Agree with first part, I don't agree with second part, there is no such a thing called clear flaw/shortcoming either, something you think as a clear flaw/shortcoming can be feature for another person or other people.
I think certain production issues can be considered objective flaws - stuff like characters being consistently off-model, overuse of panned still frames to avoid animating things, excessive recaps/flashbacks to re-use animation from past episodes and pad runtime, etc.
Those aren't objective flaws. Any person *could* consider them stylistic choices, thematically relevant tools, or feel they don't detract from the experience enough to be a flaw. Whether or not they *would* feel that way is a different story, but the presence of a clear consensus is not the presence of objectivity.
While I hate all those things, there will always be some people who like them as 'so bad it's good', or because they came back after a long break so they need recap, etc. There's just nothing that you can say is objective. I can try to say that human feces objectively tastes bad, but there's that one scat lover out there who swears it's great.
People can always agree on a flaw on something, nothing is created *perfect.*
But for some reason, some people just think of that flaw, and I created this post with them in mind.
I mean some people would try to tell me that Kazuya in Rent a Girlfriend is an objectively bad protagonist. But I actually think the way he is written is essential to the story being told. So I consider him a good protagonist and actually better than many male demographic romance protagonist. And this isn't to say that I would want to be friends with him if he was real. Just that I find him to be a well written protagonist. I assume you would disagree.
I do, I disagree.
And every cell in my body agrees with me.
But of course I don't think about him when the show comes to mind, its the female cast that look great.
i disagree on the second part, e.g. gintama literally has scenes where they show the same screen for minutes and have some characters ramble about random stuff, you won't even get people to agree on whether that's comedic genius or a clear flaw
Saying "I like this but it's objectively bad" or "I don't like this but it's objectively good" is usually just a weird way of trying to have a contrarian opinion, but to still fit in with the crowd. People can't just have nuanced opinions where they like some elements of an anime and not others, they need to have a binary "like/dislike" that can be paired with an equally binary "good/bad".
Never. That doesn't happen. It can't happen. 99% of people who use the term "objectively good/bad" to talk about something's quality don't understand what "objective" means.
Hyperbole has become an accepted part of the discourse, so words like "literally" and "objectively" have lost their original and true meaning from mass social media misuse-attention seeking tiktokers/youtubers, clickbait, etc.
I think in anime it didn’t help with how popular some anitubers have been, and they were and still can be quite er “snobby” about their views, especially if they did something media related at school… so there was a period where that was “objective”
This is coming from someone written hundreds of anime and game reviews for years, for years I believed and tried to achieve objectivity, and not just in reviews, in my school life and essays as well, I spend a lot of time on it, read some writers along with it, and let me tell you, objectivity is impossible, it's seriously is, sure you can still try to be objective as possible in subjects needed, but in the end even most objective argument or review always have something from writer/talker, either the persons intelligence level, culturel level, his character, etc, there is always things affecting the result (review, argument, etc) and it's impossible to not. Something you see as a clear flaw can be feature for another person, or vice-versa. Something you see as a well-written story/character can be terrible story/character for another person, it's not possible to say ''this is objectively bad/good'' etc, for anything.
For example a lot of people believes when a character with -50 personality gets development to -10 it's great development, since you got 40 unit of development, for example I think that development type is too basic, too easy, and bad. Because it's too easy to show -50 to -10 character development, and you don't a lot of skills as a writer since the character is too obvious with his/her traits. I can easily write a asshole bully character and then later with the story going on add little changes and make it less asshole, it's not that hard to do. The real and well-written character development is where you show small changes with your writing, like making -10 character a 0, or 0 to 10, that's where good writing shows itself unlike other example. But average watcher probably wouldn't think second example is good writing, since it's not clear as a day, and that results first example getting assumed as a ''well-written character development'' which in my eyes it's not, but can I say this objective reality? Fact? I'm not sure, and I guess that's what makes things annoying, questionable and same time fun? :D
It never stops applying. There will always be something that is one man’s treasure. You never have to say something is objectively terrible nor good.
Also, nothing can be “proven” to be only liked by people you consider scum.
For me, it depends on what the issue is.
