— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
← darkroom
The most overrated anime of all time
There's no doubt that this is an excellent work of cinema, and an essential must-watch, but I still don't think it deserves all of the praise it gets. What I find few people mentioning about this movie as an essential flaw, is the naive morality of its protagonists going internally uncriticized. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the view that people are inherently good. When a woman sets out to kill a god out of greed and the consequence is large-scale destruction, that in and of itself is a form of criticism showing the consequences of such evil actions, yet she's so quickly forgiven and comes back to the light in Darth Vader-esque fashion without any further repercussions or any criticism from her companions. The story bends over backwards to justify her behavior, but it never extends an olive branch to the antagonistic characters, namely the samurai. The antagonistic characters, though also human, are never treated with the same self-sacrificing attempts to redeem them from the error of their ways. They are never treated by the story as having any justification for their actions, but are treated with a thoughtless "bad guy" mentality. I wonder why I never hear anyone else talk about this aspect of the film. It's something I've noticed in a lot of Miyazaki's work. Even if you do take the view that humans are inherently good, the problem I'm getting at is inconsistency and a lack of self-awareness in the writing. Does anyone else have some insight on the matter? Do others agree or disagree?
Are you sure he's taking a positive view of humans? I've found Miyazaki's movies to be anti-human in general.
(Nausicaa is a very strong example of what I'm talking about.)
Nothing Lady Eboshi does is wrong as far as I'm concerned, but that's because I don't like the environment as much as Miyazaki does. I think a certain amount of natural destruction is an acceptable trade for technological progress. But for Miyazaki, Eboshi becomes a useful antagonist because it allows him to examine the complexity of human relations with the environment; in other words, people who are fundamentally good may be causing a greater harm with human-centric actions.I don't really see the contradiction that you describe between Eboshi and the samurai, because we're really talking about two different kinds of people.
Lady Eboshi is a fairly decent human being because she takes care of the social outcasts and gives them a sense of purpose the mainstream society (run by the samurai) denies to them. Further, the warring samurai are violent plunderers, so it makes sense there should be no rehabilitation for a bunch of sociopaths. As for why they are doing what they're doing, there's probably a specific historical context recognizable to a Japanese audience (I think the movie is supposed to be set in the Warring States period) but as a history buff I can say that in many wars armies simply degenerated into raping and plundering civilians to perpetuate the war, so since this is a time of war an attack on a town by even 'their own' allied army is highly likely.
I sense a double standard, but with less accuracy you're really doing the exact same thing as the movie itself is doing. No wonder you don't see it as a contradiction. If you did, then you probably wouldn't be doing it.
For example, you say that nothing Lady Eboshi does is wrong, but later describe her not as a perfect person, but as a fairly decent human being. The samurai aren't analyzed enough to determine if they are sociopaths, but regardless there's no realistic way they all could be. Some are probably psychopathic, and others probably have remorse though they follow orders, perhaps out of blind loyalty or perhaps out of fear. There could be fairly decent people among the samurai. You're judging them pretty superficially. I think the movie itself uses pretty much the same double standard you are using, so it's no surprise that you would too, but also it's pretty common for people to think the way you are.
I think your assumption about what Miyazaki's views are is wrong.
He's not saying all people are good, only certain people are.
That's why he's not going to waste cels and ink on rehabbing the soldiers.
If it was that important to him that all people be given that opportunity, he would have done so.
As I said before, I think that Miyazaki consistently takes a dim view of the value of humanity in relation to the environment, so that's already not consistent with a view of all human life as precious.I have seen Nausicaa and it has pretty much the exact same portrayal of humanity, but a little more honest and realistic. But if you think my view on Miyazaki is that he's saying all people are good, then you have misunderstood what I said. To clarify, I believe that his view is that human beings are inherently good. In other words, we all have good in us, and we start out good but get corrupted as we get older. That's why he often strives to find the good in people, even greedy selfish people like Lady Eboshi. The samurai are portrayed as having been corrupted, not that they necessarily weren't good at some point earlier in their life. Again, not much is said about them because they just serve as an antagonistic force. He didn't go into depth exploring them, and that is the reason they don't portray any good in spite of his view that humans are inherently good. They're not being explored that way. They're simply a plot device.
