Mainstream confusion over anime plots

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

You know, I periodically hear people bust their brains trying to figure out any given number of anime. I constantly hear mainstream reaction on how the Akira movie is too complicated and incoherent, and anime fans usually respond with "read the manga" (btw--you should read it, too). But the fact is, Akira is actually a very simple movie; it's essentially a monster movie. Boy gets mutant powers. Boy smashes city. Many people try to stop him. That's the plot right there. And I don't know how people can 'get' the plots in say, Spider-Man 3, or Pirates of the Carribbean, and then say some anime like Akira is 'too confusing'.

I once read a review of Full Metal Alchemist in a mainstream publication where the reviewer says he had no idea what was going on. Granted, if you jumped into the middle of FMA, that is certainly an understandable reaction, but same goes for someone jumping into the middle of, say, The Sopranos. Or Heroes. Or Lost. Yet I never hear people say they "don't know what is going on" in those shows (except when fans criticize a bad episode's writing). They just accept that jumping into an ongoing story is going to bring some initial viewing pains.

Is there a mainstream mindset where people are more accepting of convoluted, ongoing stories in live action but immediately get ready to throw up their hands in despair when faced with something similar in animation?

Another example--I was reading some of the reactions to Evangelion in the Adult Swim forum using the search function, and while most of the comments were by people who had already seen it, the few who hadn't, couldn't seem to find a handhold on anything. It was all "I don't get what's going on." and all that. And I'm NOT talking about the last couple of episodes (like 25 and 26) where even diehard fans would be understandably confused. I'm talking about say, even episode 22. Asuka has flashbacks of bad childhood. Monster attacks city. Heroes fight them with giant robots. Monster makes Asuka remember bad memories. That's your plot right there. Pretty simple, right? Sure, there's some ongoing background stuff you're bound not to get at first, but that's to be expected in a long running series.

And I can't understand how people can so easily accept certain mysteries in live action shows, but when faced with similar circumstances in anime, they throw their hands up and give up.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? Or just want to discuss your thoughts?

[Gokou Ruri]

People said Akira was confusing? News to me.

[HG Revolution]

People seem to have found the recent Pirates movies confusing...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

People seem to have found the recent Pirates movies confusing...

I thought they were too. But I could still follow them, I mean I could enjoy it on a scene to scene basis, but not from a big picture standpoint. Hearing some people, you'd think they couldn't understand a scene with Ed and Al crying for their mother.

Gryph--Yeah, a ton of people find Akira confusing. The original Streamline translation may have been muddled, but after Pioneer re-translated it, it's pretty clear as day what the movie is about now.

[Rud]

i use the "read the manga" line all the time and people get annoyed, but what are you gonna do? some of these shows are far too complicated to explain so you have to read the manga (like berserk)

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

i use the "read the manga" line all the time and people get annoyed, but what are you gonna do? some of these shows are far too complicated to explain so you have to read the manga (like berserk)

But my point is, many of these shows aren't all that complicated to follow, certainly not much more than your regular prime time drama or soap. Honestly, I spend more time trying to suss out the multiple plotlines in Heroes and Beverly Hills 90210 than most anime. The manga versions may be a good read, but I don't even read much manga myself (I'm more of a North American comics fan) and I understand most anime. Berserk is perfectly understandable up to the last episode. Sure, the last episode begs the viewer to read the manga, but everything before that is perfectly followable.

[Rud]

Sure, the last episode begs the viewer to read the manga, but everything before that is perfectly followable.

well thats just it, the berserk anime is a clifhanger, so reading the manga is the only way t know how it ends.

And another example of this is Gantz, you can follow the anime all the way p until the end, you gotta read the manga to get it.

(the manga is still ongoing in both gantz and berserk)

[Megalon]

Some people just need everything spelled out for them I guess. Can't have any effort on the part of the viewer or anything.

[Gokou Ruri]

But my point is, many of these shows aren't all that complicated to follow, certainly not much more than your regular prime time drama or soap. Honestly, I spend more time trying to suss out the multiple plotlines in Heroes and Beverly Hills 90210 than most anime. The manga versions may be a good read, but I don't even read much manga myself (I'm more of a North American comics fan) and I understand most anime. Berserk is perfectly understandable up to the last episode. Sure, the last episode begs the viewer to read the manga, but everything before that is perfectly followable. Maybe people just try to find a "deeper meaning" than what's really there. Like Eva, some fans take all the Christian imagery as some sort of metaphor or deeper meaning, but apparently the creators only had that stuff because they thought it "would be neat", and putting in Christian stuff just to "be cool" is common in a lot of Japanese stuff (especially RPGs). Meanwhile, people try to find meaning in it when there is none, so they end up being confused, or something.

[Sandoz]

I think it may be an offshoot of the "animation is for kids" viewpoint. A lot of people don't expect animation, even animation aimed at adults like Family Guy, to be as complex as live action drama. So when they see shows like FMA or Eva they're thrown off guard because it messes with their expectations, and the shows suddenly become "incomprehensible" to them.

[Dudley]

My mom was confused by it too.

The thing is, when people go and see a movie, they don't want to see something complicated or has a lot of artsy stuff with deep meanings in it.
Too put it bluntly, most people watch movies to be entertained, not think.

[Master Moron]

I once read a review of Full Metal Alchemist in a mainstream publication where the reviewer says he had no idea what was going on.

Really? I'd love to read a mainstream review of Full Metal Alchemist. What publication is this from?

[Megalon]

Really? I'd love to read a mainstream review of Full Metal Alchemist. What publication is this from?
Me to. I always find serious reviews of anime by non-anime watchers pretty interesting.

[HellCat]

Try and convince an outsider that the show you watch has high level drama and story whilst putting togethor a cheap plastic model spun off from it...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Really? I'd love to read a mainstream review of Full Metal Alchemist. What publication is this from?

It was quite a while ago, in my city's (Toronto) big newspaper, the Toronto Star. I don't know if the article is accessible anymore without payment.