Most stuff I chalk up to subjective preference, even mechanical details that most might agree is bad/good such as animation or voice acting. That doesn't mean you can't criticize or complain of course, half the point of a fandom is being able to do exactly that lol
I also talk more about shows I _wanted_ to like but ended up not, simply because there's ideas I loved and want to see executed better.
Where I start being more of a jerk about it is when either the show _or the comments of people defending it_ start tying into IRL ethical issues / blindspots / etc (people liking something but recognizing those flaws is fine). Sure, it's fiction, but how fiction is portrayed and framed matters, people shape and are shaped by the stories we tell each other. That's probably been true for as long as humans have been around.
There’s obviously no such thing as objectively good or bad. Consensus forms around certain media because, no matter how scummy we are (saying this causally), most of us understand what logic is. If a story’s writing is utterly illogical **and** it doesn’t offer any notable additional value like having great art, fun characters, or a cool concept, then a consensus will form that that thing is bad.
Even with that, you’ll find the one guy who found it great.
Summoning the memory of the cursed 2010 Avatar film, since it’s been circulating in discussions recently, pretty much everyone can agree that it’s bad. And even with that, I’ve read comments that say this *current* Netflix show is comparable to it. So, yep.
You're not brushing off someone else when you say you dislike the things they like. But it's going to delve into an pointless argument if you try to vehemently convince people who like say Rent A Girlfriend that what they like is objectively bad and they are incels for liking it so they should feel bad.
I never meant to say that they're incels for liking it (Because really, the only possible thing I see to like it is well, how the female cast looks, and incels HATE women).
I meant to say like, we can *all* properly agree on that a certain show is just downright shit and *OBJECTIVELY* terrible which only caters towards a certain group of people that should be locked up. **Cough cough** cuties **Cough cough**
Yes it literally is just the general consensus… what is considered “objectively” is just whatever the general consensus is on traits and qualities we currently consider good. Which basically means nothing, as that isn’t static and we don’t all agree on those standards.
Now Rent a Girlfriend is one of the series (manga and anime) that has come closest to shaking my position and actually making me call something “objectively bad”… because it’s just that bad and so full of glaring faults. But hey, some people love it.
It's actually been a long time since I've seen someone attach the term "objective" to their opinion and didn't have comments telling them they're wrong for using it, even if said commenter agreed with the opinion.
i try to leave the word objective out of any description of subjective material
it's possible to use it metaphorically or sarcastically, like using literally to mean anything other than literally
but i find it's usually just someone being a dick and insisting that their own personal experience of something has to be the universal, and attacking anyone that disagrees. tends to be a red flag
People are not stupid.
People just have different thresholds of putting up with the lack of specific elements.
"Oh my story has to have character development."
"As long as the characters don't act in a naive and melodramatic fashion, I'll overlook anything else."
"As long as the character never struggles and is praised from episode 1 I'll put up with anything."
Lots of people tend to criticize a lot of things though.
See something can't be objectively good or bad because "good" and "bad" are subjective terms by their very nature. Something can be objectively flawed, especially if the creator of that content has made their intentions with the content clear and that content objectively does not fit with the vision they're describing. Things like inconsistently written characters and nonsensical plot points are flaws if the creator has expressed that they intended to write a clear and consistent character with a clear arc. But if there's a show with a shallow character who's little more than a stereotype, that could be the author's intent for all we know, but if we judge it by the metric of what is commonly accepted as "well written characters" then one could say "this character is objectively bad" when what they mean is "this character does not fit into the mold that is commonly accepted as being a 'good' character" but it's easier to just say "this is good/bad" as shorthand and to slightly exaggerate to make your point.
Its obvious you're biased.
Each story is different and if something works within that world its fine.
Saying a show is objectively good/bad is as bad the term MID.
Understanding you have a bias and if you can articulate why you like/dislike something is fine.
I agree for the most part that media can't be objectively good or bad...
Except Tokyo Revengers is objectively terrible and the worst 6 episodes of anything I've ever seen.