Edit: Also I think he portrays the environment as vitally important as human life, hence the trauma of the god's death and the death and destruction that follow as a consequence. The people suffer as a result of destroying nature. Mononoke herself harshly criticises human beings for their destruction of nature, that is Miyazaki at least presenting the argument. I don't think he sought to portray either human life or nature as more important, but rather the balance necessary for both to exist.
I think you're right about balance, but the question is how much human life must be lost in the interests of 'balance'. I think that Miyzaki is writing from a posthuman perspective in Nausicaa that views the loss of individual human lives as acceptable in the interests of ecological balance compared to the more destructive humanism of Kushana, who wants to eradicate the poisonous trees to save human lives but damage the ecosystem in the process. To Miyazaki, it's not okay to damage that ecosystem even in the interest of saving human lives.
If Miyazaki will accept that position In Nausicaa, we can use it in Mononoke to explain why not all the humans need to be saved. The answer is that some people will end up not being as valuable as a plant.
They're not being explored that way. They're simply a plot device.
You're probably right about that, but since history at least provides insight into their motivations, at least that is covered. But I don' think it's necessarily a flaw because, as I've said, some humans are going to need to be expendable in Miyazaki's pursuit of ecological balance. For the satisfaction of the audience, it might as well be a bunch guys historically known for rapine than a modern humanist like Eboshi.
That's why I consider Miyazaki, at least on these topics, to be a misanthrope more than anything else.
- continue this thread →
He's definitely looking at the situation from a perspective beyond a mere human perspective. I think all great filmmakers do that.
that views the loss of individual human lives as acceptable in the interests of ecological balance compared to the more destructive humanism of Kushana, who wants to eradicate the poisonous trees to save human lives but damage the ecosystem in the process.
But this you've described here is not a posthuman perspective, it is merely a human perspective, and it is not what Miyazaki is getting at. The universe doesn't think in terms of what's acceptable and what's not. His posthuman perspective is trying to explore the relationship between humans and nature while analysing personality types. In the case of Nausicaa and Mononoke a lot of the same themes and personalities are there, but some of them are dealt with in different ways. I can't remember who said it, but, "A good movie presents two arguments well." Basically you have the hero presenting one argument up against the opposing argument of their adversary. The hero in both is confronted by a problem and sets out to discover what is causing the problem and solve it. The antagonistic forces do the opposite, they cause the problem and try to avoid dealing with it. They may pretend to deal with it in some manner, but ultimately they're lying about the real problem to avoid dealing with it. The posthuman perspective analyses these people and their arguments in various ways throughout the course of the film's events and tries to demonstrate the results of their actions through causality. Nausicaa was in my opinion more accurate. The people who destroy nature for their own personal gain without considering the consequences are evil. I think Mononoke tried to take it from the perspective that they're really good deep down, and I think Lady Eboshi's redemption was too forced and she wasn't criticised harshly enough.
Most overrated anime of all time? It's not even the most popular Ghibli movie. That title goes to Spirited Away, which I honestly think is a bit overrated. It's great yes, but it seems like its everyone's favorite Ghibli film.
I'm talking about reputation though, not popularity. At least in my experience most people who say Spirited Away is their favorite don't watch a lot of anime to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Princess Mononoke is seen by many die-hard anime fans and otaku's to be one of the greatest anime of all time. But around the time when I started getting into anime I was told that I absolutely had to watch Princess Mononoke, and Spirited Away hadn't come out yet. Princess Mononoke was considered one of the greats, one of the essential must-watch titles. No one would listen to anything you said about anime if you hadn't even seen it, you were considered a pleb and scoffed at. Spirited Away never had that level of devotion, not by a long shot. Spirited Away is popcorn anime. You can watch it half-asleep with your brain turned off, and you won't miss anything.
I don't think "humans are inherently good" is a theme that the film advances. The central theme of the film is about the balance between human need and the integrity of nature.
Many of the factions are driven by greed or desire: the Emperor, the hunters, Lady Eboshi, the samurai, etc. This desire often leads to rather disastrous consequences through the unrestricted pillage of nature and people.
