Top 5 most overrated anime? (no flames pls!)

[Kirarakim]

I have to agree with those who said overrated has really just become another way of saying "I don't like this"! Obviously shows with very small fandoms are not going to be called overrated but I am sure every popular show at one time or another has been called overrated (and I am guilty of this myself when I don't like a popular series).

The thing is some shows are just going to be more well received and popular than others. It doesn't necessarily mean these shows are better than less popular series but it also doesn't necessarily mean they are overrated. You can't stop people from enjoying the shows they like. In fact I think people would be more willing to try less popular series if people weren't always telling them that what they like is so overrated.

[qtipbrit]

Haha.
Well, of the five I listed:
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann is my favourite mecha series.
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is my favourite comedy.
The first two-thirds of Death Note were among the best, well-written well-adapted arcs I've seen.
Code Geass is probably the most addicting action series I've watched.
Fullmetal Alchemist is probably the best 4+ cours shounen action anime I've seen.

@Mirrinus:
Things that are based on objective views can't breed discussion.

Code Geass and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann are both popular mecha anime from two pretty controversial studios.

Now argue against me.

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

I have to agree with those who said overrated has really just become another way of saying "I don't like this"!

A lot of people don't like... Rosario + Vampire.

Someone please tell it's overrated.

[Mirrinus]

Originally Posted by qtipbrit92

Haha.
Well, of the five I listed:
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann is my favourite mecha series.
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is my favourite comedy.
The first two-thirds of Death Note were among the best, well-written well-adapted arcs I've seen.
Code Geass is probably the most addicting action series I've watched.
Fullmetal Alchemist is probably the best 4+ cours shounen action anime I've seen.

Then I'm confused why you think each deserves less popularity than it has. If you consider these to be some of the best shows, and yet none deserves its popularity or praise, then logically, you likely think that no show deserves this much praise at all. Which I don't find very convincing.

Code Geass and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann are both popular mecha anime from two pretty controversial studios.

That's not an objective statement. "Popular" is a subjective term. "Controversial" is a subjective term. "Pretty" is a subjective qualifier. And I can easily argue that neither Gainax or Sunrise should be considered controversial, or contend whether or not each is popular relative to something else.

I've got nothing against discussion on subjective grounds. I merely ask that you actually give some reasons to back it up, because it's very hard for me to discuss anything without any details. Something's overrated? How so then? Or for what reason? By what criteria? It's hard to discuss anything without a proper foundation first.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by qtipbrit92

Code Geass and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann are both popular mecha anime from two pretty controversial studios.

It's still a subjective statement you've got there.

On what grounds do you consider Sunrise and Gainax to be controversial studios?

A lot of people don't like... Rosario + Vampire.

Someone please tell it's overrated.

"Another way" isn't "applicable in every single instance."

Edit: Mirrinus beat me to it, regardless, I'll add to his post:

"Overrated" is worse than a simple "I don't like this" because it inherently implies that not only you think the shows don't deserve to get the praise they're getting, you think the fans are wrong, objectively, for praising the shows as much as they do. Like I said, popularity polls don't lie.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Overrated is a fucking arrogant way of saying "I don't like this shit." It says: "These fans are stupid for liking what they like as much as they do; I know where it should stand in the All-Anime Rankings of All Time."

Careful there. I can only speak for myself and maybe my personally ideas of quality are terribly biased and wrong. But they are by no means identical with my personal preferences. In fact, I could name a quite few anime I like very much that I would place quite low in the All-Anime Rankings of All Time.

So that gives me the right, I think, to describe a popular anime as overrated. And when I do so be sure I can exactly tell you why I think the animation is bad, the characters are simple, the plot is full of holes, and why the whole thing appeals at the lowest instincts of the audience.

i normally wouldn't talk much about quality and I try to restrict myself to explictly subjective judgments (Read: "I like/I don't like") because anime is entertainment not cinematic art so "my animu is by objective standards better than your animu" pillow fights are pointless. I'm willing pull apart any crappy anime with glee, though, when somebody else tries to elevate them over the rest. Especially when it comes from the "when anime was still Macross, anime was much better" faction.

But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in objective quality differences. Sorry pal, Britney Spears is not Bach and never was. And when understanding that makes you elitist then I'm proud to be elitist.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Or sometimes people actually like the piece, but seeing that it's very popular, find it necessary to preserve their e-penis/anti-mainstream credentials by bashing the stuff just to seem sophisticated.

This is quite a funny argument from somebody who goes lengths to acquire cartoons in a foreign language via the internet when 1000 TV channels with much, much, much more popular game shows, daily soaps, and pro wrestling matches are right at his fingertips. Are you watching anime only because it makes you look sophisticated compared to Joe Sixpack?

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Remember: popularity polls are never wrong

Popularity polls are polls to determine popularity. That's why they're called popularity polls. They are neither "right" nor "wrong".

