment in it. And anything a 5 or lower is likely simply not even enjoyable for basically anyone because that means nearly everyone who watched it had a negative experience, which like it or not (like the fast food restaurant example) is simply not gonna be the case for most shows. But I do agree that you yourself should aim to rate in a balanced way. Though even than it's bound to be more of curve. In the end there's simply gonna be more 6's and 7's than 1's or 10's just because that statistically makes sense but that should be spread in a "logical way" so that you can still differentiate between them. And that if you rate two shows a 7 that they are in fact basically on par with each other in you opinion. Right but such a statement isn't an argument and it misrepresents the situation, it might not quite be a strawman but it isn't accurate either. But what you're doing here is also strawman adjacent. First, there's a difference between dealing with and accepting mediocrity. The former is what I'm doing, the latter is what you're doing. Secondly, never once did I say or even imply that I'm "always striving for perfection". But when things are mediocre and there are extremely clear and obvious ways to improve them, that's not the same as "always striving for perfection". That's just not eating gold painted shit with a smile on your face. That's instead going to the chef and maybe asking for something better. And to be clear, settling for mediocrity is also a bad quality from time to time. And again, there's a monumental difference between settling for mediocrity out of necessity, and settling for mediocrity of free will. The latter is what's very bad. The latter is what I'm talking about. Again, we aren't starving and good anime is all that's going to save us. No, this is out of our free will, for entertainment purposes and we pay money for it. When those conditions are met, we should have some level of standard. Settling for mediocrity is simply gonna be something you have to deal with as a human being, you can strive for perfection and greatness but at the end of the day even most positive things in life ere gonna be like 6.You can hate or dislike that but that's just the way it is. Movies, TV Shows, Music, Food pretty much "always has been". Maybe my comfort with that situation is because of my Dutch "Zesjes cultuur" but I feel like generally what you see instead in many asian cultures with this "striving for perfection" is going to make you stress out, lose more hair and age faster and just in general make you less happy if you're constantly "refusing to settle" it can be a good quality from time to time. Certainly if you seek to achieve something. But when applied to everything or simply in the long run I think that's a self destructive mentality and I think it's good thing that most humans gravitate towards "settling for mediocrity" certainly on a large scale I think this world would be even worse off without it. 90-99% of this planet is forced to settle for mediocrity or chooses to. If they didn't we'd be at constant war, if everyone aims to live "like an american" or simply a rich person, you'd need another 30 planets. Whereas if everyone settles for a basic comfortable life including all the rich people we could easily double or quadruple the population and all be comfortable and still have a world without hunger or poverty. Obviously human behavior makes that unrealistic in practice but in theory it'd be no issue. I think someone once put it like this "if one goes into life expecting a 5 star hotel they'll experience hell, but if one goes expecting a prison they might at times find it oddly comfortable". Which is also a destructive mindset as it is a beneficial one. It's good not to have too high expectations. But if you're paying for a 5 star hotel which costs quite a lot, and you settle for a shithole because "well at least it's not a prison". Then you are legit just outright being scammed, and deservedly so. You deem that 99% of people have too low standards Where did I say this?What makes you think "you deserve" better apart from "your money" because I could easily say you don't deserve "your money" either after all if you look at the big picture that's 99% luck. I suppose you could make that argument, although I would personally find it highly nonsensical. Regardless, I'm paying money for a product, so I would expect the product to meet a certain level of standard. Which shouldn't even be a controversial take, it should be the coldest take imaginable. The only point of contention would be where this standard is. Which I accept is not going to be universally the same. But I think the problem arises when people have what I would say is too low standard. Because it tells these companies that they don't have to do better than that and they can still take our money. Which is not something we should want to encourage. To be clear, since you seem to misinterpret this a ton of times: I am NOT saying that we should tell everyone that they can't do anything less than perfection. I am simply saying that we want them above a level of standard, preferably as much above it as possible. But that doesn't have to be literal perfection. No one should expect perfection.I know this is getting philosophical but I think that's the core of our issue here, culture and philosophy. Nope. That's not at all what my mindset is. I feel like I have to reiterate this for the millionth time because you can't seem to understand it: I am not demanding perfection. Far from it. I simply think that if someone pays for a product, then they shouldn't accept mediocrity. Because acceptance of mediocrity will only perpetuate mediocrity. And then mediocrity is all you will know. But if you want to go strawman mindsets, then I could easily say that your mindset would be akin to "I don't deserve anything and thus I will happily pay for anything, no matter what". Obviously that would be ludicrous. And that's the type of mindset that companies would pray their customers to have so they can take advantage of them. Most people in this world aren't entitled enough to think they deserve things, certainly not those born in poor circumstances, your mindset on this is very western and "prosperity culture". That's the same reason why you prefer subtracting points to adding them. If your mindset is "I don't deserve anything" than everything you have is something positive. However if your mindset is "I deserve the best" than any and all flaws are negatives. A man moved over here, fled from war from his country he had decades of experience as a doctor and degree, Yet in this country where we lacked doctors they would not accept any of his papers or practical and factual experience, instead he spent years once again learning how to become a welder and get a degree. And despite of all that which we so quickly would call "unfairness" and "injustice" he was nothing but thankful and grateful. You are leaning way too heavy into actual real world issues and necessities when you should clearly know that it's