At the same time Miyazaki is not so one-sided as to say that human desires are illegitimate. The obsession of the boars in fighting the humans, for instance, is clearly portrayed negatively. Lady Eboshi is portrayed sympathetically because, even though her methods are excessive, she is clearly using the forest's resources for a noble cause. Ultimately what Miyazaki is getting at is the need for some kind of mediation: humans can't plunder the environment without regard for sustainability, but since humans need to use natural resources in order to live the perfect sanctity of nature cannot be upheld either. Ashitaka usually argues from this viewpoint, and indeed his tribe embodies this balance itself.
In this framework the samurai are portrayed negatively because their lord desires the iron for basically trivial purposes: he wants to expand his sphere of influence, and he is willing to kill whoever he wants to do so. They're being used as an illustration of a major theme, i.e. the frequent excessiveness of human demands. I don't think this is an illegitimate story-telling device.
Listen to the way the American voice actors talk about the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6WjIfjvTAg
"No one is really evil."
Of course it's a theme of the film. Miyazaki isn't trying to pigeonhole his characters in roles of good and evil. He's trying to understand people and find the good even in people that seem evil, Lady Eboshi most of all.
I agree Miyazaki isn't trying to pigeonhole any of the characters into the roles of "good" or "evil," which is why I think it's not a useful framework for analyzing the film or its shortcomings. The samurai are being used as a thematic foil on a specific issue; whether they're "evil" in some fundamental sense is not relevant to their role in the film.
Whether the samurai are evil is relevant to justify their slaughter without any attempt towards their redemption.
I still don't get why you think it's not "a useful framework for analyzing the film or its shortcomings." I have to criticise Miyazaki's degree of success or failure at portraying the morality of his characters whether he was trying to pigeonhole them or not. I'm also criticising the degree of success of his attempted posthuman perspective, and his portrayal of human nature.
I still don't get why you think it's not "a useful framework for analyzing the film or its shortcomings."
It just seems to me like this is only a problem if you assume that it's absolutely necessary for every villain to be portrayed as some kind of misguided yet noble figure, which I can't see the justification for. I don't think it's thematically inconsistent with the rest of the film — because, again, I don't think "everyone is really redeemable/sympathetic/etc. deep down" is a major theme of the film —, nor do I think it's a requirement for good writing. So what's the point of using it to evaluate the film?
I think Miyazaki certainly tries to write morally ambiguous villains because they're more realistic and interesting (among other things), but the samurai are not in focus and their portrayal is realistic for the historical context. They serve their narrative purpose well and they help illustrate the broader themes of the film (human desire is often both petty and destructive, etc.).
If you had to ask me a much bigger problem with the film is Ashitaka himself.
- continue this thread →
Every villain is a person, and no person is without merits. Jesus said, "Even an evil person knows how to give good gifts."
Villains don't see themselves as villains. Villains are like Lady Ebushi, they think they have good intentions. You think Hitler thought he was a villain? Even Hitler felt justified and said everything he did was for the love of his country and his people. It sounds like you're advocating for one dimensional villains. It's easy to hate clear-cut bad guys like the samurai, but Lady Ebushi is an interesting villain because we can sympathize with her and see her humanity.
Allow me to point out a contradiction:
nor do I think it's a requirement for good writing.
I think Miyazaki certainly tries to write morally ambiguous villains because they're more realistic and interesting
They're more realistic and interesting, in other words it's better writing.
I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary. In the case of the samurai I feel they serve their purpose as a literary plot device and don't need to be looked at it any more depth. No, for me the inconsistency is that Lady Eboshi is given too much sympathy, not enough criticism, and not a consistent enough portrayal of her stubbornness. Miyazaki is too soft on Lady Eboshi in his attempt to find her inherent goodness, and Ashitaka is too quick to forgive her. Did she really repent? Did she really understand the error of her ways? I don't think so, but she suddenly changed her opinion without the same conviction she was characteristic of.
While I don't appreciate the movie as much as most people do, I take issue with this post for two reasons:
- Measuring how "overrated" something is is perfectly meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion.