I also did see a review of the FMA *movie* on Entertainment Weekly, but I can sort of see the reason why someone jumping into the movie cold would be "confused."

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Maybe people just try to find a "deeper meaning" than what's really there. Like Eva, some fans take all the Christian imagery as some sort of metaphor or deeper meaning, but apparently the creators only had that stuff because they thought it "would be neat", and putting in Christian stuff just to "be cool" is common in a lot of Japanese stuff (especially RPGs). Meanwhile, people try to find meaning in it when there is none, so they end up being confused, or something.

That's true. In Eva, the religious allusions are just decorations. The show is really simply about deconstructing the mental state of its cast. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, that should become obvious to anyone who followed it, although some fans still seem to miss the point.

[Ed Liu]

Might there also be some cultural assumptions at work as well? It's not true of every anime (and probably even less-so of the ones that get exported to the U.S.), but there is cultural shorthand at work a lot of times that mean things to Japanese people and are impenetrable to non-Japanese audiences.

However, I'm not saying that it's these un-translatable cultural elements that are throwing people off, but the assumption that they ARE there which gives people an easy excuse to throw up their hands and give up. "This must be one of those Japanese things." It's OK to say, "I don't get it," but the assumption I'm talking about adds, "...and I can't/will never get it" over and above it.

The other aspect that might also be overlooked is that different cultures will pace stories differently. Even with pretty low linguistic or cultural barriers, there are distinct differences between an American movie or TV show and a British one. The Unit is a very different show than Ultimate Force. Doctor Who is a fundamentally different than Star Trek. Add in the occasional rotten translation and it's not that hard to see people getting thrown by pacing in anime that's not what they're used to. If you're willing to plow through enough anime (or Japanese movies), you get used to the storytelling beats, but it does take a non-trivial amount of time to get there and I think a lot of long-time anime fans take that for granted.

However, I'm not fond of the "read the manga" justification if an anime is incomprehensible. If an anime is an adaptation of another work, then it should be able to succeed or fail on its own merits. If I have to read the manga to understand the anime, then what's the point of the anime?

-- Ed

[Ben]

I just want to say that Ed just wrote everything I wanted to write before I read his post. Japan is weird, saying you don't get it is just an excuse, don't tell people to read the manga because that's just annoying. Bam. Served. Bravo, sir.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I just want to say that Ed just wrote everything I wanted to write before I read his post. Japan is weird, saying you don't get it is just an excuse, don't tell people to read the manga because that's just annoying. Bam. Served. Bravo, sir.

Nothing annoys me more than having praised a show highly and then have someone reply "The book/manga is better."

[Mynd Hed]

Yeah, that kinda bugs me. The thing is, the original of anything is ALWAYS better. Always. Pointing it out is kind of like pointing at powdered milk and saying, "Yeah, it was better as a liquid." Well, DUH.

[HG Revolution]

The thing is, when people go and see a movie, they don't want to see something complicated or has a lot of artsy stuff with deep meanings in it.

Well, if they don't like complicated stuff, then why were The Matrix films and Lost such big hits?


Really? I'd love to read a mainstream review of Full Metal Alchemist. What publication is this from?

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1535120,00.html

[Antiyonder]

Well, if they don't like complicated stuff, then why were The Matrix films and Lost such big hits?

Simply because as far as the sterotypical thinkersare concerned, cartoons aren't suppose to have a plot (a well written one at that). Watching one would force those types of people to change their view points, and you know what they say about teaching an old dog new tricks.

[Ykwia]

That's because it has a continious storyline.

If you'd jump in the middle of the show, You would be lost without any explination.

[HG Revolution]

That's because it has a continious storyline.

If you'd jump in the middle of the show, You would be lost without any explination.

I made the mistake of trying to jump into Heroes midseason and was lost. How is that any different from someone jumping into an anime midseason?

[Antiyonder]

I made the mistake of trying to jump into Heroes midseason and was lost. How is that any different from someone jumping into an anime midseason?

No big reason, just the double standards in which some viewers have. For instance, if FMA was live action, then people would be willing to go back and watch previous episodes.

[Slam]

Yeah, that kinda bugs me. The thing is, the original of anything is ALWAYS better. Always. Pointing it out is kind of like pointing at powdered milk and saying, "Yeah, it was better as a liquid." Well, DUH.

That's a pretty close-minded generalization.

[HG Revolution]

That's a pretty close-minded generalization.

It's generally true. Even in the rare case an update IS better, it might not have the same revelatory impact that made the original so significant (case in point: Twilight Princess is a great game, but it lacks the classicness of Ocarina of Time since it doesn't bring much new to the table).

[macattack]

Not sure if it's off-topic, but Witchblade was reviewed in EW too, and the reviewer wasn't confused by the plot at all (although he made cracks about "sexualizing Mom") and gave it a B+.

[FinnMacCool]

A show like Fullmetal Alchemist is very different from shows like Lost and Heroes. The latter two shoes are set in the real world, but with weird stuff that happens in secret, and they play off of tropes American viewers are familiar with. Lost has hinted at time travel, lost civilizations, and psychic abilities, all of which are fairly familiar to most American viewers, and Heroes is using the tropes of the superhero genre, which cultural osmosis seems to give everybody familiarity with.

Fullmetal Alchemist, however, is set in an entirely fictional world, so things like how the government works, what level of technology society is at, and things of that nature are additional things they have to work out. Also, whereas Lost and Heroes draw on familiar modern mythology, FMA invents its own. Alchemy is rarely featured in modern fiction, and, when it is, it is rarely of the sort seen in Fullmetal Alchemist. There's also the fact that FMA has its weird elements at the forefront. Walking suits of armor, half-animal people, mystic gates, and Homunculi (a term most people aren't familiar with) who do all sorts of weird stuff are featured in most episodes. Heroes usually only has three or four superpowered moments per episode (and, since the mutation that gives powers is explained in detail, it can be used as a catchall explanation far more easily than just saying "an alchemist did it"), and Lost keeps most of its more supernatural elements in the background; several episodes can go by where you might not even realize there's anything unusual about the island they're stranded on.

