The Criticism of Pandering, and Unoriginality

[0utf0xZer0]

I think I'm closer to Irenicus on this one. Moe culture is certainly full of shoutouts and cases of creators appropriating parts of the otaku "mythos", but for it to be mechanistic, we need to show the existence of another element: cynicism on the part of the creator. And just how do we identify cynical creators? Based largely on gut instinct as a moe fan, I don't think they're nearly as common as some in this thread assume - such a mindset simply does not gel with the general enthusiasm one finds in otaku culture.


As for whether the archetypes are fetishistic... it depends how you define fetish. If you simply mean ascribing a magical property to something (which of course is the traditional definition of the term), then yes, I think they can be described as fetishes. The phrase "uguu" and the twin tailed tsundere, for example, are revered in otaku culture as if they were things of legend. Far fewer otaku tropes are fetishes in the sexual sense though - okay, a twintailed tsundere in thighighs has a certain sexual appeal, but seriously, do you know anyone who gets turned on by "uguu"? Can you even imagine anyone getting turned on by uguu or similar catchphrases?

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Recent examples everyone might still remember would be Hoshizora he Kakaru Hashi, or OreImo. I think everyone would agree that the character's there are more "constructs of moe" rather than anything.

While Hoshizora certainly does pander, it never struck me as mechanistic... rather, the sheer garishness and audacity of the project was an artistic point in and of itself. I mean seriously, I can't think of any other series with that much squeeing over a little brother character, or where its the male lead who says "no one will marry me now".

OreImo... well, I can certainly admit that Kirino and later Ayase got flanderized into constructs. On the flip side, I'd argue that Kuroneko still holds up pretty well and that Sena is a shout out to the "closet fujoshi" characters in Genshiken.

[cyth]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

But it could be that romance novel authors just like that stuff, no?

It's a common complaint among first-generation creators--you know, the people who have laid down foundations for today's tropes--that newer creators draw their inspiration solely from literature they liked instead of drawing it from outside fields of expertise and science. It could be an inherent defect, because new generation creators already had a market in front of them that specifically demanded professional writers, so the young hopefuls underwent education or entered young talent competitions with their sole goal of becoming professional writers from the get-go. Why this is an inherent defect is because most of these guys skipped education and training in other fields to fully enrich themselves with an outsider's perspective and inspirations.

Below is an excerpt from an interview with Kumi Saori, a literature graduate and an all-rounder second-generation novel writer.

Originally Posted by Kumi Saori

I’ve been able to expand my writing into the fantasy genre. When I was a child, I loved stories with swords and magic, monsters and ghosts, princes and sorceresses and dragons and talking creatures. I’d always revered and envied them. But I assumed there was no way someone like me could write something like that. You had to have a vivid knowledge of myth and folklore, history, religion, and ethnicity; you had to analyze it well and understand it; you had to be an expert on the human psyche.

On top of that, having read through all the famous fantasy works, new and old, I thought you had to handle your writing in a beautiful and noble style. I thought of fantasy as a mysterious and expensive gem that nobody, under any circumstances, should smudge with their dirty little hands.

But doesn’t this world I had to novelize have a fantastical feel to it? When I gave it my best shot and sat down to write, I had a lot of fun with it. I really got sucked in. I was burning with excitement.

So—fully aware of everything, my inexperience, shame, and insolence, I had the pleasure of being allowed the opportunity to give it a try. The final product wasn’t as good as I’d have liked to be, but my goal is to get better day by day. I hope you’ll follow my progress with an open mind.

I don't know, I guess this kind of condition robs creators of coming up with truly groundbreaking stuff, although their editors and producers have it worse, as some have already pointed out. I mean, they're people whose job is to know how a work of a certain genre is supposed to look like.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I think I'm closer to Irenicus on this one. Moe culture is certainly full of shoutouts and cases of creators appropriating parts of the otaku "mythos", but for it to be mechanistic, we need to show the existence of another element: cynicism on the part of the creator. And just how do we identify cynical creators? Based largely on gut instinct as a moe fan, I don't think they're nearly as common as some in this thread assume - such a mindset simply does not gel with the general enthusiasm one finds in otaku culture.

