[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

A good reviewer should be able to clearly place out points regardless if he hates it or not. Basically, one should try to keep excessive hate at the door and then pile it up later only when one has completed a logical argument.

Ideally, a review should let you know what the rating would be before seeing the final score. When a review doesn't provide that information, then it's not very good. At the same time, the reasoning for any arguments should also be laid out so they're clear and convincing. A point like "I don't like this show because it's not to my taste" can be used as a partial explanation, but it isn't convincing by itself.

Originally Posted by Flawnalyst

Was there some confusion with what I said earlier? Of course a show can be unoriginal and good at the same time by telling it well. I haven't seen The Magnificent Seven, but if it really does have entertaining scenes and the characters are good, then I could care less if it's a retelling. However, I have seen a lot of unoriginal media that don't do this, or even try to make its own creation as well. But worst of all is when that medium thinks it's being original when it's not. In that case, I say call it as unoriginal as you want.

My point is that weak works are weak not because they're unoriginal, but because of other factors. A side point is that a lot of anime fans are younger and have less experience with stories, and thus are more likely to talk up the importance of originality out of ignorance. An example of this is whenever anyone tries to claim that Mawaru Penguindrum has strong SHAFT influences.

Originally Posted by Flawnalyst

I didn't say that a show shouldn't give its customers what they want, but for it to truly stand out, it also has to give them what they didn't know they wanted. That means it still has to give them what they want while offering something new. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Your earlier points were clear, but I can't really agree with them. While it can be good to provide customers with the unexpected, this does not apply to all genres and all works. Moreover, some of the strongest material don't offer anything new or unexpected. The aforementioned Magnificent Seven is considered one of the best Westerns ever made, and Seven Samurai is a strong candidate for one of the best films ever made. They are so because of all the strong elements that go into them: the direction, soundtrack, acting, cinematography and so on. On the other end of the spectrum, Christopher Nolan's films rely very much on the "Aha!" moments, and would be examples of works that support your argument.

Originally Posted by Bri

Well said. When the viewing experience is reduced for that part of the audience who lack this specialized knowledge, and these viewers can be still be considered part of the intended audience, only then we can say that pandering is harmful.

I'd say that pandering is harmful when it's used in place of something that would be actually entertaining. Take Pani Poni Dash for example, it's a silly school comedy that has its moments. But instead of trying to set up funnier jokes, it would just put in random anime/manga/game references as if they're automatically funny. There comes a point where that kind of material just isn't any fun, and the producers didn't know where that point was.