[KholdStare]

What Irenicus said, while maybe over the line, is somewhat true. Very often do I hear people who don't like a certain show call it overrated, but only once in a while will I see a fan admitting that his or her favorite show is overrated. You may not go with the hype if you like the series, but there's no reason to be actively against it either. But if you don't like the series, then you have more of a reason to express discontent.

However, what I don't like is people who "switched sides" because of hype. I understand that a series might be so overhyped that your expectations are already too high before you watched a series and then you might end up not liking it. But if you already like it, then other people's responses shouldn't make you hate it. My top ten list contains overrated and underrated anime, and those "tags" never once changed my opinion of those series. How much you like a series shouldn't affect how much I like a series, and more importantly, vice versa.

[qtipbrit]

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

Then I'm confused why you think each deserves less popularity than it has. If you consider these to be some of the best shows, and yet none deserves its popularity or praise, then logically, you likely think that no show deserves this much praise at all. Which I don't find very convincing.

That one likes a certain series doesn't mean that they think that it should receive the recognition it does. While I like all of these series, I still find myself rolling my eyes when people cart them as "ZOMG T3H BEST ANIME EVAR!!!!".
Death Note is a well-thought, well-written, and gripping manga that was adapted into an anime very well for the first two-thirds. Intelligent? Maybe. Psychological? No. Original? Definitely not.
Haruhi. Entertaining? Maybe. Unusual? Definitely. Groundbreaking? No.
On and on from there.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

That's not an objective statement. "Popular" is a subjective term. "Controversial" is a subjective term. "Pretty" is a subjective qualifier. And I can easily argue that neither Gainax or Sunrise should be considered controversial, or contend whether or not each is popular relative to something else.

Popular is much less of a subjective term than "subjective" itself.
A lot of people knowz it. A lot of people liek it. A four year old (native English speaker) can get it. You bring up that when used relatively, the two may not be as popular as some other series. Of course, relatively, there are thousands of lesser known and lesser recognised series.
Controversial defines is the clash of subjective thought from a wide array of people. Now, once everyone has noticed that this "clash of subjective thought", is it subjective any longer? HOW controversial something is may be subjective, but if any amount of controversy surrounds something, it is controversial. One can say that "Neither studio creates much controversy", but you cannot say that "Neither studio creates any controversy".
The fact that you're discussing whether or not something creates controversy is already proof that it's controversial enough for people to discuss it.
And yes, "pretty" is pretty subjective. While the extent to which your "pretty" denotes something may be different from mine, "pretty" implies, again, that to some extent, something is (insert adjective here).

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

I've got nothing against discussion on subjective grounds. I merely ask that you actually give some reasons to back it up, because it's very hard for me to discuss anything without any details. Something's overrated? How so then? Or for what reason? By what criteria? It's hard to discuss anything without a proper foundation first.

As I've said, a discussion bound by objectivity is no longer a discussion, but a lecture.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

It's still a subjective statement you've got there.

On what grounds do you consider Sunrise and Gainax to be controversial studios?

How have you not noticed that Sunrise and Gainax are controversial?
(Well, I guess Sunrise hasn't caused nearly as much controversy as Gainax, so yes, that was a subjective statement)

The term "Gainax ending" itself is proof enough, and what happened between Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann's episodes three and five and the reactions to it are "controversial" in almost everyone's book.
The Gundam franchise has caused a good amount of... discussion both in Japan and overseas. Seed, Seed Destiny. The US reaction to Gundam. Figures being marketed and how it affects the series itself. et cetera.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

"Another way" isn't "applicable in every single instance."

Do you need another hundred examples? Because we should be able to think of at least twice as many.

There is a good amount of "pure crap" that will not be labeled as "overrated" because it receives no praise at all.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

"Overrated" is worse than a simple "I don't like this" because it inherently implies that not only you think the shows don't deserve to get the praise they're getting, you think the fans are wrong, objectively, for praising the shows as much as they do. Like I said, popularity polls don't lie.

Of course, claiming something is "overrated", it does not imply that you "don't like this".
And yes, it does imply that object A receives more praise than it deserves, but it doesn't imply that object A is bad in the first place.
Anything overrated must have been good to some degree to have been able to receive any sort of praise, but when praise received is disproportionate (based on 97.6% subjective thought), it is labeled as "overrated".

@KholdSecks: You bring up that last point too often.
It's usually people who think themselves to be special, unique, etc.
Now that something they like is popular and everyone else likes it too, they can't bear to like it, because they have superior taste and can't be compared to lesser mortals, amirite?
But yes, it's rather stupid.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Careful there. I can only speak for myself and maybe my personally ideas of quality are terribly biased and wrong. But they are by no means identical with my personal preferences. In fact, I could name a quite few anime I like very much that I would place quite low in the All-Anime Rankings of All Time.