I think a lot of the people who end out working on Moé Anime imagined themselves working on better things. They do it to pay the bills. VNs are a little different, as it's usually a product of the doujin market.

As for whether the archetypes are fetishistic... it depends how you define fetish. If you simply mean ascribing a magical property to something (which of course is the traditional definition of the term), then yes, I think they can be described as fetishes. The phrase "uguu" and the twin tailed tsundere, for example, are revered in otaku culture as if they were things of legend. Far fewer otaku tropes are fetishes in the sexual sense though - okay, a twintailed tsundere in thighighs has a certain sexual appeal, but seriously, do you know anyone who gets turned on by "uguu"? Can you even imagine anyone getting turned on by uguu or similar catchphrases?

I earlier described Moé as "emotional pornography", I think that definition stands in my book. Moé exists to satisfy the emotional desires Otaku have for women, and not just the sexual. Most Otaku have no girlfriends etc. and Moé is the only thing they can get. Now am I saying all people who like Moé are perpetually single Otaku? No, but I'd say most of them are, and I'd say they're the core demographic that's aimed at.

As a person who is perpetually single myself, I can see the attraction in Moé. Sexual desires are pretty easy to satisfy, emotional desires less so, and Moé does just that. But in the end most Moé ends out being a very shallow representation, it's basically just blandly fulfilling emotional desires like Pornography fulfills sexual ones.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think a lot of the people who end out working on Moé Anime imagined themselves working on better things. They do it to pay the bills. VNs are a little different, as it's usually a product of the doujin market.

I'm going back to what Ermes Marana said earlier about pandering: it's when someone forgoes their own artistic merits in favor of pleasing another audience. And when the low-end quality of the work becomes apparent, one can imagine the author or artist is probably not within their comfort zone. However, there are people that have created good stuff from a variety of different genres to begin with, so the matter of whether they were jaded or not becomes nearly impossible to deduce. And, well, "imagined themselves working on better things" doesn't exactly imply a non-cynical mindset, does it?

And going back to previous posts about characters being an assembly of traits or shallow or whatever...I should point out that there's no inherently bad archetypes. We have good characters that are flat, bad characters who are round, great ones that are one-dimensional and awful ones that are dynamic. I won't deny that some characters feel more like constructs (IE, one-dimensional or flat or ect.) rather than characters, but whether they are cynically created or not is anyone's guess, and even if they were it's still possible for them to be a good character. In turn, it just makes it impossible to tell whether an author or artist is jaded or not to begin with.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Akito_Kinomoto

I'm going back to what Ermes Marana said earlier about pandering: it's when someone forgoes their own artistic merits in favor of pleasing another audience. And when the low-end quality of the work becomes apparent, one can imagine the author or artist is probably not within their comfort zone. However, there are people that have created good stuff from a variety of different genres to begin with, so the matter of whether they were jaded or not becomes nearly impossible to deduce. And, well, "imagined themselves working on better things" doesn't exactly imply a non-cynical mindset, does it?

And going back to previous posts about characters being an assembly of traits or shallow or whatever...I should point out that there's no inherently bad archetypes. We have good characters that are flat, bad characters who are round, great ones that are one-dimensional and awful ones that are dynamic. I won't deny that some characters feel more like constructs (IE, one-dimensional or flat or ect.) rather than characters, but whether they are cynically created or not is anyone's guess, and even if they were it's still possible for them to be a good character. In turn, it just makes it impossible to tell whether an author or artist is jaded or not to begin with.

Archetypes aren't inherently bad, but that's no excuse for Moé's worst excesses. Now there is good Moé that is lovingly produced, but the vast majority isn't. When you say the umpteenth Moé show being put out with shoddy production values, a shallow script and no zest at all, you know there not really trying. And there's a ton of shows that are just like that. The most recent and blatant I can think of is Shufuku no Campanella. The characters in that aren't alive, they're zombies, and the animators were only there because they needed the money, and received the orders from on high. When you compare that to other shows where there is joy and love put in, you know that the animators are compromising their artistic sensibilities in favour of blandly pleasing their audience.

