chiisai wrote:mask_ wrote:just finished magi. wasn't absolutely amazing but i really enjoyed it. especially the middle-eastern setting, it really brought the show to life and made it different to the rest of the fantasy world anime that do similar things. the animation was so tidy and the character designs were pretty. themes were dealt with pretty well too. yeah - really enjoyed it.
what were some shows that blew you away?ahh magi is really good ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ i might rewatch it now that you reminded me of it
but the biggest contender for shows that blew me away would be haikyuu. it is
my favorite anime so it makes sense c: but looking through things i'd say golden
time was another one. i didn't expect the plot to be as interesting as it was, and
the animation was stunning as well as character design. kokoro connect is definitely
another one. for some reason i start romance shows with really low expectations??
but kokoro connect's plot and drama is just ahhhhh. and the animation was also really
pretty.
there's probably better and less generic ones but i'm too lazy to think aha (´・◡・｀;)
haikyuu is amazing. in my opinion not the best in the whole sports genre but you can't deny it is a spectacular piece. and it ain't just tumblr fanfiction waitin' to happen either - which is good. i need to rewatch golden time, i remember screaming "calm down, jesus" at my laptop at some point but then i also remember crying (which isn't that hard tbh i'm not the manliest of men). and i'll have to check kokoro connect out. i've heard soo much about it, yet i've never got 'round to watching it.
.normal.human. wrote:Also I watch a 15 minutes of the Iron Fortress thing and it isn't that good in my opinion. The artwork is very pretty and stuff but they didn't really explain what was going on. Also it was way too similar to AoT and too gory for me.
Sorry if this comes off as me snapping at you - I just want to make a general point.
Why do two shows being similiar to each other make a basis for critique? It's a pretty weak critique either way since every show will have similarities of an older work - that's just unavoidable. Stuff like the Hunger Games gets "lectured" for being a similiar premise to Battle Royale (class of kids have to kill each other while government watches - read it it's great) but they both have so many differences, so why does the fact that they have one same plot point make it bad? Even if you copy a show's exact premise, the "copy" can be so much better then the "original" so why do you have the right to say "you stole this from that other guy" when it's been done a thousand times over? It's like if you went up to Log Horizon and said "YOU STOLE THIS FROM SAO" when the whole 'waking up in a game' premise has been done a thousand times over and LH did it a thousand times better then SAO did! There could be problems that arise because of two shows being similiar (such as a certain art style being used in wrong places) but so far I have seen none of these problems from Iron Fortress. Plus a majority of the staff of AOT did this show.
Though I do understand your points about the first episode. It does drag a little bit and it doesn't really define a clear narritive. There was a lot of unnecesary, forced violence in the first action scene in the train and I can see why some of the action could have lacked impact. Have you got to the part where he clamps himself to this weird steampunk machine to stop the virus? That's where I got really hooked. (Though I probably would of kept watching just because of the shading). I suggest you keep watching - and sorry for the paragraph/rant. If anything the visual storytelling was better then AOT's first ep in my opinion.