night and day when comparing it to something you do willingly, you're paying for it and also for entertainment. Like yeah, if you're sitting in the trenches of WW2 and you haven't eaten for 7 days, then you would probably be eternally grateful for some dirty bread you found on the ground. Does that mean if you're living in modern life right now, outside of war or major conflict, that you should be happy to pay money and then the chef brings you some dirty bread they found on the ground? No, of course not. There's a gigantic difference. Obviously everything in the entire world would pale when put next to real world issues like war. What we should be grateful for is that we can live in a society where our issues are of the scale of criticizing animes. Is he fully right? no I think that is a problem that they simply ignored the facts especially when we lack doctors. But at the same time, western/prosperity culture is much more quick to focus on every single problem rather than looking at the fact that he gets to live in a country with peace, has food to eat, a roof over his head and even has a job. So settling for less isn't "failing to appreciate good writing" (although sure like fast food in some cases it can be) nor is it inherently sad. I would stand by that if you're settling for much less when it's clear as day it could've been infinitely better (feel like I have reiterate this: not needing to be perfection) and glaze it as a 10/10. Then yeah, that's sad I would say. It's one of the large reason companies have started making quotas on how many shitty generic isekais they need to pump out at minimum each year. Because if people eat them up with no real level of standard and just say "yum yum", then why wouldn't they? Why would they try to focus on making actual higher quality animes or original ideas when they know they can just phone it in with generic isekai #2158?It's simply not taking it for granted, yes obviously we should strive for better things but if that is all you do you will always be unsatisfied and unhappy with whatever you have. What a great thing I never once in my life said or implied that it's all I do.There is no inherent evil or issue with people enjoying Solo Leveling, giving it a thumbs up with a smile on their face. Never said there was an inherent evil. As for issue, I would say it has a caveat. There's no issue with them enjoying it. I think the issue lies in not understanding points of improvements and subsequently they settle for mediocrity. Might be because they simply don't know better. I think that's the issue. And why that's an issue I've already explained. And, just so you don't misinterpret this once again: I am not saying it needs to be perfection. Don't know how many times I need to repeat it, but it feels like I should bring it up each and every time cause your whole point seems to hinge on this ethereal imaginary point I never made. But at the end of the day, most things don't live up to their potential, heck nothing fully lives up to it's potential. Which is fine. But then those things should rightfully be criticized for it. Again, living up to their potential doesn't mean perfection. Because I don't believe anything can really achieve perfection. As for "being praiseworthy" that's again a matter of perspective, most people see it like this "the fact that it was made and I can enjoy it, makes it praiseworthy everything else is an added bonus." You were literally taking this from a statement about what I personally felt so yeah obviously it is a matter of perspective. But then again, if it's all a matter of perspective, then what's wrong with people saying 1/10 this is trash and it being equally as valid? You can't have it both ways. This is the problem with trying to dismiss everything that doesn't match up with your opinion as "subjective". The subjective card is dangerous, it cuts both ways.it is important to keep it up front that I should be happy for the sake that I have food. Which is an entirely separate and irrelevant point to the discussion at hand. Which I even explained above. There's a gigantic difference between having basic necessities, and paying to watch anime for entertainment. If I offended you in anyway, I am sorry that was not my intention but this will truly be my last comment here. Not offended, and as I also don't reject your opinion nor you, I am disagreeing and criticizing your underlying philosophy, culture and worldview.I hope if nothing else that you at least equally come to the understanding that our differences on this subject is largely a matter of perspective, philosophy, culture and worldview and that I by no means reject your opinion, or you yourself as a person but am rather disagreeing and criticizing the underlying philosophy, culture and worldview. Not completely of course because like you can see, I fully agree that it is important to be able to criticize. Just remember that we agree on more than we disagree on, I just have a bad habit of enjoying to play devil's advocate and arguing against points which would generally be "my own side" of any given argument. Which is something more people should do. I think too many can be stuck on one side. |
| Subarashii |
| If this episode was this peak, I wonder how it going be for the episode when he fight beru |
InferGilgameshMar 13, 10:26 PM
 |
| Looks like Sung is about to lose his peace and quiet... "Top secret status" was a nice touch, but only temporary. Let's hope he soon completes his Elixir of Life potion to save his mom! As for the conspicuous pixelated glitches inside the dungeons (earlier hinted with the chief Elf, but far more prominent with the chief orc), I think it's been repeatedly hinted that the plane of the dungeons is a virtual/artificial, game-like world; the vast majority are stuck at the level they "awaken", but some rare unicorns (Sung and presumably his father too) called Players can evolve from a bottom level to the very top. The question is, if the dungeons are artificial and programmed, who/where are the programmers who created them? And what about the world outside the dungeons? Is that world real/physical? I don't recall any off-dungeon glitches, but the day might still be young... |
 |
More topics from this board
» ISHOWSPEED ON SOLO LEVELINGEmon224u - 9 hours ago |
32 |
by LostSpectre
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Solo Leveling season 2 : Episode 13 previewThe_Attuner - Mar 28 |
18 |
by Alexioos95
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» ARISE FANS!!! TIME TO VOTE (crunchyroll) ( 1 2 )Emon224u - Apr 3 |
53 |
by The_Spectre_01
»»
4 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Ore dake Level Up na Ken Season 2: Arise from the Shadow Episode 13 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Ricky16 - Mar 29 |
343 |
by Uguu_Tsukimiya
»»
9 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Ore dake Level Up na Ken Season 2: Arise from the Shadow Episode 8 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Feb 22 |
323 |
by romzanalimohon
»»
9 hours ago |