I'd love to say that all the animators out there are working on cutting edge stuff they feel they can be proud of, but a lot of them end out, due to bad luck or a lack of talent, working on things they feel no love for, they just do it because they need cash to buy food and pay rent. Not every studio is like Ghibli, with love and enthusiasm poured into every film.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I'd love to say that all the animators out there are working on cutting edge stuff they feel they can be proud of, but a lot of them end out, due to bad luck or a lack of talent, working on things they feel no love for, they just do it because they need cash to buy food and pay rent. Not every studio is like Ghibli, with love and enthusiasm poured into every film.

Stunning revelations on Sturgeon's Law aside, my main point is that it's impossible to tell whether an artist, director, author or whatever is being cynical or not. And, well, someone can most definitely have strong feelings for the work they create, but the lack of talent, thus lack of quality, doesn't really show that they're compensating themselves either. Jogasaki from The Tatami Galaxy and his horrible movies, for example.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Akito_Kinomoto

Stunning revelations on Sturgeon's Law aside, my main point is that it's impossible to tell whether an artist, director, author or whatever is being cynical or not. And, well, someone can most definitely have strong feelings for the work they create, but the lack of talent, thus lack of quality, doesn't really show that they're compensating themselves either. Jogasaki from The Tatami Galaxy and his horrible movies, for example.

I think you can pretty easily tell. Take your average romantic comedy chick flick that are trotted out by hollywood several times a year. The producers know that if they produce a certain kind of movie, the women will continue to watch it regardless, they're not in it to make "art", and in fact if you read about a lot of the people behind those movies you'll find:

1. Most of the top brass are Men, even though it's being made squarely for women.
2. They are not fans of the genre before they movie into it.
3. They have little respect for what they produce, and are just doing it to pay bill.

These are not "by fans for fans" like fan fic.

Now on the other hand, take some terrible movie like "Plan 9 from outer space", that is the product of an enthusiastic, but ultimately talentless hack.

The former is usually technically sound, with a professional finish, but empty and shallow.

The Latter has some enthusiasm behind it, but is incompetently produced.

You can also look at the types of organisation behind the creative work, if it is big and executive, it's more likely to be pandering. Indy makers aren't usually in it to pander.

If you really want a red flag, see if any of the people behind it are using pseudonyms in the credits, that pretty much means they don't want to be associated with the work.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think you can pretty easily tell. Take your average romantic comedy chick flick that are trotted out by hollywood several times a year. The producers know that if they produce a certain kind of movie, the women will continue to watch it regardless, they're not in it to make "art", and in fact if you read about a lot of the people behind those movies you'll find:

1. Most of the top brass are Men, even though it's being made squarely for women.
2. They are not fans of the genre before they movie into it.
3. They have little respect for what they produce, and are just doing it to pay bill.

These are not "by fans for fans" like fan fic.

Now on the other hand, take some terrible movie like "Plan 9 from outer space", that is the product of an enthusiastic, but ultimately talentless hack.

The former is usually technically sound, with a professional finish, but empty and shallow.

The Latter has some enthusiasm behind it, but is incompetently produced.

I shouldn't have to look up names to learn this after the fact, though. For me, trying to determine the attitude of the creator would be from what I can gather from the piece itself. Or in other words, "straight from the horses mouth" pretty much replaces the actual process of "trying to determine."

If you really want a red flag, see if any of the people behind it are using pseudonyms in the credits, that pretty much means they don't want to be associated with the work.

Or they just find their nickname to be really, really cool? There are people whose sole source of income comes from being involved in those titles that use pen-names instead of their own, and if it really is to be disassociated with something, I would instead question why they joined the business in the first place. Especially considering that I don't imagine people taking an interest in the creative arts if they weren't genuinely interested in the first place.