[Patchwork]

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1535120,00.html

It seems to me that the person who wrote that article only found the movie confusing because they haden't seen the series. At all.
Because, as far as I can tell, pretty much everything the writer complainted bout, in terms of not following why certain things were the way they were, are explained clearly in the anime series.
I mean, I knew what was going on, and I've only seen, maybe 25% of the series, if even that much.

[Gokou Ruri]

Fullmetal Alchemist, however, is set in an entirely fictional world, so things like how the government works, what level of technology society is at, and things of that nature are additional things they have to work out. Also, whereas Lost and Heroes draw on familiar modern mythology, FMA invents its own. Alchemy is rarely featured in modern fiction, and, when it is, it is rarely of the sort seen in Fullmetal Alchemist. There's also the fact that FMA has its weird elements at the forefront. Walking suits of armor, half-animal people, mystic gates, and Homunculi (a term most people aren't familiar with) who do all sorts of weird stuff are featured in most episodes. You could always use something like Xena, Avatar, or Firefly, if you want to make it a "non-contemporary" show.

[Mynd Hed]

That's a pretty close-minded generalization.

I may have overstated my case a tad, but seriously, I can count the number of counterexamples to the general rule on the fingers of one hand.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

You could always use something like Xena, Avatar, or Firefly, if you want to make it a "non-contemporary" show.

And Star Trek, Andromeda, Battlestar Galactica...

And speaking of which, isn't Harry Potter set in an entirely fictional world with different rules of its own? Yet people accept it perfectly, and work to learn about it. How is this different from FMA?

And not all anime are like FMA anyway. A big majority of them are set in contemporary worlds.

Paranoia Agent was reviewed by EW a while back and got criticized for its tricky narrative. True. PA forces you to work to grasp the shaggy dog narrative, but so did Twin Peaks. Of course, when Twin Peaks came out, it was described as "intriguingly weird" but PA is automatically described as just "confusing and muddled."

It's perfectly fine to dislike Paranoia Agent, but I wouldn't have used this example if I didn't see it all the time.

[CartoonSage]

And Star Trek, Andromeda, Battlestar Galactica...

And speaking of which, isn't Harry Potter set in an entirely fictional world with different rules of its own? Yet people accept it perfectly, and work to learn about it. How is this different from FMA?

And not all anime are like FMA anyway. A big majority of them are set in contemporary worlds.

Paranoia Agent was reviewed by EW a while back and got criticized for its tricky narrative. True. PA forces you to work to grasp the shaggy dog narrative, but so did Twin Peaks. Of course, when Twin Peaks came out, it was described as "intriguingly weird" but PA is automatically described as just "confusing and muddled."

It's perfectly fine to dislike Paranoia Agent, but I wouldn't have used this example if I didn't see it all the time.

Yeah, it's the typical double-standard as someone said earlier in this thread, people from the older CSI-24-Prison Break-Lost-desperate Housewives crowd will probably never embrace anime the way us cartoon enthusiasts, anime otaku, generally all the younger people who were exposed to anime most of thier life will, Oh well, I think there will defiantly be a time in the future where gritty animated shows will be an accepted form of entertainment for us when we become the "older crowd". Shows like Cowboy Bebop and Lost/24 will be shown in the same TV block... But, that's just me.

[FinnMacCool]

And Star Trek, Andromeda, Battlestar Galactica...

And speaking of which, isn't Harry Potter set in an entirely fictional world with different rules of its own? Yet people accept it perfectly, and work to learn about it. How is this different from FMA?

And not all anime are like FMA anyway. A big majority of them are set in contemporary worlds.

Paranoia Agent was reviewed by EW a while back and got criticized for its tricky narrative. True. PA forces you to work to grasp the shaggy dog narrative, but so did Twin Peaks. Of course, when Twin Peaks came out, it was described as "intriguingly weird" but PA is automatically described as just "confusing and muddled."

It's perfectly fine to dislike Paranoia Agent, but I wouldn't have used this example if I didn't see it all the time.

First off, space opera shows like Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek are (1) easier to get into because the large number of space opera books, series and movies throughout the last century has made the setting familiar, and (2) while they have a devoted fanbase and may get critical buzz, they are still very much cult TV, not mainstream.

Second, Paranoia Agent is a lot weirder than Twin Peaks (or at least weirder than Peaks's first season; I haven't seen the second season, but, since that's when Twin Peaks really went downhill in the ratings, it wouldn't be helping your point anyway). In its first season, there were two or three odd dream sequences that may have been prophetic, there were a couple references to there being something evil in Twin Peaks, and there was the unusual detective method of throwing rocks at bottles. Everything else fell within the traditional confines of mystery shows and soap operas. Paranoia Agent, on the other hand, features frequent hallucinations of a talking plushie that might not be hallucinations at all, a supernatural serial killer (who happens to have a human copy-cat killer who looks exactly like him) that eventually grows into a giant hulking monster, a police officer transforming into a superhero and gets information from scantily dressed action figures, an episode focusing on three characters that may or may not be ghosts, an alternate universe where everything's animated weird and very hokey, and a climax where a weird black flood swamps the city, and the hulking serial killer fights with an extremely bloated version of the talking plushie. And all this happens because a toy designer lied about how her dog was killed.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

First off, space opera shows like Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek are (1) easier to get into because the large number of space opera books, series and movies throughout the last century has made the setting familiar, and (2) while they have a devoted fanbase and may get critical buzz, they are still very much cult TV, not mainstream.

.

I don't disagree with your point about them being cult tv. But the point is, people accept that these shows require a different perspective, and most people either decide they like it or they don't, but they don't complain about it.

And I wasn't just comparing Star Trek et al to FMA--in general, there are a lot of anime that are set in fictional but familiar settings, which was my point.

