>>119793824 Jesus, are we even watching the same show? Have you even seen or heard about the works being referenced?
Carpet tessellation from the shining, which includes bears. Bears in the shining have been said by some to be linked to sexual deviancy and/or pedophilia.
School from Suspiria, which had huge overarching themes of the budding-feminine and homosexuality.
House from Psycho, which dealt with unnatural nature between a man and his mother, and the resulting tensions between him and the rest of society.
Each of these has been referenced in as a style (architecture) and we're only two episodes in. Nigger this is not simple references. It's not a reference to an event or a thing, it's a reference to another work--which has preestablished interpretations and references of its own. It borrows the themes of sexual abnormality instead of finding a way to show it on its own. Even when it does find a way to show its themes on its own, you get examples of shit like (ORIGINAL SYMBOLISM DO NOT STEAL) flower imagery as a hamfisted way as fuck of showing vaginas and disjointed nature of the feminine in this show.
>>119794669 I do think that the Suspiria hallway is distracting just because it shows up so much but I don't see how that's appropriating themes. If you take out all of those references, Yuri Kuma still stands well on its own. The majority of Japanese viewers probably wouldn't even recognize half of those references, the show isn't relying on them to make a point.
>>119794924 That's the point. The show can potentially stand on its own, so the references are not needed. It's coming off /to me/, a non-Japanese viewer who is familiar with the references and themes, as gaudy. None of the things are alone in making a point, everything builds off other things in a framework. It's not like the show has only one metaphor or symbol with total reliance. These happen to come off to me as unnecessary and cheap.
>instead of This is utter bullshit. You're just looking for excuses to complain. All of those themes hold up without the references. When the symbolism is any less obvious than the flower imagery, faggots like you deny it and pretend interpretation of the symbolism is just making up crazy theories.
>>119795125 Nothing is needed, so why not kill yourself? Stripping everything down to a spartan level weakens and cheapens a work. References like these make it more interesting.
>>119795724 It's not merely a thing. It has its own context and themes which were worked independent, are by referencing the work you bring those things in. It's cheap.
You're also a moron for implying that I'd deny symbolism. I'd love to see the logical jump where you can conclude that. In fact, when I'm saying I don't want hamfisted shit, that should be evidence enough of how much of a fucking mong you're making yourself look like when you say that.
And please get the fuck out with that weak ass nothing is needed bullshit. Referential work is the embodiment of IMDB sensibility. It's memetic and cheap.
>>119794669 >>119795125 >>119795885 All I can say is that if you dislike references so much, then maybe anime isn't for you since it is so referential in its nature. Anime is pop culture, pop culture is memetic. Most anime is complete nonsense when taken out of the context of history and the rest of the industry.
>>119795885 >It's not merely a thing. It's literally a thing. Not figuratively, literally. The word "thing" covers that by definition.
You already denied symbolism in your own posts. Go back and read them. You're doing nothing but crying "cheap" over things that are the opposite because you're some pretentious shitbag that just wants to complain for the sake of complaining. References are perfectly fine. The work itself is entertainment and therefore not necessary. "It's unnecessary" is an invalid criticism against any element of something that was primarily intended to be entertainment.
>>119796651 It's not MERELY a thing. That word is there for a reason. Not for me to sound pretentious. Also please do me a favor and point me to where I deny any symbolism. You didn't reference it in your post, and clearly I don't see it either.
Everything is unnecessary, but everything doesn't feel unnecessary or cheap. This does. I'm not just doing to this to have something to complain about. It's not a perfect show, I have complaints. Things are added and have effect.
If you want to judge this as entertainment, and not as a work of some merit then be my guest.
Every reply you make takes one or two points out of context. Calling me pretentious isn't making you look any better either. You sound like a retard talking about things you have background in.
>>119795125 >>119795885 >>119796520 Cheap reference is shit, but there is not cheap references here. A good reference have two possible functions: One, being a symbol to determinate the themes or to foreshadowing something, and two, showing the previous works that helped the autor and/or inspired him. More often both.
Yes, you can tell a story without references and symbols but that would be just a linear thing, symbolism and reference pledge the audience to interact with the work, to ask themself why is such thing there or to give them something new to notice after their first view.
>>119797014 It's still a thing. Everything else can be included under the category of "thing" as well, so thing is sufficient. You denied symbolism when you claimed that the series has to rely on references to establish its themes (as opposed to having enough support for them that they'd stand even without the references) and when you said intent is garbage.
>This does. No, it doesn't. Your feelings are wrong.
>as entertainment, and not as a work of some merit If "a work of some merit" means it's serving some practical purpose other than entertainment or profit, I'll continue to judge this as entertainment. If Ikuhara wants to change the world with a profound message, I'll consider that when the impact becomes apparent. Have fun trying to disagree with that after you said "It doesn't matter if someone is or isn't trying to do something."
>>119797835 >If "a work of some merit" means it's serving some practical purpose other than entertainment or profit, I'll continue to judge this as entertainment "Anime isn't art and can't be viewed as art"
>No, it doesn't. Your feelings are wrong. Fair point, disagree.