- I flat-out disagree with your criticism.
Now, I don't feel inclined to elaborate on my first issue, but the second issue is rather pressing. You recognize that Eboshi is hurting the environment around her, which stems from her anthropocentric worldview. Both the common interpretation of the movie and the word of Miyazaki himself in the 7h documentary about the film (that you can find on some russian/chinese trackers or something, a friend of mine watched it with me so dunno where he got it) is not flatly criticizing that mindset and painting it as evil, but rather to show the flaws of an anthropocentric view instead of a biocentric view. Her good deeds in the community both serve as a way to relay themes of feminism and make her a morally balanced character in the eye of the viewer (it seems like you didn't see it that way, which is fine). Recognizing that this is a device however is just that: recognizing that it is a device. It is not a bad device. It is not forced down your throat, and it isnt contrived. The fact that one recognizes a device doesn't make the device bad. Eboshi is allowed to change her opinion when faced with a situation that could provoke her rethinking her stance. Which I thought was amply present in the movie.
On the other hand, the samurai are historically accurate (they go into their armor and which samurai they were part of or something in the documentary as well, which I recommend you to check out if you can find it anywhere). They harbored ill intentions for no reason other than greed. Consequentially, it is easier to forgive someone who acted with good intent for her community and confronts her wrongdoing head-on and changes her stance when she recognizes it as unsatisfactory, than it is to forgive those who murder and plunder for no "constructive" reason, but rather because of greed.
This inconsistency or lack of self-awareness in the writing is not actually present. And if you see those who actually worked on the movie, like Miyazaki talk about the movie during production, you see him worry about his themes of environmentalism coming across as hamfisted and preachy. He was very much self-aware. And I think this is reflected in the writing: whereas Eboshi's change of heart is a way for the audience who previously had an anthropocentric viewpoint to rethink how they view the world without feeling confronted or attacked in their beliefs, the harsh rejection of violence because of greed is an equally harsh rejection that should be portrayed to the viewer. Rather than a lack of self-awareness, this dichotomy displays the extent of Miyazaki's awareness of how to convey to an audience a theme in a suitable fashion.
Now, I mentioned earlier I have other complaints. To cut things short (sory for the wall), I feel the last half hour is rushed. I later found out (again in the wonderful and in-depth documentary), that indeed the last 30 minutes were added rather late, because Miyazaki needed more time to wrap up the whole thing. We are talking about like a few months of time left at that point. So yes, the produciton was rushed. Poor Ando was sitting at his desk til like 4AM everyday. What a champ.
Other than that, I thought the romance was sub-par (even if not the focus), but most importantly, I could never connect to the characters. The whole movie felt plastic to me, like a beautiful and well-built machinery devoid of emotional impact. Artificial. The politics and themes didn't mesh well with the supernatural. It's all too much cramped into too little, resulting in an overall tangential viewing experience.
For me anyway, others liked it I guess. Hope this helped clear some misunderstandings or help you understand where I and many others seem to be coming from when we disagree with you. Please don't use such a dumb title again tho, makes me tilted when I don't see actual hot takes.
Measuring how "overrated" something is is perfectly meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion.
Don't you know what a "red herring" is? First of all your statement is the complete opposite of reality, my "measuring" how overrated Princess Mononoke is is the entire basis of this discussion. Secondly I want to point out the irony of your use of the word "perfectly." Take the word "perfectly" out of the sentence and read it again. The word "perfectly" adds nothing to the sentence. What's the difference between 'meaningless' and 'perfectly meaningless?' There is no difference. So what you were projecting here was your own lack of meaning, and you saw that reflected in me and suppressed that aspect of yourself. That's just psychology 101. And quite frankly nothing else you said really contributed to the discussion either. The points about the historicity of the samurai and Lady Ebushi's redemption will be addressed soon, but not to you.
Take care, and have a nice life. Bye.
And the word of the day, kids, is pedantic.As my reply shows, stating something's overrated or not is quite subjective at best and doesn't really get to the meat of the issue: you don't find Mononoke all that great. I still would use words like "overrated" and "underrated," but the point is that its vague, at best.