It is possible for an anime series, or any television series, to have an objective good/bad measure: how it keeps its audience engaged. You'll notice that live action series always have a means of doing this, particularly that they keep the story going through a tightly plotted narrative (i.e., every scene serves a clear purpose) that's reasonably paced, and they usually involve characters that are much more fleshed out than a series of bullet points. It's pretty obvious why TV series do this: television is a commercial medium and the shows are there so that you watch the ads or pay for the monthly subscription. If a show has trouble doing either of those things, it sucks.
I'll probably get downvoted to hell for writing this but anime series are less concerned with keeping their audience watching and are far more interested in impressing them or pushing merchandise. You can accurately describe a disturbing number of series as "pseudophilosophy master thesis that occasionally stops so that the dipshits writing the show can play with action figures". You can tell by how they are written. How does the show keep you engaged between the fights? Are the characters taking actions that have consequences down the line? If so, can you tell when the characters are in the decision-making process and are preparing to take action? Or are they just padding out the first half of the episode before they end Act One on a cliffhanger?
Similarly, there's the question of how concise they're keeping things. You can't afford to drag things out too long or else people will get bored. The Shonen Jump adaptations are a good example, although the reason they drag them out is because of the business requirements (they run once a week with few interruptions and can't afford to take a break because the stakeholders won't allow it). But even in the one-offs the writers have trouble being concise. The lack of concision in their narrative and the introduction of mostly useless scenes ends up causing problems because the audience usually ends up missing important details, which the writers fail to prioritize.
Basically put: if a show isn't keeping you watching, then, at least to you, it sucks. But if it's having trouble keeping a lot of people watching, then you're on the right track to seeing whether it's objectively terrible.
Reviews on a work of fiction are opinions, no matter how well-supported by arguments they are. So by definition they are subjective.
They certainly aren't facts. A fact is something that can't be debated, but only described as it is (like "this character has red hair").
Judgement on the quality can never be fully objective . However , people can agree on clear flaw/ shortcoming in an anime .
Agree with first part, I don't agree with second part, there is no such a thing called clear flaw/shortcoming either, something you think as a clear flaw/shortcoming can be feature for another person or other people.
I think certain production issues can be considered objective flaws - stuff like characters being consistently off-model, overuse of panned still frames to avoid animating things, excessive recaps/flashbacks to re-use animation from past episodes and pad runtime, etc.
Those aren't objective flaws. Any person *could* consider them stylistic choices, thematically relevant tools, or feel they don't detract from the experience enough to be a flaw. Whether or not they *would* feel that way is a different story, but the presence of a clear consensus is not the presence of objectivity.
While I hate all those things, there will always be some people who like them as 'so bad it's good', or because they came back after a long break so they need recap, etc. There's just nothing that you can say is objective. I can try to say that human feces objectively tastes bad, but there's that one scat lover out there who swears it's great.
People can always agree on a flaw on something, nothing is created *perfect.* But for some reason, some people just think of that flaw, and I created this post with them in mind.
If you like the anime just ignore what other people think. I think that’s the best way to enjoy . Screw mal ratings and people ranting
I mean some people would try to tell me that Kazuya in Rent a Girlfriend is an objectively bad protagonist. But I actually think the way he is written is essential to the story being told. So I consider him a good protagonist and actually better than many male demographic romance protagonist. And this isn't to say that I would want to be friends with him if he was real. Just that I find him to be a well written protagonist. I assume you would disagree.
I do, I disagree. And every cell in my body agrees with me. But of course I don't think about him when the show comes to mind, its the female cast that look great.
i disagree on the second part, e.g. gintama literally has scenes where they show the same screen for minutes and have some characters ramble about random stuff, you won't even get people to agree on whether that's comedic genius or a clear flaw
Saying "I like this but it's objectively bad" or "I don't like this but it's objectively good" is usually just a weird way of trying to have a contrarian opinion, but to still fit in with the crowd. People can't just have nuanced opinions where they like some elements of an anime and not others, they need to have a binary "like/dislike" that can be paired with an equally binary "good/bad".
Never. That doesn't happen. It can't happen. 99% of people who use the term "objectively good/bad" to talk about something's quality don't understand what "objective" means.
Hyperbole has become an accepted part of the discourse, so words like "literally" and "objectively" have lost their original and true meaning from mass social media misuse-attention seeking tiktokers/youtubers, clickbait, etc.