Of course, reality sets in and slaps the happy off of everyone, but if someone really does love their job, they've got to learn how to roll with the punches. Admittedly, I do question how many more punches some people can take...

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Akito_Kinomoto

I shouldn't have to look up names to learn this after the fact, though. For me, trying to determine the attitude of the creator would be from what I can gather from the piece itself. Or in other words, "straight from the horses mouth" pretty much replaces the actual process of "trying to determine."

You don't need to look up names. Just do a cursory comparison to other contemporary productions, if it feels like it's almost exactly the same as others, same setup, same characters, and they're both clearly playing to a particular fantasy, then they're a pandering clichéd mess with little artistic value. It's very obvious with Moé Anime, Dramas, Shoujo Manga, Romantic novels etc. It's extremely easy to pin down when the work is romantic.

Case study: Compare the Kdramas Take Care of the Young Lady and Witch Yoo Hee. Watch 2 or 3 episodes of each and you will quickly find that they are almost the same. Is this coincidence? Somehow I don't think so...

Examples of good Romantic stuff that isn't like this would be 500 Days of Summer or Annie Hall. Romance isn't an inherently bad genre, it's just criminally mistreated by execs who are only in it for the money. In fact I love Romantic stuff, I just hate the pandering crap that keeps getting pushed out these days.

Or they just find their nickname to be really, really cool? There are people whose sole source of income comes from being involved in those titles that use pen-names instead of their own, and if it really is to be disassociated with something, I would instead question why they joined the business in the first place. Especially considering that I don't imagine people taking an interest in the creative arts if they weren't genuinely interested in the first place.

Of course, reality sets in and slaps the happy off of everyone, but if someone really does love their job, they've got to learn how to roll with the punches. Admittedly, I do question how many more punches some people can take...

Usually a pseudonym is used when the product is not respectable. Usually this means that it is pornographic, pseudo-pornographic or would otherwise be considered a blot on their career. I'm sure you'd want to avoid your name being attached to pornography if you could avoid it.

And of course, we haven't even gotten into ghostwriting

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You don't need to look up names. Just do a cursory comparison to other contemporary productions, if it feels like it's almost exactly the same as others, same setup, same characters, and they're both clearly playing to a particular fantasy, then they're a pandering clichéd mess with little artistic value. It's very obvious with Moé Anime, Dramas, Shoujo Manga, Romantic novels etc. It's extremely easy to pin down when the work is romantic.

That is indeed what I do whenever I watch or read something, though. I can kind of sort of tell when a particular work has got the pandering spot-on and when they're completely missing the mark with their goals.

Usually a pseudonym is used when the product is not respectable. Usually this means that it is pornographic, pseudo-pornographic or would otherwise be considered a blot on their career. I'm sure you'd want to avoid your name being attached to pornography if you could avoid it.

Regarding pornography, yeah I would, but I'm only speaking for myself--never underestimate one's pride in their own perversion.

More seriously, yeah, I guess they would. But if their works turn out to be a success and the pen name is still used regardless, perhaps they don't believe in what they make, but I'd hardly call it a bad mark for their profession.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Akito_Kinomoto

More seriously, yeah, I guess they would. But if their works turn out to be a success and the pen name is still used regardless, perhaps they don't believe in what they make, but I'd hardly call it a bad mark for their profession.

Well, if they really need to, there are usually ways they can prove they are their pseudonym. And with Seiyuu, they often maintain the same pseudonym for multiple roles. Of course if their involvement in H-Games ever really got out, it would be pretty poisonous for their future career. Scandal anyone?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Well, if they really need to, there are usually ways they can prove they are their pseudonym. And with Seiyuu, they often maintain the same pseudonym for multiple roles. Of course if their involvement in H-Games ever really got out, it would be pretty poisonous for their future career. Scandal anyone?

It's only a scandal if your name is Aya Hirano, but I digress. The professional roadblock itself sounds like a different subject entirely, so I'd rather not talk about that one any further.