And I don't see how them discussing the movie with you isn't contributing to the discussion.
You missed the point just slightly, but you make a fair point yourself. I'm not saying he isn't contributing (forgive me if I missunderstood whether this was directed at me or her). I'm saying that is what he's projecting. It's not that he isn't contributing at all, but he isn't contributing much though he used a lot of words and tried so hard to pretend he knew what he was talking about and to sound intellectual.
Okay, three things:
- I'm a dude.
- I wrote that post like past midnight, without thinking about it too much. It may be inconcise but if you take away the documentary anecdotes and my own criticisms, it's barely any longer than other comments in this thread. It's just longer because I tried to explain my viewpoint a bit more and because I meandered a bit.
- Where am I pretending I know what I am talking about? I used highschooler vocabulary (source: I am a high school student). English isn't even my first language (which is also where my tendency to the inconcise might come from!) And the documentary does absolutely exist:
https://letterboxd.com/film/how-mononoke-hime-was-born-a-drama-on-paper/
https://letterboxd.com/film/how-mononoke-hime-was-born-life-has-been-breathed-into-it/
https://letterboxd.com/film/how-mononoke-hime-was-born-the-day-the-record-was-broken/
And you know the reason why it only has two people who have seen the documentary? My friend and I added it to databases used by Letterboxd in the first place. Those two views are me and a friend of mine, who is part of a chinese ghibli subbing group.
And I'll use this opportuity to point out something I think you misunderstood: when I say discussing the degree of "overratedness" doesn't contribute to the discussion, I do not mean this discussion thread in particular, but the discussion surrounding this title at large. It was more of a general statement, anyway, which is also why I didn't want to discuss it in the first place.
Seems like my humorous approach didn't make it through. I don't know what about my comment in particular made you resort to ad hominem and armchair psychology, but I want to point out that with statements like
Please don't use such a dumb title again tho, makes me tilted when I don't see actual hot takes.
I'm not criticizing the discussion at hand. I think you brought up a valid point worth discussing. However, the title made me think I would e able to read some funny hottakes which back then I didn't get (now did but whatever). I don't think your assessment of how "overrated" Mononoke Hime is is the basis of the discussion at all though. What most people here are discussing are the points you make as to why you think Mononoke Hime is the most overrated anime, not whether Mononoke Hime is the most overrated anime. And I followed suit.
My second bulletpoint is pretty clear and I fail to see how my comment doesn't contribute to the discussion. My point is that your observations are spot-on, but the conclusion you and I drew from that observation are polar opposites. You are saying
When a woman sets out to kill a god out of greed and the consequence is large-scale destruction, that in and of itself is a form of criticism showing the consequences of such evil actions, yet she's so quickly forgiven and comes back to the light in Darth Vader-esque fashion without any further repercussions or any criticism from her companions. The story bends over backwards to justify her behavior, but it never extends an olive branch to the antagonistic characters, namely the samurai. The antagonistic characters, though also human, are never treated with the same self-sacrificing attempts to redeem them from the error of their ways. They are never treated by the story as having any justification for their actions, but are treated with a thoughtless "bad guy" mentality.
And I am saying that this was intentional, for the reason that to really persuade people into rethinking their anthropocentric stance, you should not attack them or confront them. Thus, Lady Eboshi cannot be painted as a pure evil. You have discussed something similar with other people, I'm sure, but the following point I made I didn't see anyone else bring up: the samurai are painted as the bad guys purposefully because Miyazaki is rejecting their actions harshly, and not trying to persuade anyone or make them rethink their stance on violence. And this is justified because of their historic accuracy, because this is how people acted. Because there are people and movements Miyazaki views as one-sidedly bad, not just misguided like those with an anthropocentric worldview. So, instead of a lack of self-awareness, I think Miyazaki displays his degree of self-awareness in this dichotomy.
You asked this:
Does anyone else have some insight on the matter? Do others agree or disagree?
And I gave my personal view on the matter and explained the fact that I disagree. I referred to an official documentary I recommend you to view yourself because it is interesting and actually goes into what you are asking in this thread as well. I referred back to the discussion of Mononoke Hime being overrated with my own issues I have with the movie, giving another perspective from someone who thinks Mononoke Hime is overstated.
