Quote:
|
Originally Posted by deathkillz
Leaving bad adaptions aside, if we are still talking about Louise I don't think that has anything to do with my dislike (as I do admit that some episodes were enjoyable, and even touching from S2). But the hate from me comes down to the fact that her character is just so annoying. Unless the novel/originals show her character in such a different light that she is just separable from her anime counterpart, but that is unlikely or feel free to tell me otherwise
/derail
|
What the anime shows of Louise is unfortunately the least attractive of Louise's character, yes. Thing is, the anime focusses too much on that side of her because the storytelling has long ago crumbled into its own direction that can only make slight references to the original. The anime also fails to explain why Louise has that side of a character or where some of the stuff originates from. Saito started getting treated as a dog when
The novels won't change your view much on that side to Louise, but it's a mistake to think that's all there is to Louise. Saito is a sane (though somewhat dumb) man - he wouldn't fall for her if that really was all there was to her.
On that note, we come to Siesta. People got confused with how she suddenly got bolder in S2 than in S1. This is mostly the anime's fault for not showing Siesta properly at the start. It's like Touka in Utawarerumono - in the game it's blatantly obvious she's a Justice-obsessed Dojikko with a mountain of Moe. The anime couldn't do anything until 4 eps after her introduction and even then it was so short a glimpse that they needed to dedicate half the DVD specials to her to apologise. I could go on and on, moving onto Negima, etc but I'll cut short here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cytrus
I see that you've at least managed to convince yourself of those fine numbers (99%, right) by repeating the thesis over and over again  .
I'd like to see some original anime titles turned into a visual novel, so that I could point out the "limitations and problems" with that medium. But guess why no major title went this way?
If people succeed in convincing themselves that they want exactly the same experience from something that is meant to be different, the upper limit of their enjoyment is "equally enjoyable", and obviously it ends up lower, yes, 99% of the time. But that's the viewer's choice.
Alternatively, you could just realize both forms of art are different, but neither is inferior, and get full enjoyment out of both. Just another choice you can make.
A point that I can agree on is that if the staff starts out with the approach "let's copy as much as we can", without realizing the strengths and weaknesses of their medium, it's a disaster waiting to happen. |
Actually I'm reading up on a Probability lecture series right now. That 99% figure was from Bayesian definition ("P(A) = Degree of Belief in A"), not the Frequentist definition - i.e. entirely subjective and (since this is the internets) exaggerated.
The counter-example I put forth is Koihime Musou. I'm a fan of Romance of Three Kingdoms so I was extremely wary as I went into ep 1. Afterwards, I commented like this to my friend: "the studio has declared its intent to differ right from the start, with only references to the original. I accept this intent. It is a wise decision as if they stuck too close to the original, then it would have been doomed to endless RAGE as I make endless comparisons that anime is simply too restricted to live up to."
Good "adaptations" *must* differ from the original and adapt to the strengths of each medium. Heck, I hesitate to use the word 'adaptation' since it's more like a spin-off or alternate-retelling than an 'adaption' if it's done perfectly. That's why I use this 99% figure - because if they're doing it right then I won't insult the work by calling it an 'adaptation'. That particular word has built up too much negative connotation for me.