[Flower]

I have been thinking a bit about this thread and the "Has it gotten harder for you to enjoy anime recently?" thread.... Some of my ponderings on the subject are kinda difficult to express (and not doubt easily able to be shot down by others), but I will give a stab at it nonetheless.

Let's see. In a very general sense I would say that there are two levels in which we enjoy works of creativity.

There is the initial level which involves elements that grab our attention - they creep us out/scare us, sexually excite us, make us go "wow!", seize our attention, or even "blow us away".

Then there is another level - a level of ... err ... content, I guess, that we don't always fully detect on the first watching (since we are often - but not always - paying attention to the "first levels" of a "new work" being presented to us). But we inevitably intuit it somehow. It is often this intuition (sometimes something we are not aware of consciously) that brings us back to a work of creativity and inspires us to expose ourselves to it again.

Then, when we re-read/re-watch/re-listen etc. to the creativity the ... "glitter"(?) ... of the first level aspect of entertainment is usually not as strong as it is no longer "new" and elements are "expected". But sometimes we see aspects and things that we only dimly felt before or barely noticed. This can be any number of things: a more involved level of the story, a brilliant depiction of something, a whole undercurrent of "foreshadowings", a breathtaking instance of artistic "execution", something subtle but deeply moving, etc.

These elements of the "second level" are what, to me, make a work of creativity able to be re-read, re-watched, re-listened to ... and are often able to stand the test of time - we find ourselves able to enjoy them after many years have passed.

For this is not just becoming an "expert" or "connoisseur" who only enjoys "something for it's own sake", if you will. It is a deeper capacity to appreciate things than that. It is a ... erm ... taste that can revel in both things complex and things that are simple. Like I said this is a hard this to express....

Anyway ... the original title of the thread is "the criticism of pandering and unoriginality". I guess works of creativity that focus primarily on "feeding" the initial/first elements of the audience would fall into that category. And this applies regardless of a specific targeted audience. This would be the general area of "stuff that sells", that is devoid % wise of content that is more "involved" or ... umm ... "deeper" or more "mature" or even more "innocent" or "real".

An extreme set of examples to my mind in terms of a parallel would be comparing Usagi Drop vis a' vis Kiss x Sis, for example. Set aside for a moment whether or no you LIKE the content. If the content itself is compared in a semi-objective manner I think the set of examples stands, and helps to illustrate the thread.

The difficulty for me comes into the realm of the common elements of the second, deeper level of content. All I can say is that usually if a piece of work is able to stand a fair number of re-exposure and/or one is able to continually see more involved aspects to the work bit by bit that one had not seen before it is a fairly good indication that there is something more to that piece of work.

And yes - I know that there are plenty of "glittery entertainment" works of creativity that people watch several times, but I would say that those who are watching such shows have a pretty good idea of what they are watching and why, and would not try to come up with involved reasons to "justify" the shows.

Anyway ... these are just a few thoughts on the subject as have occurred to me, and unfortunately they have perhaps been presented in a rather disorganized and jumbled manner. It is meant moreso to be a sort of "general sketch" rather than an "objective set of rules" ... at least that is my impression of it.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think you can pretty easily tell. Take your average romantic comedy chick flick that are trotted out by hollywood several times a year. The producers know that if they produce a certain kind of movie, the women will continue to watch it regardless, they're not in it to make "art", and in fact if you read about a lot of the people behind those movies you'll find:

1. Most of the top brass are Men, even though it's being made squarely for women.
2. They are not fans of the genre before they movie into it.
3. They have little respect for what they produce, and are just doing it to pay bill.

These are not "by fans for fans" like fan fic.

Now on the other hand, take some terrible movie like "Plan 9 from outer space", that is the product of an enthusiastic, but ultimately talentless hack.

I'm reminded of the director of High School of the Dead saying things like he wanted to make the kind of show he'd want to watch as a teenager and that he wanted boobs in every scene...

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The former is usually technically sound, with a professional finish, but empty and shallow.

The Latter has some enthusiasm behind it, but is incompetently produced.