I don't think discussing whether one certain anime is the most overrated anime of all time is meaningful, because, as others pointed out already, the definition is too vague and too subjective. That doesn't mean that your points that drove you personally to this conclusion are wrong in any way though, and they are the only thing I argued.
EDIT: I want to point out that there is a difference between 'meaningless' and 'perfectly meaningless'. In my eyes, just saying that it is meaningless doesn't stress the extent of the meaninglessness of the matter enough, thus I added that emphasis through 'perfectly'.
[Insert mindless armchair psychology to throw back at you]
EDIT 2:
At least you're young, so there is still hope for you. I'm 33 years old by the way, but age really isn't that important. Please understand I have no hard feelings or ill will towards you. I understand your enthusiasm in wanting to discuss this film and these topics, so I hope you won't take offense if I am a little firm and blunt with you. It was obvious from the start that you hadn't thought carefully about what you were saying. Your posts have been rather long. It would take a long time to explain everything to you, but you don't sound like you would listen. We both know that you are pretending to know a lot more about the things you're saying and the things I've said than you actually do. The question is, do you have the integrity and humility to acknowledge this, or will you insist on the lie? If you insist on the lie, then I can't help you. If you want to be completely honest with me, then perhaps we can actually have a discussion moving forward.
I deleted my older comment because it was somewhat malicious.
It's good to know I apparently know so much I must be lying. I'll take that as a compliment, but I have no desire to talk to you any further.EDIT:
Sadly you're old, so there is no hope left for you. I'm 18 years old by the way, but age really isn't that important. Please understand I have no hard feelings or ill will towards you. I understand your enthusiasm in wanting to discuss this film and these topics, so I hope you won't take offense if I am a little firm and blunt with you. It was obvious from the start that you hadn't thought at all about what you were saying. I took a long time to try and reason with you, but it doesn't look like you have listened. We both know that you are pretending to know a lot more about the things you're saying and the things I've said than you actually do. The question is, do you have the integrity and humility to acknowledge this, or will you insist on the lie? If you insist on the lie, then I can't help you. If you want to be completely honest with me, then perhaps we can actually have a discussion moving forward.I deleted my older comment because it was somewhat malicious.
It's good to know I apparently know so much I must be lying. I'll take that as a compliment, but I have no desire to talk to you any further.EDIT:
Sadly you're old, so there is no hope left for you. I'm 18 years old by the way, but age really isn't that important. Please understand I have no hard feelings or ill will towards you. I understand your enthusiasm in wanting to discuss this film and these topics, so I hope you won't take offense if I am a little firm and blunt with you. It was obvious from the start that you hadn't thought at all about what you were saying. I took a long time to try and reason with you, but it doesn't look like you have listened. We both know that you are pretending to know a lot more about the things you're saying and the things I've said than you actually do. The question is, do you have the integrity and humility to acknowledge this, or will you insist on the lie? If you insist on the lie, then I can't help you. If you want to be completely honest with me, then perhaps we can actually have a discussion moving forward.
Site ThemeNow hopefully everyone can see why I avoided having a debate with you in the first place. I had hoped that you would listen to reason, but I'm not at all surprised by this response. Farewell, I will not respond to anything else you say.
It's weird that some people even use the word
overrated, you can rate it yourself but you can't represent the others. "of all time"? seriously? how objective, you must have done a lot of research before sharing your opinion!Everything is wrong with this post. It's weird that some people even use the word "overrated?" Why? I hear people use it all the time. I can't represent others? Why? I've heard their opinions on this subject for fifteen years. I'm not saying anything unusual. Everyone knows that Princess Mononoke is widely considered one of the greatest anime of all time, by arguably the greatest anime filmmaker of all time. Objective, yes well, as objective as I can be, but it's still by nature something that is subjective in many ways too. It sounds to me like you missed the point of the title though, and that you didn't read anything else since that's all you commented on. You sound like you have such an inflated ego that you didn't even consider that you might have missunderstood something. In this case you failed to notice the red herring. My guess is you have no idea what a red herring even is. Better google it now, and then pretend that you knew all along.