About Paranoia Agent--my general point is that it announces its intention to be weird from the get-go. You can dislike that, but you can't say it's unintentionally muddled. Like, when people watch 12 Monkeys or Natural Born Killers, they accept that the films intend to be weird, and either like or dislike it. But to go into Paranoia Agent and see all these weird things, and then assume it's unintentional on the part of the show to be slightly confusing, is kind of a double standard there.

Anyway, I do think the thread is digressing somewhat. Outside of the odd 'artsy' type of anime show (like Paranoia Agent), there are plenty of more mainstream-marketed anime shows--such as Cowboy Bebop and Blood+, which work in familiar enough settings, and feature familiar enough plotlines. Some of these are good shows and some are bad, but they aren't much more 'confusing' than many other live-action shows featuring ongoing plotlines, really.

[FinnMacCool]

I actually was confused by Cowboy Bebop, or at least whenever the Vicious/Julia story came up. Its obvious there was something that happened between them and Spike in the past, where Spike and Vicious used to work together, both of them apparently slept with Julia at different points, Vicious tried to kill Spike, and Spike and Julia disappeared but for some reason separated. But there are a lot of blank spots in that story, pieces of information we're not really filled in on, such as why Vicious tried to kill Spike, what was it Spike did before faking his death, why did he and Julia split? I kept thinking I must have missed an episode somewhere that explained all this, but, after a little internet research, found out that just wasn't there. Combined with Spike's bizarre references to living a dream, certain episodes of Cowboy Bebop did seem a little confusing.

EDIT: Oh, I just realized there is one more important difference between shows like Lost or Heroes and serialized anime: the "previously on . . ." segment. Some anime will play the ending of the previous episode at the start of the next one to explain a little of what's happening, but I don't think I've ever seen an anime series that regularly began episodes with a little recap that summarizes the relevant backstory for the episode. This is a common feature of serialized shows in America; in fact, it's getting to a point where it's rare to find a drama series without one. I usually watch my TV shows very regularly and read up on the Internet about any information I've missed, so I don't pay attention to "previously on . . ." segments too much, but some viewers might be more dependant on them for understanding what's going on during a show.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

re: about Cowboy Bebop's suggested Spike's backstory

You're right, the show is pretty vague about his backstory. But how many live-action shows have also gotten away with suggesting rather than telling? Hell, I'm not even sure I understood 50% of what happened in Sopranos, yet it's critically acclaimed and mainstream critics loved it. I like Sopranos, but it's just as aggressively vague at times as even the most artsy-fartsy anime.

Don't even get me started on Heroes. If you actually think about the show in its entirety so far, a lot of plot elements are really quite muddled. The 'previously on' doesn't help IMO and actually wastes precious air time (1 minute is actually a lot) that could be devoted to developing the current episode's story more.

No, I don't think it's the lack of recaps that's the problem here.

[Tash]

EDIT: Oh, I just realized there is one more important difference between shows like Lost or Heroes and serialized anime: the "previously on . . ." segment. Some anime will play the ending of the previous episode at the start of the next one to explain a little of what's happening, but I don't think I've ever seen an anime series that regularly began episodes with a little recap that summarizes the relevant backstory for the episode. This is a common feature of serialized shows in America; in fact, it's getting to a point where it's rare to find a drama series without one. I usually watch my TV shows very regularly and read up on the Internet about any information I've missed, so I don't pay attention to "previously on . . ." segments too much, but some viewers might be more dependant on them for understanding what's going on during a show.
A lot of Shonen do. (One Piece, Buso Renkin, and bobobo come to mind) Those aren't necessarily complicated series, but Japan DOES use them.

[FinnMacCool]

re: about Cowboy Bebop's suggested Spike's backstory

You're right, the show is pretty vague about his backstory. But how many live-action shows have also gotten away with suggesting rather than telling? Hell, I'm not even sure I understood 50% of what happened in Sopranos, yet it's critically acclaimed and mainstream critics loved it. I like Sopranos, but it's just as aggressively vague at times as even the most artsy-fartsy anime.

Don't even get me started on Heroes. If you actually think about the show in its entirety so far, a lot of plot elements are really quite muddled. The 'previously on' doesn't help IMO and actually wastes precious air time (1 minute is actually a lot) that could be devoted to developing the current episode's story more.

No, I don't think it's the lack of recaps that's the problem here.

I've never seen The Sopranos, so I can't speak for it, but I don't see what's so muddled about Heroes. There is lots of unexplained stuff, but I'm assuming all that will eventually be explained. Confusion only becomes a negative factor (like some of the more bitter Lost fans) when people know or at least doubt that the answers will eventually come.

[Chris Wood]

I constantly hear mainstream reaction on how the Akira movie is too complicated and incoherent, and anime fans usually respond with "read the manga" (btw--you should read it, too). But the fact is, Akira is actually a very simple movie; it's essentially a monster movie. Boy gets mutant powers. Boy smashes city. Many people try to stop him.

I'm kind of surprised to hear a veteran anime fan like yourself say something like that. If that's all you got out of the film I think you've only skimmed the surface.


Another example--I was reading some of the reactions to Evangelion in the Adult Swim forum using the search function, and while most of the comments were by people who had already seen it, the few who hadn't, couldn't seem to find a handhold on anything. It was all "I don't get what's going on." and all that.

The only Evangelion I've seen is the Death & Rebirth "movie." Frankly, I had no idea what was going on. A plot thread would just start to develop, and then you'd suddenly be catapulted on to something else.

[Sandoz]

The only Evangelion I've seen is the Death & Rebirth "movie." Frankly, I had no idea what was going on. A plot thread would just start to develop, and then you'd suddenly be catapulted on to something else.
That's because Death is a rapidfire recap of the first 24 episodes of the television series. It's meant to be a refresher for old fans (rather than an introduction for new ones) and is a really long trailer for The End of Evangelion.

[FireStarterLE]

heh, a topic about anime plots and I'm rewatching .Hack//SIGN

I think I watch it now for the music and art only, though I do have to keep myself occupied on other things ( such as catching up on manga or something else) while just listening to the voices, otherwise I'll become disinterested in the episode and possibly doze off.