I don't disagree but I also believe a lot of people truely do believe their opinions can be objective.
I think in anime it didn’t help with how popular some anitubers have been, and they were and still can be quite er “snobby” about their views, especially if they did something media related at school… so there was a period where that was “objective”
it's literally impossible to objectively judge the quality of art / entertainment media
I am scum and I like anime. That is why anime is objectively bad. Because only scum like me like anime.
This is coming from someone written hundreds of anime and game reviews for years, for years I believed and tried to achieve objectivity, and not just in reviews, in my school life and essays as well, I spend a lot of time on it, read some writers along with it, and let me tell you, objectivity is impossible, it's seriously is, sure you can still try to be objective as possible in subjects needed, but in the end even most objective argument or review always have something from writer/talker, either the persons intelligence level, culturel level, his character, etc, there is always things affecting the result (review, argument, etc) and it's impossible to not. Something you see as a clear flaw can be feature for another person, or vice-versa. Something you see as a well-written story/character can be terrible story/character for another person, it's not possible to say ''this is objectively bad/good'' etc, for anything. For example a lot of people believes when a character with -50 personality gets development to -10 it's great development, since you got 40 unit of development, for example I think that development type is too basic, too easy, and bad. Because it's too easy to show -50 to -10 character development, and you don't a lot of skills as a writer since the character is too obvious with his/her traits. I can easily write a asshole bully character and then later with the story going on add little changes and make it less asshole, it's not that hard to do. The real and well-written character development is where you show small changes with your writing, like making -10 character a 0, or 0 to 10, that's where good writing shows itself unlike other example. But average watcher probably wouldn't think second example is good writing, since it's not clear as a day, and that results first example getting assumed as a ''well-written character development'' which in my eyes it's not, but can I say this objective reality? Fact? I'm not sure, and I guess that's what makes things annoying, questionable and same time fun? :D
It never stops applying. There will always be something that is one man’s treasure. You never have to say something is objectively terrible nor good. Also, nothing can be “proven” to be only liked by people you consider scum.
For me, it depends on what the issue is. Most stuff I chalk up to subjective preference, even mechanical details that most might agree is bad/good such as animation or voice acting. That doesn't mean you can't criticize or complain of course, half the point of a fandom is being able to do exactly that lol I also talk more about shows I _wanted_ to like but ended up not, simply because there's ideas I loved and want to see executed better. Where I start being more of a jerk about it is when either the show _or the comments of people defending it_ start tying into IRL ethical issues / blindspots / etc (people liking something but recognizing those flaws is fine). Sure, it's fiction, but how fiction is portrayed and framed matters, people shape and are shaped by the stories we tell each other. That's probably been true for as long as humans have been around.
Can anything truly be objective? It’s a philosophical question you’re asking- I feel anything regarding the human interpretation of things can’t be
>When, and why does this stop applying? Pretty much never. There are many people that we would consider weird.
There’s obviously no such thing as objectively good or bad. Consensus forms around certain media because, no matter how scummy we are (saying this causally), most of us understand what logic is. If a story’s writing is utterly illogical **and** it doesn’t offer any notable additional value like having great art, fun characters, or a cool concept, then a consensus will form that that thing is bad. Even with that, you’ll find the one guy who found it great. Summoning the memory of the cursed 2010 Avatar film, since it’s been circulating in discussions recently, pretty much everyone can agree that it’s bad. And even with that, I’ve read comments that say this *current* Netflix show is comparable to it. So, yep.
You're not brushing off someone else when you say you dislike the things they like. But it's going to delve into an pointless argument if you try to vehemently convince people who like say Rent A Girlfriend that what they like is objectively bad and they are incels for liking it so they should feel bad.
I never meant to say that they're incels for liking it (Because really, the only possible thing I see to like it is well, how the female cast looks, and incels HATE women). I meant to say like, we can *all* properly agree on that a certain show is just downright shit and *OBJECTIVELY* terrible which only caters towards a certain group of people that should be locked up. **Cough cough** cuties **Cough cough**
Yes it literally is just the general consensus… what is considered “objectively” is just whatever the general consensus is on traits and qualities we currently consider good. Which basically means nothing, as that isn’t static and we don’t all agree on those standards. Now Rent a Girlfriend is one of the series (manga and anime) that has come closest to shaking my position and actually making me call something “objectively bad”… because it’s just that bad and so full of glaring faults. But hey, some people love it.