Sits back and waits for the entitled tween rage of someone who thinks he's special because he donated to the site.
All the Ghibli films are extremely overrated. They are good but the Manga for Nausica was better than any of the Ghibli movies. I think the Dragon Ball franchise is probably the most overrated anime of all time. Yeah it is good if you like action but that's really all it offers. Bleach , Naruto , One Piece , YYH , HXH and so many other shonen are just so superior to Dragon ball in every way. The only reason DBZ is as popular as it is is because nostalgia and this goes for both Japan and the west. I felt more and cried more 3 episode into Bleach than I ever did in anything from the Dragon Ball franchise.
All the Ghibli films are extremely overrated.
I'd say Ocean Waves and Whispers of the Heart are underrated. Howl's Moving Castle and Naussica to me sound like they're rated appropriately. When I'm talking about how an anime is rated though, I'm not talking about popularity. Dragon Ball may be very popular and a lot of kids think it's one of the greatest and all that, but I'm not talking about lay people who don't know what they're talking about. I'm talking about how the experts rate it, the critics and other filmmakers. When have you ever heard a filmmaker say that Dragon Ball is the greatest? No, but other filmmakers say that Miyazaki is the greatest. Talking about Naruto, Bleach, and Dragon Ball Z... that's all pointless to me. Those are for kids. No one in the adult art world wastes the time of day on shows like that. That's just not what I'm talking about in terms of "overrated."
No one in the adult world would waste time with Bleach , One Piece , Naruto ect huh? Well about 800 billion fans of those series that all happen to be adults would like a word with you. Your obviously an elitist twit so there is no discussion to be had. Good day or at least try to have one ( it probably wont be easy for someone so bloody arrogant and pretentious . )
According to wikipedia:
Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
So, you have the belief or attitude that individuals who respect Naruto, One Piece, and Bleach are of higher intellect, and because I'm not part of that elite I'm "obviously" a "twit", and I don't deserve any influence or authority on the subject and thus you can dismiss everything I say on that basis alone.
Good to know you're an elitist. Thanks for revealing that about yourself. I won't waste too much time on you then. :)
All the Ghibli films are extremely overrated.
Yup, typical elitist.
Sorry for replying a few hours late. Considering how you probably haven't even watched them yeah you deserve no influence or authority on the subject. Even IF you have watched them your idea of dismissing them as for children ect ( I am aware of the genre classification for shonen doesn't change the fact that so many adults love these series ) is elitist as well. Your arrangement of claiming me to be elitist is invalid and frankly just plain asinine unless of course you acknowledge your elitism in thinking they are inferior and that again only children enjoy them.
- continue this thread →
Listen to yourself. Okay, so you criticise me for being elitist, then openly admit to being elitist yourself. You criticise me for dismissing those shows as for children, then admit they are for children. Then you say my claiming that you're elitist is invalid? After you just embraced fulfilling the definition of elitist yourself, when I wasn't the one who accused you of being elitist in the first place. You were the one who accused me of being elitist, and I merely showed how you're the one actually fulfilling it. Then you claim to be able to read my mind?
your elitism in thinking they are inferior and that again only children enjoy them.
First of all that's not what I think, and I never said anything along those lines. You don't read carefully. You're twisting my words. Here's what I actually said:
No one in the adult art world wastes the time of day on shows like that.
And here's what you said I said:
No one in the adult world would waste time with Bleach , One Piece , Naruto ect huh?
Notice any difference? You left out the essential word, "art." I didn't say no one in the adult world wastes their time on those shows. I said, no one in the adult art world wastes their time on those shows. All this time you've been arguing against your perception of what I said, and not what I actually said.
Going by highest rated animu both here and on MAL, and of course only taking into account the ones I've watched, I'd say Kimi no Na wa., the Monogatari series, Made in Abyss, Code Geass, and One Punch Man.
This seems to be a thread made for one specific anime, not as a general one to talk about over-rated anime, OP didn't really make that clear in the title though.