[Joe]

You're right, the show is pretty vague about his backstory. But how many live-action shows have also gotten away with suggesting rather than telling? Hell, I'm not even sure I understood 50% of what happened in Sopranos, yet it's critically acclaimed and mainstream critics loved it. I like Sopranos, but it's just as aggressively vague at times as even the most artsy-fartsy anime.

Wow, really? I've never really had a terribly difficult understanding a lot of the stuff going on in the series. The more vague scenes just appeared to effectively create intrigue. I was never really at a loss in what was happening.

I generally considered some anime like Neon Genesis Evangelion purposely convoluted to complicate an otherwise simple story, for better or for worse.

I agree that stuff like Full Metal Alchemist is pretty easy to follow. A lot of psychoanalyzing, to be sure, but not much different from the usual anime fare.

[Antiyonder]

Not really a big mystery. Live action programs are allowed to be complicated because you see real people on screen. Cartoons (sterotypically speaking) are suppose to be simple. Viewers that like cartoons as a hobby don't have the sterotype in their minds so they aren't put off by the complexities.

[Gokou Ruri]

The only time I'm ever confused is if things are confusing for the sake of being confusing, or if it's about Japanese culture. Spirited Away, for example, was a fairly simple movie up until the ending climax. Where Haku's real identity came out of nowhere and seemed extremely bizarre. Perhaps River Spirits are fairly common in Japanese folklore, but it just came off as really contrived and odd to me (and that Chihiro would think a boy could be a river seemed to come out of nowhere). Similar with No Face's whole character, he just felt like a plot device to me because anything about what he is I didn't know since the movie was heavily rooted into Japanese culture.

I'd say culture difference is the biggest factor.

[HG Revolution]

The only time I'm ever confused is if things are confusing for the sake of being confusing, or if it's about Japanese culture. Spirited Away, for example, was a fairly simple movie up until the ending climax. Where Haku's real identity came out of nowhere and seemed extremely bizarre. Perhaps River Spirits are fairly common in Japanese folklore, but it just came off as really contrived and odd to me (and that Chihiro would think a boy could be a river seemed to come out of nowhere). Similar with No Face's whole character, he just felt like a plot device to me because anything about what he is I didn't know since the movie was heavily rooted into Japanese culture.

I don't get how the river spirit thing didn't make sense to you. It's less Japanese folklore and more of Miyazaki's own hippie-environmentalist messages. I don't know much about No-Face relating to Japanese culture; he's the simple archetype of the character who is treated like a monster by everyone but Chihiro and as such ends up becoming one, though some of the child prostitution undertones in some of his monstrous scenes might be more Asian-centric (though certainly comprehensible to Americans).

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I'm kind of surprised to hear a veteran anime fan like yourself say something like that. If that's all you got out of the film I think you've only skimmed the surface.
.

Oh, there's certainly 'subtext' in Akira, like all good films have. You can say this and that about inferiority complexes, this and that about adolescence, and a boatload more crunchy giblets the film offers outside of the obvious, but it's not really a difficult film to take in.

Are you saying that I SHOULD SAY Akira is a muddled, confusing mess? Because I really don't think this is the case at all-- "the surface" is perfectly easy to take and understand, and you could take that and still have a very satisfying experience.

[Gokou Ruri]

I don't get how the river spirit thing didn't make sense to you. It's less Japanese folklore and more of Miyazaki's own hippie-environmentalist messages. I don't know much about No-Face relating to Japanese culture; he's the simple archetype of the character who is treated like a monster by everyone but Chihiro and as such ends up becoming one, though some of the child prostitution undertones in some of his monstrous scenes might be more Asian-centric (though certainly comprehensible to Americans). I just find it a bit odd that a river who was demolished is suddenly embodied into the form of a young boy inside a parallel world where spirits exist.. and said river spirit has the ability to transform into a dragon, when I don't think dragons are associated with rivers or anything, also that Chihiro would think that a river she fell into would now be a young boy she knows, so that whole thing just felt odd/convoluted to me.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Wow, really? I've never really had a terribly difficult understanding a lot of the stuff going on in the series. The more vague scenes just appeared to effectively create intrigue. I was never really at a loss in what was happening.

I generally considered some anime like Neon Genesis Evangelion purposely convoluted to complicate an otherwise simple story, for better or for worse.

.

But the fact is, the Spike/Julia/Vicious subplot IS vague. I didn't have a problem with it (I think it's not always necessary to know everything about everything), but Mr Finn Mac had a problem with it, and I acknowledge that it's admittedly, a fact. Unless you can tell me everything about the Spike/Julia/Vicious backstory, I'd think you have to agree as well. As for myself, the pictures in the closing credits to CB are PERFECTLY satisfactory for me as backstory.

I'm watching Evangelion over right now, and it seems to me that the show was kind of stuck between satisfying the fans and still aggressively trying to tell its personal vision. It remains a very intriguing work because of this, but some fans fixate too much on the "plot" and not "the point" of the show itself. All that Instrumentality stuff is all decorations for a story about psychoanalysis. It amuses me when I read some fans who go on and on about Adam this and Lilith that but have little to say about what Evangelion's main themes are--depression, separation anxiety, loneliness, sex (and sexual repression), and family. But I guess in a sense, this means it accomplished what it intended--give the fans some superfluous bones to chew on, while getting its personal vision out there at the same time.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I just find it a bit odd that a river who was demolished is suddenly embodied into the form of a young boy inside a parallel world where spirits exist.. and said river spirit has the ability to transform into a dragon, when I don't think dragons are associated with rivers or anything, also that Chihiro would think that a river she fell into would now be a young boy she knows, so that whole thing just felt odd/convoluted to me.

I don't think it's necessarily odd...but it has a logic that only children can grasp.

Spirited Away is set in a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, especially a dream-like world in Spirited Away, appearances are malleable, fluid. You accept this or you don't.