>Everything else can be included under the category of "thing" as well, so thing is sufficient. Changes the context of what I mean when I say it's not merely a thing. It's an improper comparison to say that because references to another work and references to something like an event or object are both references to things that they are equal. I already said why they are not, and if you want to disagree for some reason and ignore the fact that it's pre-established and independent, then do so.
>You denied symbolism when you claimed that the series has to rely on references to establish its themes (as opposed to having enough support for them that they'd stand even without the references) and when you said intent is garbage. I said from post 1 that it appropriated themes, not that it was a requirement to stand. I even said in >>119795125 that it could stand on its own. The only place i can even imaging you misinterpreting this is in >>119794669 when i said 'instead of finding a way to show its themes on its own'. That's not what I meant. I meant that the references should just be thrown out and had it solely rely on itself.
>>119798211 But Art is about entertainment, Anon. There are works that can make you a better person but it's not necessary, nor the commitment of art. That's why our society is still fucked up and why there are some assholes with good taste out there.
>>119798211 >"Anime isn't art and can't be viewed as art" Art and merit are different things.
An event or object can have associations or symbolic baggage. Those can be pre-established and independent. The differences between types of references aren't drastic enough to matter in this case.
>I meant that the references should just be thrown out and had it solely rely on itself. There's no benefit to throwing them out. If it's agreed that the references aren't being relied on at the expense of internal theme building, it's almost certain that the references wouldn't be replaced by anything more interesting.
So while these anons are having a pissing contest about the references can someone help me understand what the fuck I'm watching. I'm enjoying the gao-gao and cute art but this show is legitimately 2deep4me
The show is too inconsistent to make and logical conclusions. The characters are aware of the viewers and try to trick them too. Add in a bunch of references, symbolism and nonsense and you get one big incoherent mess. Well, that what you get when putting trust in Ikuhara.
>>119794669 The show on it's own does a good job of hinting that it has a point without the references. The flippant treatment of the otherwise dark subject and the link of homosexual behavior with killing is supposed to make the warning bells go off in your brain that the show is trying to tell you something. The visual and narrative dissonance is supposed to create a feeling that, failing to make you look deeper at the show, should make you question the particular purpose behind many directorial choices.
>>119799592 >The flippant treatment of the otherwise dark subject and the link of homosexual behavior with killing is supposed to make the warning bells go off in your brain that the show is trying to tell you something. It doesn't, it just makes me think how I want Office Romance: Women's Division OVA.
>>119799926 There is no OVA, it's a manga I want to have an OVA from Morishima Akiko. How can you watch something without being familiar with the past works of the staff? >>119799933 It's too early to tell, but it is working out better than I was expecting.
>>119799968 >I don't care about Ikuhara Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not be hasty. >Morishima will get more recognition and even an opportunity for a work of hers to get an anime of its own. I think it has, the release of the kindle version of her books was nicely timed. Stores are displaying her stuff with YKA books. I don't think it's too likely that any of her stuff will get an anime. As much as I think her stuff would be incredibly charming if animated right, romance-focused yuri doesn't seem to sell that well.
>>119800008 >How can you watch something without being familiar with the past works of the staff? Morishima's other stuff is pretty different from YKA, to be fair. >It's too early to tell, but it is working out better than I was expecting. As soon as they announced it, it clicked for me. They both have such a penchant for glamor and camp.
>>119800008 >How can you watch something without being familiar with the past works of the staff? I dunno maybe because it's the first thing that I watch where she is involved and because Anime and Manga Industries are so big that is not even possible to acknowledge all the remarkable people there and all their previous works.
>>119800318 Why I have to bother before I have seen something of her? And why you want to begin an argue? Because I didn't know about your favorite mangaka? That's silly, anon.
>>119800353 >will leave everything to viewers interpretation. Leaving some things to interpetation is not the same as leaving everything to interpretation. I honestly think that there are some series that leave lot more to interpretation than Ikuhara's shows.
>>119800493 >Why I have to bother before I have seen something of her? You don't, and all she really did for the anime was character design.
If you like the tone and style of the manga then you might want to check out her other stuff, but expect the stories to focus on the human experience without any fantastical trappings of YKA. She's great and I love her fanatically, but I disagree with the other anon that her stuff is required reading. I also wouldn't say "if you like YKA, then you'll like this".
>>119800803 Yes, and? You know people can watch more than one thing at a time, right? >>119800820 I'm not saying you have to read it, I'm saying you should google the main staff and see what else they've worked on in case it's name dropped in a thread.
>>119800990 >people can watch more than one thing at a time That you can watch more than one thing doesn't mean that you should watch something that it's not really interesting for you or it just have one aspect to compels you.
>you should google the main staff and see what else they've worked on in case it's name dropped in a thread. Threads are not jobs nor homeworks, Anon. Even if I do such thing, I would not remember all the members of all the main staffs for all the shows that I'm watching this season because I'm not interested in all that people.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.