Unfortunately a lot of people just don't think this way. Any series they like is an automatic 10 and perfect. The idea that something they like could suck is a foriegn concept. The concept of objectivity just doesn't occur to many.

[Mirrinus]

Originally Posted by qtipbrit92

That one likes a certain series doesn't mean that they think that it should receive the recognition it does. While I like all of these series, I still find myself rolling my eyes when people cart them as "ZOMG T3H BEST ANIME EVAR!!!!".

You don't think other people possess the discernment and intelligence to think for themselves and choose what they believe to be the best anime? I'm not so sure that your judgment of their opinion is any more valid than their judgment of how good a particular show is. Perhaps in their eyes, it really is the best anime ever, and they may certainly have the reasons to back it up.

I personally would rather take the issue of "overrated" on a case-by-case basis, not just for the show, but for the person rating the show as well. If the fans of the show can present solid reasons for why they rate the show the way that they did, then I wouldn't consider it overrated. If the show really did have the most likable characters, enjoyable plot, and production values of any show they've seen, then it might as well be the best anime in the world for them. I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, maybe they haven't seen something else that could potentially be better. If so, then I trust that the person's opinion would change in the future after seeing that "something else". But if not, then I'd assume that that "something else" really wasn't any better in this particular person's eyes anyway. So long as such opinions of many of a show's fans are substantiated, I have no reason to call the show overrated (or, conversely, underrated).

Would I ever disagree with a person's reasons for a show being good or not? Absolutely. But then again, my own standards for what makes a good show are just as arbitrary as anyone elses, so while such discussions could be fruitful and interesting, I bear no insistance that my own such ideas should govern a show's worth for anyone else.

Popular is much less of a subjective term than "subjective" itself.
A lot of people knowz it. A lot of people liek it. A four year old (native English speaker) can get it. You bring up that when used relatively, the two may not be as popular as some other series. Of course, relatively, there are thousands of lesser known and lesser recognised series.

I know it's completely pointless to continue this argument, but I'm a compulsive debater. It's really a bad habit of mine that I should cut back on, but I can't resist...

If "popular" really is "less subjective", then you should be able to define it using objective terms. "A lot of people" is subjective, because you didn't define for us what "a lot" means; my idea of "a lot" can be very different from your idea of "a lot". "Like" is similarly a subjective term. I don't believe that a particular word is objective or subjective in it of itself; its context determines much of its quality. Because you didn't define "popular" in your original context, it remains a wholly subjective term that I can't even begin to discuss without putting it in some sort of relative context of my own. If you were to specify a relative context for the term as you used it, you would have greatly reduced its subjectiveness. Relative to, say, The Daughter of Twenty Faces, Code Geass would indeed be more popular.

Controversial defines is the clash of subjective thought from a wide array of people. Now, once everyone has noticed that this "clash of subjective thought", is it subjective any longer? HOW controversial something is may be subjective, but if any amount of controversy surrounds something, it is controversial. One can say that "Neither studio creates much controversy", but you cannot say that "Neither studio creates any controversy".

It certainly does remain subjective if you have to keep using subjective definitions to define terms that you insist aren't subjective. "Wide array of people" is subjective for the same reasons as "a lot of people" was. "Everyone" is subjective because this is an exaggeration on your behalf. If "controversial" really did apply equally well to everything with even a hint of controversy, then I'd contend that it's a completely worthless term in the first place without a qualifier. And within your context, with the qualifier "pretty", I'd say that "controversial" was indeed subjective. Within another context, perhaps the word may not be subjective, but we're not talking about any other contexts here, are we?

Regardless, if you consider "subjective" to be a subjective term (which you certainly seem to do, given your previous response), then "controversial" is subjective for the exact same reason.

The fact that you're discussing whether or not something creates controversy is already proof that it's controversial enough for people to discuss it.

The fact that I'm discussing whether or not these studios are controversial is proof that your statement is controversial (and thus subjective). Whether or not the studio can be considered controversial to any notable degree is not dependant upon the statements of a single person. Dependant on the statements of many people, sure, but you've hardly demonstrated that.

As I've said, a discussion bound by objectivity is no longer a discussion, but a lecture.

Actually, I've personally found many lectures to be highly subjective (lousy liberal Berkeley professors, lol).

I'd contend that truly subjective statements are the least useful for a discussion. Why? Because they're so open to interpretations that they breed misunderstanding. What's the point of discussion, really? Is it not done in the hopes of changing someone else's opinion? I personally think it is; otherwise, it'd be nothing more than the fruitless activity of arrogant windbags who want nothing more than to listen to themselves talk (i.e., us). Thus, to have a fruitful discussion, I think it's important to try to make the effort to reduce subjectivity, whether by stating proper context for terms, or by providing evidence of any sort to bolster claims.

How have you not noticed that Sunrise and Gainax are controversial?