I haven't watched it in a good while but it sounds like the samurai were dealt with as an immediate threat to live and the main villain was faced based on their ideology, because discrediting the idea (at the source of that idea) kills the validity of that idea and stops people from following it, and seeing the originator of the idea be forgiven would inspire its followers to also seek redemption, as seeking out punishment isn't quite as popular.
Kill Hitler's army, but make Hitler realise and admit his mistakes so we don't get what I believe to be one of his final quotes.
Heinz Linge: "Who will we fight for now?"
Adolf Hitler: "For the man who comes after me."Maybe it was incredibly poorly executed though, and maybe the main character did it in a hypocritical way, I'm not sure.
(finish Trigun already, it's all about this)
Well, my main issue is with the ending. After Lady Eboshi returns from gallivanting, her people aren't mad at her for abandoning them in spite of a lot of them being killed. Their friends and family members would have died, and it was her duty to protect them. But while their main enemy was approaching, she went off on an ambitious hunt for a trophy. It turned out to be a huge mistake with dire consequences. But what was it that she should have learned? Did she learn what her mistake was? What did she repent of? She didn't really repent of her selfishness. She didn't realize that it was selfish of her to leave them alone like that. They weren't even upset. No one blamed her for anything. People were so "understanding" about her mistake, but no one really articulated what it was she was being forgiven for, or what it was that she did wrong in the first place, or what it was she learned. It was a superficial forgiveness and they sailed off into the sunset happily ever after. The ending was just really bad, and that's because they rushed it.
Sorry, it was a little hard to understand what you meant.
Who was the main villain in Princess Mononoke? I see Lady Eboshi as the main antagonist in the plot, but she's not really a clear cut villain either. Do you think Eboshi and her people are going to stop using guns and steam power? I'd say seeking out punishment is more popular than forgiveness. In real life forgiveness is extremely difficult, but they trivialized it in this movie and I strongly disliked that.
Edit: Trigun got boring after the first couple of story arcs.
[Removed]
Why were you disappointed?
Simply not my style, didn't catch my attention in any aspect really.
What about the artwork and animation?
Seen better.
Simply just overall feeling it's overhyped for what it is.- continue this thread →
What's better from the same era or before it? What about all the shows you like that have worse artwork and animation?
Edit: I've seen better too, but that doesn't mean it isn't praiseworthy. It's certainly one of the best of its time.
Watched it today and totally agree
HxH
this is a thread about princess Mononoke
Well, true, HxH is overrated, but yeah, it's not a general topic about overrated anime.
ahh i didn't see it was a thread
There are lots of overrated Animes and this one is little overrated
I will give a very solid solid 7.5/10
And This is not the overrated anime of ALL TIME there are many many series worse than death note get's higher ratings so your wrong ☕Sorry for bringing death note descision in Princess Mononoke thread
I bring this series in this thread for (example or comparison)Deathnote isn't higher rated than Princess Mononoke. I'm not sure what rating you're going by, but Deathnote is just generic standard mainstream quality. I'm not talking about popularity, but no one says Deathnote is a great masterpiece like they do about Princess Mononoke. Many consider Miyazake the greatest anime filmmaker of all time. Princess Mononoke was always one of the quintessential anime back in the day.
Bro everyone is against you on this but i kind of agree with you. I did not notice the stuff you were saying until you said it and your right but it is still one of the best anime movies ever made. PS: no one go on a rant about how this is not that great of a film and there is much better anime out there, me saying it is one of the best films is an opinion :)
I agree that it's still a great film, and a must-see. I like it a lot, but the ending always bothered me. The thing is, you can have a movie that's not that great, but if the ending is good it'll still be a hit. It's a shame that Princess Mononoke had such high quality, but missed the landing at the end. As far as I'm concerned an artistic masterpiece can have some minor flaws, but a huge flaw like rushing the ending can't be overlooked, and considering it was widely considered Miyazaki's magnum opus (not sure if it still is), and Miyazaki was considered by many to be the best anime filmmaker of all time. I've never been such a huge fan of Miyazaki, so I wanted to talk about this issue because I feel like not enough people are.
Anyway, thanks for your comment.