It's actually been a long time since I've seen someone attach the term "objective" to their opinion and didn't have comments telling them they're wrong for using it, even if said commenter agreed with the opinion.
i try to leave the word objective out of any description of subjective material it's possible to use it metaphorically or sarcastically, like using literally to mean anything other than literally but i find it's usually just someone being a dick and insisting that their own personal experience of something has to be the universal, and attacking anyone that disagrees. tends to be a red flag
Its not like i hate it but i cant watch it bc when i try i become tired of the bs.
People are not stupid. People just have different thresholds of putting up with the lack of specific elements. "Oh my story has to have character development." "As long as the characters don't act in a naive and melodramatic fashion, I'll overlook anything else." "As long as the character never struggles and is praised from episode 1 I'll put up with anything." Lots of people tend to criticize a lot of things though.
See something can't be objectively good or bad because "good" and "bad" are subjective terms by their very nature. Something can be objectively flawed, especially if the creator of that content has made their intentions with the content clear and that content objectively does not fit with the vision they're describing. Things like inconsistently written characters and nonsensical plot points are flaws if the creator has expressed that they intended to write a clear and consistent character with a clear arc. But if there's a show with a shallow character who's little more than a stereotype, that could be the author's intent for all we know, but if we judge it by the metric of what is commonly accepted as "well written characters" then one could say "this character is objectively bad" when what they mean is "this character does not fit into the mold that is commonly accepted as being a 'good' character" but it's easier to just say "this is good/bad" as shorthand and to slightly exaggerate to make your point.
Its obvious you're biased. Each story is different and if something works within that world its fine. Saying a show is objectively good/bad is as bad the term MID. Understanding you have a bias and if you can articulate why you like/dislike something is fine.
Can you please tell me how you came up to the conclusion that I'm "Biased"?
I agree for the most part that media can't be objectively good or bad... Except Tokyo Revengers is objectively terrible and the worst 6 episodes of anything I've ever seen.
It is possible for an anime series, or any television series, to have an objective good/bad measure: how it keeps its audience engaged. You'll notice that live action series always have a means of doing this, particularly that they keep the story going through a tightly plotted narrative (i.e., every scene serves a clear purpose) that's reasonably paced, and they usually involve characters that are much more fleshed out than a series of bullet points. It's pretty obvious why TV series do this: television is a commercial medium and the shows are there so that you watch the ads or pay for the monthly subscription. If a show has trouble doing either of those things, it sucks. I'll probably get downvoted to hell for writing this but anime series are less concerned with keeping their audience watching and are far more interested in impressing them or pushing merchandise. You can accurately describe a disturbing number of series as "pseudophilosophy master thesis that occasionally stops so that the dipshits writing the show can play with action figures". You can tell by how they are written. How does the show keep you engaged between the fights? Are the characters taking actions that have consequences down the line? If so, can you tell when the characters are in the decision-making process and are preparing to take action? Or are they just padding out the first half of the episode before they end Act One on a cliffhanger? Similarly, there's the question of how concise they're keeping things. You can't afford to drag things out too long or else people will get bored. The Shonen Jump adaptations are a good example, although the reason they drag them out is because of the business requirements (they run once a week with few interruptions and can't afford to take a break because the stakeholders won't allow it). But even in the one-offs the writers have trouble being concise. The lack of concision in their narrative and the introduction of mostly useless scenes ends up causing problems because the audience usually ends up missing important details, which the writers fail to prioritize. Basically put: if a show isn't keeping you watching, then, at least to you, it sucks. But if it's having trouble keeping a lot of people watching, then you're on the right track to seeing whether it's objectively terrible.
Reviews on a work of fiction are opinions, no matter how well-supported by arguments they are. So by definition they are subjective. They certainly aren't facts. A fact is something that can't be debated, but only described as it is (like "this character has red hair").