I can't answer that statement until you qualify what you mean by "pretty controversial". I'm not saying that they lack all controversy whatsoever, but how can you be so certain that I'd agree to call them "pretty controversial"? Your original context used "controversial" as a subjective term, that's all I'm saying. In this new version of your question, perhaps it's different, but I don't think that's what my previous post was referring to, eh?

Anyway, pardon this old wretch for shamelessly continuing this meaningless feud.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Careful there. I can only speak for myself and maybe my personally ideas of quality are terribly biased and wrong. But they are by no means identical with my personal preferences. In fact, I could name a quite few anime I like very much that I would place quite low in the All-Anime Rankings of All Time.

So that gives me the right, I think, to describe a popular anime as overrated. And when I do so be sure I can exactly tell you why I think the animation is bad, the characters are simple, the plot is full of holes, and why the whole thing appeals at the lowest instincts of the audience.

i normally wouldn't talk much about quality and I try to restrict myself to explictly subjective judgments (Read: "I like/I don't like") because anime is entertainment not cinematic art so "my animu is by objective standards better than your animu" pillow fights are pointless. I'm willing pull apart any crappy anime with glee, though, when somebody else tries to elevate them over the rest. Especially when it comes from the "when anime was still Macross, anime was much better" faction.

But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in objective quality differences. Sorry pal, Britney Spears is not Bach and never was. And when understanding that makes you elitist then I'm proud to be elitist.

Well, good for you for being sensible and dividing subjective and objective arguments. I don't see most of the posts in this thread to follow your line of thinking. Of course objective quality differences exist; but do you see most of them here exerting their thoughts on that? It's usually "I hate this show, so I can't see why this becomes so popular..." well, you don't, but it is popular, and people like it! We're not asking you to agree with everything everyone said, but please don't tell us our opinions are wrong just because! There's nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in a show, write a review even if you're itching for it; you can even make a subjective judgment after you went through your objective points, just make sure to make it clear -- but please keep that judgment only on the show and off the fans.

*general "you" obviously*

Moreover, are you sure you want to use the word "overrated?" How about something better which only deals with the show itself and not the reaction of the fanbase?

This is quite a funny argument from somebody who goes lengths to acquire cartoons in a foreign language via the internet when 1000 TV channels with much, much, much more popular game shows, daily soaps, and pro wrestling matches are right at his fingertips. Are you watching anime only because it makes you look sophisticated compared to Joe Sixpack?

I'm not sure this part is even trying to refute what I said. I watch anime because I like anime; what about it?

Furthermore, what does that have to do with pointing out how some people act? It's even more interesting when they return and try to reinvent their posts by saying, "well, I actually liked the show, but I also think it's overrated." There's usually no "because" after that; a suspicious absence.

And no, that's not a shot at qtipbrit92 if anyone's wondering.

Popularity polls are polls to determine popularity. That's why they're called popularity polls. They are neither "right" nor "wrong".

You've got the point. Popularity polls say what they say: "this is what those who voted in this poll like." In no way does that make an anime that is popular overrated. Does that mean I couldn't think that the show is shallow, flawed, or completely distasteful? Of course not: popularity doesn't always correlate with objective quality. It just means I disagree with the majority, which is perfectly fine as long as I don't start acting like I'm the right one and they're a bunch of thoughtless monkeys for thinking the way they do, which is how *most* people used "overrated." I think I'm allowed to be pissed at that, no? They're not just dissing my favorite shows after all, they're saying I suck for liking them.

[qtipbrit]

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

You don't think other people possess the discernment and intelligence to think for themselves and choose what they believe to be the best anime? I'm not so sure that your judgment of their opinion is any more valid than their judgment of how good a particular show is. Perhaps in their eyes, it really is the best anime ever, and they may certainly have the reasons to back it up.

What I'm said was the complete opposite. They choose for themselves, not for others. I like Haruhi, but I know that there are better series, and it isn't the most revolutionary, original, and life-changing anime ever.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

If the show really did have the most likable characters, enjoyable plot, and production values of any show they've seen, then it might as well be the best anime in the world for them. I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, maybe they haven't seen something else that could potentially be better. If so, then I trust that the person's opinion would change in the future after seeing that "something else". But if not, then I'd assume that that "something else" really wasn't any better in this particular person's eyes anyway. So long as such opinions of many of a show's fans are substantiated, I have no reason to call the show overrated (or, conversely, underrated).

While I agree that people's opinions on different anime differ in areas that depend purely on subjective experiences (liking characters, enjoying the series), things like plot depth, production values, originality, etc. aren't as subjective, though the fact is that not everyone factors in all of these when forming an opinion of an anime.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

Would I ever disagree with a person's reasons for a show being good or not? Absolutely. But then again, my own standards for what makes a good show are just as arbitrary as anyone elses, so while such discussions could be fruitful and interesting, I bear no insistance that my own such ideas should govern a show's worth for anyone else.

