Forum - View topicZac's Reviewing [was re:Rude]
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Arashi-hime
 Posts: 2 |
|
|||
|
Ok what is this Zac guys' deal? He doesn't give any good reviews, he's overly and un-neededly harsh! I haven't seen one thing he "likes." And what is he doing readding "girly" manga anyway, i mean seriously! If what reads is fit for the average high school girl, then why is he reading it!
[Subject title edited, please use subject titles that are indicative of the content of your post -t] |
||||
|
||||
Tenchi
 Posts: 4546 Location: Ottawa... now I'm an ex-Anglo Montrealer. |
|
|||
Because it's his job and he gets paid to review whatever gets handed to him? |
||||
|
||||
|
Nagisa
Moderator
 Posts: 6128 Location: Atlanta-ish, Jawjuh |
|
|||
You've obviously not read much of his work around here, have you? He's had plenty of praise for quite a few titles--RahXephon, Witch Hunter Robin, Haibane Renmei, Astro Boy '03 (which surprised me, but okay), and His & Her Circumstances to name a few. He doesn't have to like everything, and he doesn't have to disguise or sugarcoat his dislike when it does rear up just to avoid offending over-sensitive people. So he's a tough critic, where's the harm in that? |
||||
|
||||
|
MiwaSatoshi
Old Regular
 Posts: 81 Location: Austin, Texas, USA |
|
|||
|
If a "girly manga" can appeal beyond its core audience (ie HIS AND HER CIRCUMSTANCES), then it will be seen as better than something that doesn't.
That's fair. Reviews are *opinions*. If you don't agree with them, at least accept that they're valid.
Bingo. |
||||
|
||||
cyrax777
 Posts: 1825 Location: the desert |
|
|||
|
Zac in my opinion atleast is Tough but Fair.
Says it like it is not ZOMG its awsome because its by the same person who did a crapload of other stuff. |
||||
|
||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||
|
Zac is one of the few reviewers who's reviews I actually trust. Now, of course I've disagreed with Zac in the past and will in the future, but I value his opinion none the less. He's fair and seems generally open minded. A review though is still just an opinion, seen through one persons eyes, and no matter what you're never going to agree 100% with everything they write.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||
|
"un-neededly" is not a word, FYI.
|
||||
|
||||
|
TheHTRO
Posts: 330 |
|
|||
|
Reviews are opinions, yes. However, they need to have some degree of fact within them (i.e., they can't be just opinion). Most importantly, they have to be fair, informed and above all, unbiased. With all due respect, this is why I don't read any of ANN's reviews, not after the way the first Angelic Layer DVD was reviewed (it was unfairly compared to Pokemon, and was referred to as a "commercial for a game you can't play"; this is completely unfair). In other words, it was unfairly called a tie-in for a non-existant product. I don't think Zac reviewed this one, but it was nonetheless biased and unfair. The first Macross DVD was reportedly compared to newer, more recent anime (Macross was made in the mid-80's). That too, is also unfair.
See what I mean? |
||||
|
||||
Necros Antiquor
 Posts: 571 Location: Funny in a car crash sort of way |
|
|||
It has to be compared to recent series in order to determine its level of quality. The space opera/mecha genres have come a ways since the 80s; just compare Zeta Gundam to Evangelion to RahXephon to see the different directions the genres have gone in. Comparing it to recent series is a way of saying, "Well, it was amazing back in the 80s, but, taking into account its age, does the series still hold up today against newer series which have built off of Macross, or is it amusing purely because of nostalgia for old fans and therefore not worth new viewers' time?" It has to be done, otherwise, who cares if a series like Saint Seiya was really good in the 80s; anime has come much farther since then, and I'm sure you'd rather watch something along the lines of s-CRY-ed, Bleach, or Naruto than a cheesy shonen fighting anime which has been bested numerous times since its initial glory. To put it in perspective for video games (which I have to because I'm a gamer), a game like Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has aged well, while the limited controls and graphics of Resident Evil 1 (recently re-released on the DS, if you're interested) have caused it to not age well, as significant to video game history and the survival-horror genre as it is. |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10461 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
People have complained that comparing old classics to new anime is unfair, and it's a reasonable opinion. But in my opinion, if both products are on the shelf now, and I'm chosing which one I want to buy, I want them compared to each other. If I'm interested in old animation, then the comparisson won't bother me. I'll readilly read "the animation looks dated by modern standards" and say "I don't care." But if I don't want something that looks old, and the review fails to mention that the animation is dated, I'll be very annoyed if I buy the DVD based on a review that failed to provide me with the information I needed to make a proper purchasing decision. So that's why I not only allow, but encourage ANN's writers to compare new releases of old material to new material. I don't think that is the least bit unfair. As a review reader, you can easilly select the points of the review that matter to you, and make your own decision based on them. I've said many times, a reviewer's opinion is the least important part of the review. Zac can call something trash, and if I can read his review and say, "that sounds like something I'd like," it means Zac wrote a great review. And personally, I'm sick of reviewers who find everything good, and only point out the good in everything they review. Its one thing to find the good, and point it out along with the bad, but its completely another thing to ignore the bad. -t |
||||
|
||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||
Last edited by Mohawk52 on Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
Cloe
Moderator
 Posts: 2728 Location: Los Angeles, CA |
|
|||