The thing is, when I watch moe anime, I usually pick up both elements that I think the author was enthusiastic about, and elements that were thrown in because some popular work did it that way. I can tell the difference pretty easily. Which is why I made such a big deal about differentiating appropriating archetypes and pandering earlier. Most moe anime I watch do a combination of the two hence I do not consider the inclusion of moe archetypes pandering without in and of itself.

Admittedly, I don't remember being able to "feel the love" with anything in Campanella, although I only watched like two episodes because I found it pretty grating to watch. I do wonder if the original VN was better, as in cases where I'm familar with both anime and VN, the experience was different even when covering the same story material. In Campanella's case, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If you really want a red flag, see if any of the people behind it are using pseudonyms in the credits, that pretty much means they don't want to be associated with the work.

Quite a few Japanese creators use pseudonyms for all their work. The writer and illustrator for the Bakemonogatari light novels, for example, although the illustrator is actually Taiwanese. BTW, I've actually met the illustrator (got a poster autographed for my girlfriend) - one of the things I took home from his panel is that he definitely likes little sister characters.

Oddly enough, the one person I can think of who used his real name when working on adult projects is Makoto Shinkai. He did a number of opening and ending videos for the eroge company Minori at one point, mostly famously EF: A Fairy Tale of the Two. The videos themselves are pretty clean but the games do contain adult material.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Quite a few Japanese creators use pseudonyms for all their work. The writer and illustrator for the Bakemonogatari light novels, for example, although the illustrator is actually Taiwanese. BTW, I've actually met the illustrator (got a poster autographed for my girlfriend) - one of the things I took home from his panel is that he definitely likes little sister characters.

Oddly enough, the one person I can think of who used his real name when working on adult projects is Makoto Shinkai. He did a number of opening and ending videos for the eroge company Minori at one point, mostly famously EF: A Fairy Tale of the Two. The videos themselves are pretty clean but the games do contain adult material.

Well some do use pseudonyms for everything, that's not so important. It's more whether he uses his main "pseudonym" for a work. If he isn't using his main pseudonym it still means he's trying to distance himself from it.

It's like me using DonQuigleone for Forums/websites I'm not ashamed to be part of, and other handles for less ... reputable websites...


@Flower: I find I enjoy things on 2 levels: 1. An Aesthetic level and 2. An intellectual level.

Aesthetics are a tricky thing to talk about, it's perhaps the most subjective part of any experience. There is some constants that hold for most people, but aesthetic appreciation is a very "in the moment" kind of thing. Some Anime have a very nice sense of Aesthetics, some not.

Intellectual appreciation for me is a bit like you describe it, it's when an Anime interacts with my thinking and problem solving process. If I'm trying to fit things together, that's an intellectual satisfaction. I would describe Anime like Legend of the Galactic heroes as particularly intellectually stimulating. Most entertainment doesn't usually reach this level for me though, computer games more frequently play on this aspect of my apprecation.

[Flower]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

....@Flower: I find I enjoy things on 2 levels: 1. An Aesthetic level and 2. An intellectual level.

Aesthetics are a tricky thing to talk about, it's perhaps the most subjective part of any experience. There is some constants that hold for most people, but aesthetic appreciation is a very "in the moment" kind of thing. Some Anime have a very nice sense of Aesthetics, some not.

Intellectual appreciation for me is a bit like you describe it, it's when an Anime interacts with my thinking and problem solving process. If I'm trying to fit things together, that's an intellectual satisfaction. I would describe Anime like Legend of the Galactic heroes as particularly intellectually stimulating. Most entertainment doesn't usually reach this level for me though, computer games more frequently play on this aspect of my appreciation.

Yep ... and I think that is why threads like this can be so "tricky" ... but at the same time I kinda like to think that emphasizing the aspects of "the constants" you mentioned and the common, "objective" ... err ... psychological processes I guess of the initial birth of and later conscious formation of aesthetics in a general way could help lend a little extra clarity to the thread.