Most children can automatically grasp this--that's why when parents throw up their hands at certain children's entertainment, they're trying to apply adult logic to fantasy. Adults can only think in lines and angles, and have to find symbolism, or some kind of logical connection to everything. Children have a more freeform sense of logic, and Spirited Away, the entire movie in fact, is an acknowledgement of this.

Ursula K Leguin once remarked on an adult's tendency to lose their pleasure for fantasy--I mean REAL fantasy, not just guys swinging swords and elves and all that--as they get older. This is because they need some kind of connection to grasp onto, something that relates to reality.

I think some of this might apply to some of the more outlandish anime shows out there, even applicable to FMA maybe.

[Chris Wood]

Are you saying that I SHOULD SAY Akira is a muddled, confusing mess? Because I really don't think this is the case at all-- "the surface" is perfectly easy to take and understand, and you could take that and still have a very satisfying experience.

I wouldn't say the ending is a piece of cake to digest. At least in the film version it's left open to interpretation.

In addition to Evangelion, I found the Rahxephon movie mostly incomprehensible.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I wouldn't say the ending is a piece of cake to digest. At least in the film version it's left open to interpretation.

.

Okay. But the movie, as a whole, is pretty easy for a newbie to follow. Hell, I first watched Akira when I was 11, the Streamline release, and while the Pioneer translation was clearer, I still had no problems 'following' the movie when I was 11. The ending may be deliberately ambiguous, but taken in its entirety, it's a pretty simple movie to follow. It's not like I was ever, "What the hell is going on?"

In Akira, it's very easy to SEE what's going on.

[bigdeath]

Animes have plots? :shrug: I thought anime was an excuss for me to see, how do I put it, "special types of girls" and for girls to see "pretty boys". :evil:

[Chris Wood]

Okay. But the movie, as a whole, is pretty easy for a newbie to follow. Hell, I first watched Akira when I was 11, the Streamline release, and while the Pioneer translation was clearer, I still had no problems 'following' the movie when I was 11. The ending may be deliberately ambiguous, but taken in its entirety, it's a pretty simple movie to follow. It's not like I was ever, "What the hell is going on?"

In Akira, it's very easy to SEE what's going on.

However I don't think simply being able to follow the physical action is the same as total comprehension of all the thematic elements in play. The film is full of criticism of education, the military, health care, religion, etc.

[Gokou Ruri]

Most children can automatically grasp this--that's why when parents throw up their hands at certain children's entertainment, they're trying to apply adult logic to fantasy. Adults can only think in lines and angles, and have to find symbolism, or some kind of logical connection to everything. Children have a more freeform sense of logic, and Spirited Away, the entire movie in fact, is an acknowledgement of this.

Ursula K Leguin once remarked on an adult's tendency to lose their pleasure for fantasy--I mean REAL fantasy, not just guys swinging swords and elves and all that--as they get older. This is because they need some kind of connection to grasp onto, something that relates to reality.

I think some of this might apply to some of the more outlandish anime shows out there, even applicable to FMA maybe. Considering I can understand/accept/enjoy a lot of children's stuff, I don't think that's the problem. I still think it was just the overall culture difference (I accepted Kiki's just fine, since it was pretty Western-like in setting, but Spirited Away was clearly Japanese-based. ) Isn't Japan really into having "spirits" for various things more than American folklore is? So if I was raised to think there were river spirits, forest spirits, and etcetera, I probably would have accepted it.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

However I don't think simply being able to follow the physical action is the same as total comprehension of all the thematic elements in play. The film is full of criticism of education, the military, health care, religion, etc.

Yes, but they are secondary to the action. It's like Hitchcock's movies. Most of them, with the possible exception of Vertigo, are easy to follow, mainstream pleasing films. Yet they have tons of deeper subtext for the discerning filmgoer to pick out. Rear Window, for example, is about a man who suspects a murder across from his apartment. It's directed with clarity and is easy to follow. Secondary elements include some commentary on the human propensity for voyeurism, sexual repression, and male-female roles and dynamics. But you don't NEED to know them to simply follow the movie.

Remember, I am not talking about subtext. I am talking about the straight-up follow-ability of an anime, such as Akira. You can forget about the social criticism, the human subtext, and still have a ripping good time with Akira as a monster movie. But it's there if you want to read the entire context of Akira. Most great films have a primary and secondary element, and while the secondary element makes a film rewatchable, the primary element is what makes a film followable on initial viewing.

Gryph--It's true that in Spirited Away the spirit elements, especially their powers and actual definability, may be a stretch for many people, but it is not dissimilar from the folklore of Native Indians, or other Asian mythology. In these myths, natural areas, like trees and rivers, tend to have undefinable 'spirit' forms. In the case of Spirited Away, the movie was simply able to visualize the fluid, constantly shifting forms of this type of mythological logic.

It's also not much more outlandish than Greek myths either. I mean, Athena, Zeus' daughter, was basically born by sprouting out of Zeus' head. I mean, whoa! That's really out there. And in Greek myths, most gods can also take on different forms, exhibiting remarkably random shape-shifting ability. I can't count the number of times Athena appeared as a bird, or even a man. You just kind of accept it in Greek myths, and in Spirited Away, it's even easier to accept since it takes place in an entirely different world. And in Greek myths, a few select mortals are able to 'know' when they are being visited by a God, even if it is not obvious. This is kind of the same idea with Chihiro and the river spirit. She just automatically knows, especially when she finally begins to 'trusts her instincts' (not this moral again!) about her heightened experience with the spirit (in river form) in her past.

It's basically more random mythological logic than anything else. It's something that just appears more complex than it is.

[HG Revolution]

In addition to Evangelion, I found the Rahxephon movie mostly incomprehensible.

Because both movies are crappy clipshows, more likely than not.

[bigdeath]

Because both movies are crappy clipshows, more likely than not.

I don't think people like Evangelion for its plot...there are other reasons. :shrug:

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I don't think people like Evangelion for its plot...there are other reasons. :shrug:

I like Evangelion's plot elements. I do know much of it is superfluous, but I do admire the sheer density with which the show packs all these superfluous ideas. I'm watching it again this week for the first time in 8 years (since I last saw it on VHS) and I'm still finding interesting new nuggets in the show that I didn't see before. The show is just jam-packed with ideas-- some relevant, some not. And I'm not even a big Eva fan. But I still respect it, and my re-viewing it the past few days hasn't diminished my respect one bit.

