No, I don't consider AzuDa an "archetype definer". I was using it to discuss a specific aspect of material adaptation (scene shifts). AzuDa took 4-koma material and stitched it together in a fairly smooth fashion whereas Lucky*Star seemed to relish the discontinuous shifts.
AzuDa the manga, was also intended of be of fixed length (duration of high school experience) whereas Lucky*Star, the manga is more ambiguous in that respect (it'll be over when the readership falls sufficiently).
I'll agree that we probably could have snipped six or seven episodes of the AzuDa series and amped it up --- but since the apparent goal of the animation was pretty much to mirror the 4-koma page by page we got a number of "slow odd" episodes that many describe as boring.
No, "taking the production seriously" wasn't meant that it should be more like AzuDa or any so-called archetype, just that there were a number of aspects of production which had me wondering about their intent in bringing L*S to the screen. It seemed a conflicting mixed bag of intent considering how much wasn't actually "Lucky*Star".
I love watching Lucky*Star, I am faithfully buying the anime DVDs and I have spent a lot of money on the merchandise (manga, CDs, and figures) ... but it doesn't mean I'm a 'fanboi' that can see no flaw or that 'defends it to the death'.
On a separate note, thought experiment for people: Imagine being an adult and wandering around in a park, zoo, or museum. You see a heart-splittingly cute junior high school girl and would like to take her picture to cherish the memory. You think it marvelous that such things exist in the world. Are you a lolicon or pedophile?
Or perhaps someone who just appreciates "cute"....?