For me the very fact that one can even speak about a lack of originality and pandering in of itself as a negative thing in of themselves point to the opposites as well. And even if everyone who has posted in (or read) this thread has not agreed on particulars, most everyone has agreed to the existence of the two ... umm ... realities, I guess.

[Kaioshin Sama]

I think it's time to revive this thread because it's sort of become something of a problem that is killing a lot of series again of late. I will cite three examples of recent series that I feel have been limited and otherwise rendered forgettable as a result of a mad rush to pander and those are Star Driver: Takuto of The Radiance, Guilty Crown and to some extents (much lesser IMO) Last Exile: Fam of the Silver Wing and Horizon on the Middle of Nowhere.

While Horizon and Last Exile have both admirably dodged bullets by managing to be either extremely hilarious and make their panders plot relevant, Star Driver was completely tied down by it's contentedness to simply show off it's youthful and sexily drawn cast in extremely repetitive and predictable episodic affairs and to try to fudge a final story arc with the last few episodes and Guilty Crown looks like it's headed down the same path. Both shows also have absolutely ridiculous segments like kissing through the glass or what some have called Super Flying Sex Doll moments in Guilty Crown and seem to love showing off the assets of their cast at every given opportunity while allowing the relationships and actual personalities of the cast to languish or even remain a complete blank to the viewers as a result.

This is really not acceptable and I'd hate to see this become the future of anime as Guilty Crowns staff vaguely threatened during an interview. Some of these creators and writers really just need to get back to the basics before this becomes too big a problem or even worse an active trend. Hell even focusing on building the cast and plot of show up to a level where there's legitimate intrigue before pandering a bit with a throwaway beach/vacation type episode or two would suffice, but lately writers seem to have it backwards and are giving the pandering and fan service the majority of the shows time while the stuff that's plot relevant either gets pushed to the very end of the show or is barely allowed to creep above the surface.

Other shows that I may be watching still right now if they showed even a hint more originality or lack of willingness to pander at every opportunity include:

C3 (too many butt shots of Fear-Tan and her looking cutesy or being a spaz versus actual use of the dual-premise killed this one for me)
Shakugan no Shana Series (got too caught up in shipping and love triangles and stopped focusing on the cool and badass nature of the titular character that drove this series during the first season)
Boku wa Tomodachi ga Sukunai (started off unexpectedly hilarious and was hitting me with completely unexpected scenarios and character depictions for about the first month, but has slowly become a more mundane and by the book harem show as the rest of the cast has been introduced to the point where I'm only still watching cause it's almost over anyway....or running out of time depending on how you look at it)

[totoum]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

Guilty Crown and seem to love showing off the assets of their cast at every given opportunity while allowing the relationships and actual personalities of the cast to languish or even remain a complete blank to the viewers as a result.

While I have my problems with guilty crown especialy the characterisation of the 2 leads I just fail to see the connection you're making.
I just fail to see the connection between showing off their assets and that problem.
The show not showing off their assets wouldn't make me like the characters more

[asaqe]

First of Kaoshin, Mediafactory Bunko J is a harem LN maker. The action is a side dish to the eroge/harem story plot which dominates. It is the absolute zero of pandering, no questions asked. (and also a reason why 95% of the artists there did nudity or porn, which goes to my next point)

The issue of Pandering is only made worse by the comiket industry where LN authors seeks artists to draw their works and I have to argue the talent pool is pretty limited to either "Cute Girls only" at the moment. Something have to be done to curb this issue and the only way is to have the industry enforce an act which will prevent artists who take up the oldest profession by pen from going into Manga/LN/Anime industry. This is one thing I can appreciate about the Comic Book Industry is comic book artists who work for marvel/DC never had to draw porn to get started. It may be smaller but it could be a sign of seperating the chaff from the wheat.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by asaqe

The issue of Pandering is only made worse by the comiket industry where LN authors seeks artists to draw their works and I have to argue the talent pool is pretty limited to either "Cute Girls only" at the moment.

There was a time when they weren't? Sorry I've just never really known LN's to be about anything but this.