Disagreeing with reasons for liking something is quite pointless. I doubt you can convince a Code Geass fan to like Full Metal Panic! more, but you can argue that Full Metal Panic!'s sequels had higher production values, a more satisfying ending, and less emoface.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

I know it's completely pointless to continue this argument, but I'm a compulsive debater. It's really a bad habit of mine that I should cut back on, but I can't resist...

From here on, it's mostly pointing out the subjectivity of random terms...

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

"A lot of people" is subjective, because you didn't define for us what "a lot" means; my idea of "a lot" can be very different from your idea of "a lot".

I assumed a fluent English speaker would have their own definition for "a lot", anywhere more than a median amount, and however you define your "a lot", it's definitely more than something else. (which is the main point of "a lot" isn't it?)

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

"Like" is similarly a subjective term. I don't believe that a particular word is objective or subjective in it of itself; its context determines much of its quality.

While "like" may be subjective, I assume that you understand that liking something would probably have you holding it in high regard.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

Because you didn't define "popular" in your original context, it remains a wholly subjective term that I can't even begin to discuss without putting it in some sort of relative context of my own. If you were to specify a relative context for the term as you used it, you would have greatly reduced its subjectiveness. Relative to, say, The Daughter of Twenty Faces, Code Geass would indeed be more popular.

Well, I believe you understand that more people are interested in Code Geass this season than anything else (except maybe Macross Frontier.)
As for a concrete as possible definition for a relative adjective - let's just say for now that a "popular" series is one that is more well-known than the majority of other series. How about the top 1-5% of the spectrum to be clearer?

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

It certainly does remain subjective if you have to keep using subjective definitions to define terms that you insist aren't subjective. "Wide array of people" is subjective for the same reasons as "a lot of people" was.

It's large enough to have people questioning its concreteness, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

"Everyone" is subjective because this is an exaggeration on your behalf.

Obviously, everyone involved. 6-year old Timothy Graham living in Kent doesn't care whether or not Gainax is controversial. Hell, he doesn't care if Gainax was the modern Japanese communist party seeking to take control of all of East Asia.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

If "controversial" really did apply equally well to everything with even a hint of controversy, then I'd contend that it's a completely worthless term in the first place without a qualifier. And within your context, with the qualifier "pretty", I'd say that "controversial" was indeed subjective. Within another context, perhaps the word may not be subjective, but we're not talking about any other contexts here, are we?

As I've said, subjectivity in the term "pretty" is needed to allow others to have their own level of understanding, as unfortunately, I can't whip out my controversameter to measure the level of deter among peoples' opinions revolving around Gainax.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

The fact that I'm discussing whether or not these studios are controversial is proof that your statement is controversial (and thus subjective). Whether or not the studio can be considered controversial to any notable degree is not dependant upon the statements of a single person. Dependant on the statements of many people, sure, but you've hardly demonstrated that.

Are we a single person?
Last I checked, it usually takes more than one person to have varying opinions on something (unless dissociative identity is involved, though there can be no discussion between one and oneself in such a situation).
I'm quite sure that many have their own opinions on Gainax and its happenings, but as I've said, my controversameter is malfunctioning at this time, and people don't seem to be promulgating their ideas on the controversy or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

Actually, I've personally found many lectures to be highly subjective (lousy liberal Berkeley professors, lol).

How about a lecture on a less ehh... debatable subject?
Say.. lower level mathematics. There's not much to be argued there.
1 + 1 = 2, and that's what they'll have you believe.

And yes, all those liberals in California are mehh.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

I'd contend that truly subjective statements are the least useful for a discussion. Why? Because they're so open to interpretations that they breed misunderstanding.

Obviously. It would be difficult to have a tasteful discussion on the Jessica Alba's hotness:
Person A: Hott!
Person B: No!
Person C: She's decent.
Person D: Hott!
Person B: No!
Person E: She's decent.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

What's the point of discussion, really? Is it not done in the hopes of changing someone else's opinion? I personally think it is; otherwise, it'd be nothing more than the fruitless activity of arrogant windbags who want nothing more than to listen to themselves talk (i.e., us).

Oh, whoops.

Ah, but we're probably aware that it's rather difficult to change one's opinion if they're willing to argue or debate over it. I doubt you can convince me that... I forget what we're arguing about, but I don't think you can change my mind.
Most discussions are for self-satisfaction, but it's moreso to convince those listening in on (or reading through) it to favour one side or the other.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

Thus, to have a fruitful discussion, I think it's important to try to make the effort to reduce subjectivity, whether by stating proper context for terms, or by providing evidence of any sort to bolster claims.

True, but the effort to reduce subjectivity seems to bring upon more subjective thought, and as I said, objective claims are rarely argued well (except when arguing the objectivity of said claims).

