Forum - View topic

Is Naruto filler worth watching?

If you're not watching it because anime filler has a bad rep, then say that. If you're not watching it because people have warned you it sucks, then say that. A sweeping blanket statement like "what can you expect when it isn't from the Manga." is unsupportable, for the reasons that I enumerated.

They aren't very good reasons though. the evidence is firmly against them. That's my point. If an anime has filler episodes, the definition of which being original episodes used to "fill" the gaps between two manga-based episodes, then they are universaly weaker than the best manga episodes, and almost universaly weaker than any manga-based episode. You can try them out if you like, but they generally just aren't worth the effort.

Arguably, all but five episodes of that anime are "filler", completely irrelevant to the wider story arc of Spike's history with Julia and Vicious.

Ummmm, the reasons I presented WERE evidence. The evidence can't be against the evidence, dude. Anime smile;;;;;; Although it can be against a simplistic interpretation of the evidence.

The "holding pattern" idea is mostly reasonable, but I'd point out that stories are suppossed to stand on their own, for what they are, and can't be criticized for the lack of something that isn't part of the story in the first place.

Or, think of Cowboy Bebop. Arguably, all but five episodes of that anime are "filler", completely irrelevant to the wider story arc of Spike's history with Julia and Vicious.

#1 I don't find especially convincing. It's true that filler eps are often by a different author then adapted ones, but I'm not of the opinion that Different=Worse universally. What if a series gets picked up by a *better* author? Those are the situations I enumerated a few posts back, and you can find others if you look hard enough. In fact, now that I think of it, there's a very extreme example: the Star Wars Expanded Universe. The novels released back in the early 90s, by authors different from the original, were immensely popular. Some tanked too, of course, but all but the very worst were better then Lucas' official prequels years later. This proves that the first author does not have a monopoly on the quality of the series. Other good examples emerge when you look at comic books- Stan Lee's original X-Men were so mediocre that they were in reruns for years. But when Claremont picked them up in the 70's and figured out how to play up the idea's strengths, they took off. So I don't see the reason in judging a specific work, and thus a specific author, before you've seen the work itself.

#2 is more significant, but I still can't equate it with "Bad" automatically, unless the pace of the story is important. The fact is, many published stories have side-stories meant to fill time, or are strings of only semi-related events, or somesuch. People try to make the distinction between a filler, omake, picaresque, side-story, spinoff movie, and so on, but I really think the difference is semantic at best.

If someone makes the statement, "Well, I haven't seen it, but filler doesn't have a good record, so I'd give it a pass.", I have no problem. But if someone says, "Well, I haven't seen it, but filler sucks automatically." then they're being terribly unfair- maybe even malicious- towards the writer.