Please explain how on earth a review is supposed to be totally unbiased. Reviews are SUBJECTIVE to critical analysis and the grade any one title gets depends entirely on the person reviewing. Here is what you are suggesting: A reviewer is handed a title to review, watches it, and strongly dislikes it for a number of valid reasons. So, what, they're supposed to write a review afterward that says "Well, this title is really awful but I have to be sure not to let my opinion get in the way so it gets a B" or something similar? As long as a reviewer properly explains his/her criticism in the review, bias cannot interfere. I think the Angelic Layer review you mentioned (I've read it too and it is written by Zac) is perfectly valid in its Pokemon comparison, for the reason that the doll fighting/tournament aspect of the series has been done before, and seems rather redundant. How is that irrational criticism? It ended up getting a "B" anyway, so what are you complaining about? You have to understand that while reading a negative review, you may discover through the reviewer's explaination aspects that might draw you the animation anyway. Case and point: I read a fairly ciritcal review of Tamala 2010 written by Zac some years ago. Many of his criticisms (the non-linear narrative, lack of cohesive theme, etc) happened to be elements of film I'm very drawn to, so of course I pursued the title and watched it as soon as I could. And personally, I trust harsh critics much more than lenient ones. Zac and Carlos, my two favorite reviewers, are both pretty tough judges when it comes to titles, so I can trust that anything they strongly recommend will be worth checking out. In response to the first post, I've quickly looked up Zac's archive of reviews and found he highly praised the following "girly" titles: Arjuna (not just for girls, but it is a magical girl show) Boys over Flowers Cardcaptor Sakura Chobits (not exactly for girls, but borderline) His and Her Circumstances NANA Revolutionary Girl Utena That doesn't look like evidence of a reviewer biased against shoujo anime/manga to me. |
||||
|
||||
|
TheHTRO
Posts: 330 |
|
|||
|
It's irrational criticism because Angelic Layer (the game that the anime talks about) and Pokémon are two completely different things. AL doesn't involve collecting of any kind; you have one customized doll, and that's it. Further, it's more akin to a martial arts fighting tournament, whereas Pokémon is not (further, PKMN doesn't involve dolls, but you knew that). I'm "complaining", as it were, about the review comparing the AL game to something that is totally different, and fails to see that AL is it's own unique thing; something that OBVIOUSLY can't be re-created in real life (with current technology, anyway).
Also, you should know that I had had the first AL DVD long before I read the review (in other words, it wasn't the review that drew me to it). As for the list of anime he's reviewed, okay, so he's not biased against those, but I think he is biased against AL (and Pokémon, for that matter). Tempest, you say that you're "sick of reviewers who find everything good, and only point out the good in everything they review." and that reviews shouldn't "ignore the bad"? Well, the opposite is also true. Some reviewers only find fault in what they see, and don't have anything nice to say about it (case in point: the Viewtiful Joe review, but I digress). Those are the reviews I have a problem with. Also, if a review seemingly only talks about the good parts, it could mean that if there are parts that are "bad", then that might mean that the good overshadows the bad (I have seen shows where this is the case); that the bad parts might be few and don't detract from the rest of the show. Necros Antiquor, I don't know if you intended to make it sound that way or not, but I'm not one of those people who has that "out with the old, in with the new" attitude. I'll watch anything that interests me (and which has a good story), no matter when it was made, and no matter how "cheesy" it may seem. Anime has come a long way, yes, but that doesn't mean that classic series don't have merit or relevence (if you didn't mean to make sound like this, know that that's what your comment makes it look like). I have standards too, but that doesn't mean I only look at an anime's age (not that I'm suggesting that you do). I'm just saying that there is a right way and a wrong way to do a review (but I'm sure you all knew that...). |
||||
|
||||
|
fansubs
Posts: 21 |
|
|||
He gets paid? |
||||
|
||||
|
Keonyn
Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||
|
It's not irrational because while they are not identical they are similar in the act of battling by commanding or controlling a type of avatar which is developed by the person using it. They don't have to be exactly the same to warrant a comparison, but the similar elements are there and are obvious.
Now, just as he might be bias against AL by the same argument being flipped around it can be stated that you are apparently bias for it. So who's really right? Well, both, in a sense, or neither. You see, no matter how hard you try your perception of a series will always be subject to your own opinion and perspective. I don't see the reviewers only finding the bad in the titles they review here, and while you say that you're essentially reviewing their reviews and only finding the bad yourself. Sometimes reviews are bad just because the show is bad, now even a bad show has some fans and no one says you have to agree with every review you see but don't confuse disagreeing with incompetence on the part of the reviewer. There is a right and a wrong way to write a review, but it doesn't seem ANN is doing it the wrong way. They explain their perception of a series very clearly, whether you agree with what they say or not is irrelevant because a review will always be subject to how it is perceived by the one individual reviewing it. I've disagreed with many of Zac's reviews and have agreed with others, and while I disagree with some I see how came to his conclusions because he explains it quite well. I disagreed with almost every point of Zac's in his review of the first GSG volume, but it was still a professional review and well explained. I think the one thing you just really need to understand is a review that doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't make it a bad review, in the end it's all just one persons perception of a title. What makes it a good review is how well they explain it, giving the reader the opportunity to determine whether they'll agree with that assessment or not, they're not telling you that must agree, just telling you why they see it as they do which gives you the chance to determine what you will agree with and what you won't to make a more informed decision. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group