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

I can't answer that statement until you qualify what you mean by "pretty controversial". I'm not saying that they lack all controversy whatsoever, but how can you be so certain that I'd agree to call them "pretty controversial"? Your original context used "controversial" as a subjective term, that's all I'm saying. In this new version of your question, perhaps it's different, but I don't think that's what my previous post was referring to, eh?

I'd say "controversial to any extent that exceeds just minor quips used out of context"
In which case, it narrows down the list of "controversial subjects" quite a bit, but is still huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge, which is the way it should be.

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

Anyway, pardon this old wretch for shamelessly continuing this meaningless feud.

And pardon me for following you.

This is making me hungry.

[Mirrinus]

You know, all I was asking for you to do was to define your terms. By placing concrete constraints such as "top 1-5% of the spectrum" on the meaning of your terms, you've succeeded in making your statement less subjective. Which was really the whole point of this exercise; to determine the subjectiveness of your initial statement in its context. Once a term is properly defined, it loses some of its subjectiveness simply because now everyone can refer to the same definition for this particular incident, whether or not we'd use that definition at any other time.

I'm sure someone out there would be interested in actually arguing over whether those studios are controversial, but I honestly couldn't care less. This was just some meaningless fun over the nature of the subjective.

[qtipbrit]

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

You know, all I was asking for you to do was to define your terms. By placing concrete constraints such as "top 1-5% of the spectrum" on the meaning of your terms, you've succeeded in making your statement less subjective. Which was really the whole point of this exercise; to determine the subjectiveness of your initial statement in its context. Once a term is properly defined, it loses some of its subjectiveness simply because now everyone can refer to the same definition for this particular incident, whether or not we'd use that definition at any other time.

I'm sure someone out there would be interested in actually arguing over whether those studios are controversial, but I honestly couldn't care less. This was just some meaningless fun over the nature of the subjective.

Yeah, I kind of noticed we were a bit off-topic (just a bit.)

While it was enlightening (to some extent), though like most of the stuff we do on this forum, completely useless.
It's sometimes useful to use a dictionary, but I don't see the point. It's much more fun to define words yourself, that way you can use them however you want.

[Reckoner]

Wow, so many different posts that are quite lengthy! I guess I won't quote anyone in particular, but I shall post my thoughts of this argument going on.

People don't really seem to understand what "overrated" really is. In general, a "Insert whatever you want here" is considered overrated by someone when they do not find it to be as good as the general consensus (A good majority). This is not to say that these people dislike the show, but they don't think as highly of it as other people.

Stipulating the technicalities of certain words such as "popular" is just pointless. This is not some statistics survey where the wording of the question can actually influence the results significantly. People understand what we are talking about, the subjectiveness is almost irrelevant to the point.

When I look it at this way, I don't see what this argument really is about.

Anyway, just some of my random points and thoughts:

• People have a right to express that they think their opinion is better than others. We can respect the fact that this is their opinion, but it does not mean we have to respect the opinion itself.
  
• There is such a thing as a "better" opinion believe it or not. If there wasn't, we might as well start bringing in things like racism back into the mainstream as the new cool ideas.
  
• This whole "overrated" issue is an endless debate. It is like the people who complain about such award ceremonies like the Oscars. Why are the most successful movies not always winning? "No Country for Old Men didn't make squat in money compared to Wild Hogs! Why does that movie deserve to win?"

Now while we are on the topic, here are the five anime I consider grotesquely overrated:

Kanon 2006 (I like it, but it wasn't amazing)
Clannad (I'm borderline disliking this show actually)
Air (It was an okay show, nothing spectacular)
Full Metal Panic (Dreadfully boring comedy after like 10 episodes, mecha battles are meh)
Death Note (I was very entertained by this show, but when it all comes down to it for me, it is but a thriller.)

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Unfortunately a lot of people just don't think this way. Any series they like is an automatic 10 and perfect. The idea that something they like could suck is a foriegn concept. The concept of objectivity just doesn't occur to many.

I wouldn't deny that. But I'm sure you'll find this attitude more often among fans of shows I'd call overrated.

Originally Posted by KholdStare

However, what I don't like is people who "switched sides" because of hype. I understand that a series might be so overhyped that your expectations are already too high before you watched a series and then you might end up not liking it. But if you already like it, then other people's responses shouldn't make you hate it.

Actually, I don't know where you find such people. Can you show me somebody actually saying "I used to like this show but now I hate it because it became popular even though the show itself is the same."? I'd be surprised. So I conclude this is merely your interpretation.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I'm not sure this part is even trying to refute what I said. I watch anime because I like anime; what about it?

Yes, and some people watch non-mainstream anime because they like non-mainstream anime. What about that? So when it comes to mainstream anime and you accuse such people to ...