As for the "other reasons" I think it's a perfectly fascinating and fairly intelligent in its portrayal of complex human emotions, even though the show tends to focus more on the negative side of humanity so it's kind of one-sided. Still, we don't get a lot of shows that try to delve as deep into subject matter most people don't want to touch, even today.

[Chris Wood]

Remember, I am not talking about subtext. I am talking about the straight-up follow-ability of an anime, such as Akira. You can forget about the social criticism, the human subtext, and still have a ripping good time with Akira as a monster movie.

Without understanding that subtext I don't think you could figure out who/what the monster is.


Anyway there's plenty of confusing live action films, so of course there are confusing anime as well.

[HG Revolution]

I don't think people like Evangelion for its plot...there are other reasons. :shrug:

You're a perv, you know that? Some people actually care about plot. Not all this blood and fanservice and such you seem to care about more than anything.

[bigdeath]

You're a perv, you know that? Some people actually care about plot. Not all this blood and fanservice and such you seem to care about more than anything.

Wow, I wasn't taking about myself! :eek: You tell me why Rei Ayanami is the most popular anime character in japan if not for pervy reasons.

I prefer an anime like Grenadier - The Senshi of Smiles for fan service. Not over the top but just enough. :shrug: :D

Though I must say I probably give anime fans a bad name. :sweat:

If I want a good story and something to think about, Akira is not what I'd watch. Noir or Lain are better "thinking" animes.

[Rud]

You're a perv, you know that? Some people actually care about plot. Not all this blood and fanservice and such you seem to care about more than anything.

you know whithought the Blood(Death & Violence) and Fan service Evangelion would probably suck.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Wow, I wasn't taking about myself! :eek: You tell me why Rei Ayanami is the most popular anime character in japan if not for pervy reasons.


There's definitely a large contingent of fans who like Eva's women for pervy reasons. That is to be expected with such a well-known, and by now, iconic work.

That said, aside from the sexual appeal of the Eva woman, the series still manages to make them credible and fairly complex as characters. I have my own opinions on why Rei is so popular above all the other characters, and I have to admit there is still a significant part of me that leans towards negatively-influenced reasons.


you know whithought the Blood(Death & Violence) and Fan service Evangelion would probably suck.

I completely agree, since aggression and sex are such major themes in the show anyway, aside from the aesthetic appeal of violence and fan service.

[bigdeath]

You're a perv, you know that? Some people actually care about plot. Not all this blood and fanservice and such you seem to care about more than anything.

Hey, I do like elekra 7 for its plot. Thats not really a fan service anime at all.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Hey, I do like elekra 7 for its plot. Thats not really a fan service anime at all.

Nothing wrong with liking a show simply for fanservice. Whatever floats your boat.

[Ed Liu]

Most children can automatically grasp this--that's why when parents throw up their hands at certain children's entertainment, they're trying to apply adult logic to fantasy. Adults can only think in lines and angles, and have to find symbolism, or some kind of logical connection to everything. Children have a more freeform sense of logic, and Spirited Away, the entire movie in fact, is an acknowledgement of this.

Ursula K Leguin once remarked on an adult's tendency to lose their pleasure for fantasy--I mean REAL fantasy, not just guys swinging swords and elves and all that--as they get older. This is because they need some kind of connection to grasp onto, something that relates to reality.

I think some of this might apply to some of the more outlandish anime shows out there, even applicable to FMA maybe.

I think there's something to this, although my justifications may be different. There's something I just wrote about this for Toon Zone News, which dealt with the idea of "suspension of disbelief," and I realized that this is purely an adult term and something adult viewers need to do. I think most children are perfectly capable of compartmentalizing what they see into "real" and "not real," but are perfectly capable of obeying the rules, however arbitrary, of the "not real" worlds while they are seeing them or playing in them. It's not a question of suspension of disbelief as much as it's an ability to do the context switches from one mode of thought (reality) to another (fantasy/play) more easily. There are some kids (and adults) who can't distinguish between reality and movies, TV, or fantasy, but I think they're in the minority. I don't know of too many kids who ever really thought they could jump off a cliff and hang in mid-air for a few minutes like the Coyote, for example. That's just how the Coyote's world works -- we would get confused if it DIDN'T act like that.

I think this is also why video games and computer use in general just seems to bypass people past a certain generation. If you think about it, playing a video game is the act of manipulating another environment by proxy through the game avatar. You're forced to place your consciousness into an entirely different, alien environment and move around according to rules which have only a coincidental connection to reality. In an even more abstract sense, the same is true of using a computer, if you think about it (what are you really DOING when you're messing about with keyboards and mice?). If you're able to do the context switch between the "real" world and the worlds of Mario or Lara Croft, then you can "get" video games. If you can't, then you don't. I see the same thing in people (of all generations) who don't really "get" computers, and can only function with them through long, explicit sets of rules rather than by learning the fundamentals and building out from there.

Some of this is inherent (I know lots of older people who get computers and video games, and younger people who don't get either), but I think more of it is training, especially at a younger age.

I also wonder if that generation switch is why things like animation and anime, and things like fantasy and science fiction in general are getting more popular among broader (and, significantly, younger) sections of the populace. When using a computer is second nature, doing the context switches between working in the computer's world and the real one becomes easier, so it's rewiring your brains in ways that make it easier to take those same abritrary context switches in your entertainment. Film critics totally missed The Matrix, mostly calling it an action film with a muddled mess of metaphysics attached to it, but people past a certain age who were more used to the idea of the context switches (even if subconsciously) reacted more positively to it.

Or, you know, maybe I'm just spouting off at a keyboard without thinking through any of this and I'm just blowing smoke out my butt. Can't ever discount that as a possibility.