Originally Posted by Irenicus

actually like the piece, but seeing that it's very popular, find it necessary to preserve their e-penis/anti-mainstream credentials by bashing the stuff just to seem sophisticated.

you better come up with some solid proofs. Otherwise you're coming across like somebody who just can't bear the thought that people might really exist who have the experience to develop a refined taste to hover just a millimeter above the lowest common denominator. When somebody tells me he doesn't like a popular show I first of all assume he means what he says.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

"Overrated" is worse than a simple "I don't like this" because it inherently implies that not only you think the shows don't deserve to get the praise they're getting, you think the fans are wrong, objectively, for praising the shows as much as they do. Like I said, popularity polls don't lie.

Calling a show overrated means that you think it is rated higher than it objectively[*] deserves. Nothing more nothing less. It doesn't inherently imply anything. Fans aren't "wrong" because they have no obligation to watch high quality shows. When I say a show you're watching is crap you can for example
a) reply "Yes, indeed.",
b) argue that I am the one who's not getting what the show is actually about or
c) simply don't care.
But you can't get all offended about it. Fans will have to live with their favorite shows being called overrated. I can live with that too and might not even argue against it. I wonder why you are so touchy while you're throwing around phrases like "fucking arrogant troll" in generalizing statements.

[*] An objective quality scale exists. It's not as exact and more fuzzy than a temperature scale but quality is not just a subjective illusion either. I'm not claiming that I have privileged access to this scale; I'm always open to arguments especially when they come from people more experienced in that matter or wiser than myself. The scale is a product of society, it's not defined by democratic vote though.

[Mirrinus]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Calling a show overrated means that you think it is rated higher than it objectively[*] deserves. Nothing more nothing less. It doesn't inherently imply anything. Fans aren't "wrong" because they have no obligation to watch high quality shows. When I say a show you're watching is crap you can for example
a) reply "Yes, indeed.",
b) argue that I am the one who's not getting what the show is actually about or
c) simply don't care.
But you can't get all offended about it. Fans will have to live with their favorite shows being called overrated. I can live with that too and might not even argue against it. I wonder why you are so touchy while you're throwing around phrases like "fucking arrogant troll" in generalizing statements.

I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, as I do think "overrated" is a term used more to attack the fans of a show than the show itself, especially from an empirical perspective. "Overrated" isn't necessarily just a statement about the quality of a show, but the relative degree of praise people have for that particular show. By calling a show overrated, you are inherently implying that you yourself think the people who are praising the show are wrong in their praises. Whether or not this is absolutely true is beside the point. It's really a rather subtle difference between attacking the fans and attacking the show, but that difference is quite significant if you want to show proper tact in such discussions.

There are really two ways to go about making the same statement. One way is to call a show overrated. This would be a statement about the judgment that others have shown. If you were to keep the quality of a show at a constant, but change the variable of how much praise fans give it, then you can change whether or not a show can be considered overrated. Yes, "overrated" is also a statement about the quality of the show as well, but it is always in relation to the judgment of the fans. This is why people can easily take offense to having a show called "overrated": because it's a statement about the quality of their judgment.

Now, the other way to go about making a similar statement, but in a much more tactful manner, is to simply criticize the show itself, without making any explicit statements as to whether or not the fans like the show. I can freely criticize a show for having poor production values, badly executed plot, dull characters, or messy pacing, without making any statement as to whether or not the fans like the show to any degree. A good test is to see if a statement of criticism can apply equally well to a popular show as to an unpopular show. If it can, then it's likely not a statement related to the judgment of other people. Another test is to see if the criticism you're making works equally well in a vacuum; that is, if you were the only person to have ever seen the show before, would the criticism still stand? I think this is an important aspect to consider, as it lets you essentially get the same point across without stepping on other people's toes. I also like this method because it allows others to form or revise their own judgment in light of your argument, instead of making a statement about their previous judgment beforehand.

I've also found that empirically speaking, the latter method works better in discussions because it fundamentally keeps you accountable to provide reasons and evidence to justify your statement. It's a lot easier to just call a show "overrated" and stop than it is to give examples of flaws in a show, because most people who make such a statement seem to assume that the reasons go without saying. In fact, I think the vast majority of this very thread is proof enough of that. It's also a lot harder to argue that a show is not overrated than it is to argue that a show's quality isn't that bad, which is probably why people feel comfortable making simple, unsubstantiated statements like "Show X is overrated." It's more or less just taking refuge in an unfalsifiable position. But the problem is, "overrated" is a conclusion, not an argument. And conclusions don't stand very well on their own.

So basically, while I do agree that people have to learn to just deal with others calling shows "overrated", I also think it's perfectly reasonable and justified for a person to take offense at the statement. After all, no matter how true it is, it really is just poor tact. There are better ways of making the same criticism.

Conversely, though, it seems like people need to learn to just deal with others liking a show more than they do, without having to make statements like "overrated". Isn't it enough to just justify your own opinion of the show? Labeling something as "overrated" does nothing to justify your own opinion, really.

[Ice Block]

I'm a bit sleepy right now, but I just happened upon a line I couldn't resist giving remarks to.

Originally Posted by qtipbrit92

I like Haruhi, but I know that there are better series, and it isn't the most revolutionary, original, and life-changing anime ever.

Hmmm.. then tell me, WTF is

Originally Posted by qtipbrit92

the most revolutionary, original, and life-changing anime ever

?
Give me an answer, and someone is bound to disagree.

-----

Anyway...

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Actually, I don't know where you find such people. Can you show me somebody actually saying "I used to like this show but now I hate it because it became popular even though the show itself is the same."? I'd be surprised. So I conclude this is merely your interpretation.

Most prominent example: Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu. Need samples? Check The Total Series Rating of Haruhi Suzumiya or the general Haruhi sub-forum, and also some posts in Anime you hate but everyone seems to like? and Anime you love but everyone else hates? XD.

Also, I believe Clannad is more overhyped than overrated. I always thought the general consensus of non-game players was that the ending outright sucked, and the After Story (which some consider to be filler material ) won't be able to redeem the show.

[Ithekro]

Somehow I doubt Full Metal Panic got its "overhype" from the original. Fumoffu on the other hand is just really funny. From that point I can see "overhype" happening.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Mirrinus

I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, as I do think "overrated" is a term used more to attack the fans of a show than the show itself, especially from an empirical perspective. "Overrated" isn't necessarily just a statement about the quality of a show, but the relative degree of praise people have for that particular show. By calling a show overrated, you are inherently implying that you yourself think the people who are praising the show are wrong in their praises. Whether or not this is absolutely true is beside the point. It's really a rather subtle difference between attacking the fans and attacking the show, but that difference is quite significant if you want to show proper tact in such discussions.

I am sorry, but I can't help but feel that you are overreacting to the word "overrated". Specifically, you are getting to hung up on the idea that overrated is singularly an anti-trendies word, that you are refusing to see it as anything other than a negative word. A person claims something as overrated when their opinion of the show/etc is significantly lower than the mass opinion...no more and no less. True this person could be claiming that a show is overrated for malicious reasons (as you say, to belittle others for liking said product), but it is also as likely that they simply do not understand why others like the specific show/etc or what others like about a specific show. The latter reason is not an attack, it is merely a question of validity concerning one's love for said debated product (in this case an animated television show/movie).

I had more to say, but all of these long posts are a bit much, so here are a list of 5 shows I consider overrated (they are in no real order), these are all good shows that, for various reasons, I have specific problems with that cause me to have a slightly lower opinion of the shows than others:

1.) Fullmetal Alchemist - solid story with a solid set of characters that has bad pacing and an overly heavyhanded view on various troubling issues. The pacing was really the thing that killed me, though. Not so much that there were many loose ends, so much as there were many episodes that felt too rushed and uneven, especially the first and last 15 episodes (so 30 episodes are unevenly paced).

2.) Death Note - Light Yagimi is simply too unsympathetic while at the same time not psychotic enough for me to care at all about him, and it is never a good sign if an audience member is simply ambivalent and ampathetic to the main characters fate. Added to that the philosophical/metaphysical underpinning arguments of the show are simply too simplistic to adequetly explain the various situations. That being said, the show is a wonderful reflection of its genre and genre constraints, even if I could never care if the main character was caught or not.

3.) Crayon Shin-chan - I know this is Japan's Family Guy (to give an overly simplistic analogy that is actually false considering that Shin-chan came out some 8 years before Family Guy), but come on, the short nature of the various stories and the often repeated jokes are simply too much for a series that is so popular. That being said, the show is still cute and once in a while extraordinarily funny.

4.) Detective Conan - I never thought it would be possible for a series to repeat the same story ad infinitum and still be so successful. Detective Conan makes Shin-chan seem fresh and constantly inventive. That being said, the show is often quite enjoyable and the stories, while ridiculously simplistic, are nicely explained and often fun to figure out. My greatest compliment for the show is the fact that it is a great show to watch in a group.

5.) hmmm...I don't really have a 5th pick...perhapes Pokemon, but well, I do not think it is overrated (even though it is still quite a popular show), rather I simply dislike the show so it does not deserve to be on this list...I will fill this in later.

[Vegard Aune]

Originally Posted by Ice Block

Also, I believe Clannad is more overhyped than overrated. I always thought the general consensus of non-game players was that the ending outright sucked, and the After Story (which some consider to be filler material ) won't be able to redeem the show.

Well, I didn't play the game, and I didn't even notice any problems with the ending before I'd seen the entire show twice. But then again, I don't really tend to THINK much when watching anime anyway...
And on the topic of "Overrated is just another way of saying that the show sucks", I consider myself a fan of four out of the five shows I mentioned, so that's not necessarily true. "I think this show is overrated" doesn't necessarily mean "I think this show is crap", although I'm sure some people think that way too.