-- Ed

[Chris Wood]

Uh-oh, Matrix debate looming...

[HG Revolution]

you know whithought the Blood(Death & Violence) and Fan service Evangelion would probably suck.

The violence and some of the sex (a few bits go too over-the-top) in Evangelion is good because it serves the plot and themes and characters. Fanservice without context is what I'm not usually a fan of, and I really don't like the stereotype that that's all anime viewers care about.

[Rolling Cloud]

Talking about confusion and Eva just led me to think about the end of EOE and Asuka's final line. Wasn't that why most people were confused? I could be wrong though.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Talking about confusion and Eva just led me to think about the end of EOE and Asuka's final line. Wasn't that why most people were confused? I could be wrong though.

No, that isn't the only thing in EVA people are "confused" about.

Also, Asuka's final line was a group decision, not just the director's. He asked the seiyuu how she would feel in that situation, and she came up with the final line and the director went with it.

Goes to show you that anime productions are still a group effort and not everything is necessarily forced through by the director. Sometimes that makes it more difficult to "read" a show as a singular vision.

[Golgo13]

"Read the manga" or "read the book" is the lamest excuse for those trying to explain to people who don't understand a movie or TV series. I'm sure the book/manga is incredible, but why should others who haven't read it be forced to understand. A movie/TV series should inspire people to read the book/manga, not force them to.

And, sure, a lot people will say "well, the book/manga was WAY different/better than the show". Usually people say this because the screenwriters will change plots, characters, or scenes. But does that make it a terrible show? Absolutely not. In fact, sometimes it makes it more enjoyable than the book. Take the original Willy Wonka movie for instance. Yeah, it's a lot different than the book, but it's still an entertaining and enjoyable film. That's why I like it when screenwriters change things in a story so that if you have read the book/manga, you won't be bored with the exact same story told over again. And, yeah, maybe the book/manga is better than the movie, but I'm getting sick of people forcing me to read them because they said "read the book/manga" partially because they think EVERY FREAKIN' WRITTEN WORK is better than the movie/TV show.

My firm belief is that if something was in the book/manga and it wouldn't work for the movie/TV series, then change it for the better. It's not like every single thing printed on paper is sacred.

[Wounded_Dragon]

My firm belief is that if something was in the book/manga and it wouldn't work for the movie/TV series, then change it for the better. It's not like every single thing printed on paper is sacred.

Your position makes sense, but some people have probably seen one too many adaptions that almost totally ignore the source material to make something they assume will appeal to the masses with the least offense (I'm glaring at you, people behind Seeker: The Dark Is Rising) and end up making something so generic that you wonder why they bothered adapting something.

[Ben]

I agree conditionally with Golgo. Yes, change to fit the medium is good, but be sure it's for the right reasons. If it helps the filmmaker bring across the theme of the original, or even a new theme ("Blade Runner"), good. If it's because you're listening to a gaijin consultant you brought in who told you American children are stupid and incapable of handling complex or dangerous situations ("Astro Boy" 2006), BAD.

[Roman Legion]

"Read the manga" or "read the book" is the lamest excuse...If the adaptation fails, it's the adaptation's fault, not the fault of those telling you to read the book. More likely than not, if they're telling you this, they don't think the adaptation was successful themselves. Ah, but then you malign them if they think that, as if they only think the original was better for being on paper. Then you say that doesn't make the adaptation bad, though you were just complaining about poor, confusing adaptations. Sounds more like you're angry, having taken something personally. If someone suggests you read the book, no one's forcing you to do so. What'd they ever do to you? :sweat:

--Romey

[Ben]

If the adaptation fails, it's the adaptation's fault, not the fault of those telling you to read the book. More likely than not, if they're telling you this, they don't think the adaptation was successful themselves. Ah, but then you malign them if they think that, as if they only think the original was better for being on paper. Then you say that doesn't make the adaptation bad, though you were just complaining about poor, confusing adaptations. Sounds more like you're angry, having taken something personally. If someone suggests you read the book, no one's forcing you to do so. What'd they ever do to you? :sweat:

--Romey

I don't have a problem with people who discuss specific reasons for the failure of an adaptation. Letting me know precisely what was cut, or what was executed poorly, or what's been "updated for the 21st century," is helpful. People who just say, "The book was better," and then follow up with, "You mean you HAVEN'T read it?" deserve a smack in the face. With a book.

[Roman Legion]

I don't have a problem with people who discuss specific reasons for the failure of an adaptation. Letting me know precisely what was cut, or what was executed poorly, or what's been "updated for the 21st century," is helpful. People who just say, "The book was better," and then follow up with, "You mean you HAVEN'T read it?" deserve a smack in the face. With a book.Yeah, some people can be obnoxious like that, but people can be obnoxious about a lot of things... Ultimately, it's "just" a book and "just" an adaptation, but if that's the subject at hand, opinions will be voiced. If it's silly for someone to work themselves up too much over that, it's sillier to be upset over people having those opinions.

To be fair, there are times when you just can't explain the differences so easily, because there's enough there to be worth its own thread. Perhaps it's just not easily explainable at all, such that you probably wouldn't get it unless you'd read it. Maybe any explanation would spoil the book. I'm sure there have been such instances.

--Romey

[Ben]

Well I'd say the book's already been spoiled if you've just seen a bad adaptation of it.

And I still think that if the best someone can do is, "The book was better, but I don't know why," their opinion's pretty useless and uninteresting.

[Roman Legion]

Well I'd say the book's already been spoiled if you've just seen a bad adaptation of it.So you might think... but not necessarily so. Unless you mean "spoiled" as in, "spoiled the fun" or "spoiled the experience". It's not hard for an adaptation to leave multiple plot points from the source material untouched. Sure, a good adaptation can safely leave several minor points behind, but at the other extreme, a bad adaptation can ditch the majority of the book -- main characters, turning points, the entire theme, the ending... long gone.


And I still think that if the best someone can do is, "The book was better, but I don't know why," their opinion's pretty useless and uninteresting.True, that. :p

--Romey