[tenchi:105854] Re: Re:OVA 19
to | tenchi@usagi.org
|
from | nik <silvourbolt@yahoo.com>
|
subject | [tenchi:105854] Re: Re:OVA 19
|
date | Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
|
--- True Sheol <sheol@mail.ev1.net> wrote:
> Reply at end.
>
> >> <<SPOILERS>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> nik wrote:
> >Yeah, I appreciate that Kajishima made the doujinshi, the 101,
> the artwork and the novels to provide the backstory (as well as
> put a couple bucks in his pocket, which is perfectly fine) even if
> it was not and probably never will be available to English
> speaking fans. What I don't like is the idea that the storytelling
> in the animated aspect has to suffer needlessly by inserting
> obscure references to Kajishima's other works on Tenchi. Why is
> that hard to understand?<
> The problem is that you are failing to be pragmatic. The
> longer a series, the more outside funds are required to make it
> happen.
But that has nothing to do with poor storytelling. I have no problem with his attempts
to bring in cash for new OVAs by telling stories that are based in the OVA continuity.
I
find absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all. What I have a problem with is
referencing outside material as need-to-know information to understand the mechanical
underpinnings of a plot. All that had to be done was a simple insertion of information
(does not have to be detailed or lengthy, or even costly if done creatively) that
would
leave a viewer of the animated series with even an idea of what was going on (again,
my
aim is on Misaki, but several other things as well) So I ask again: Why is that so
hard
to understand?
> The OVAs are still as such that you don't have to have read
> the other material to enjoy, but if you haven't, there's a great
> deal more that you have to be willing to accept at face value.
> The fact is that written medium was the *one and only* form of
> story transmission for the series for about eight years.
Which is fine. None of that prevents the animated series from expressing important
parts
of the written story in a logical narrative.
> >Misaki? Najya/Noike/Kagato? If this stuff is explained later
> (even if the answers were alluded to I would be happy, but there's
> nothing about the Misaki thing) in the OVA it's cool, but as is I
> think it is poor storytelling.<
>
> Again, you are demanding the animated medium to be the one
> and only form of transmission.
I have no problem with other mediums. I just don't see a conflict between introducing
new material into the animated series and cogent storytelling within a single medium.
You want eight years of written
> material to be presented to you before you take in OVA 3.
Not really. Is ALL of the written material detrimental to the plot? No. Why can't
the
fans at least be treated to an animated sequence of the backstory or even a reference
to
the backstory- the backstory that is necessary or vital to the storytelling, as the
Misaki sequence required.
That is
> completely understandable as an English-only fan, but it isn't
> realistic give the nature of the Japanese animation industry as
> well as the market for licensing foreign books.
I disagree. I think that it would be entirely realistic to have been given a few
sentences, flashes or other narrative devices which would have explained parts of
the
illogical gaps in the storytelling. In fact, I believe it could be done cheaply,
and
would have added emotional weight or dramatic resonance to the story which otherwise
smacks with a nonsensical disregard for dramatic conventions.
> Why not just make Amagasaki a god? There is the same
> amount of evidence in the OVA suggesting that Amagasaki is a god
> as is Misaki (meaning none). You might think that's a bit of an
> extreme example, and it is, but I only make it to underscore the
> lack of any evidence which could lead a reasonable person to even
> entertain the idea that Misaki was a god. It goes beyond a simple
> lack of foreshadowing and ventures into the random.<
> So, Misaki tossing around Ryouko like a rag doll couldn't
> have been construed as foreshadowing, much as I relied upon
> Tenchi's obvious superhuman feats to point out how he was
> definitely NOT just a normal human?
Honestly, I find that argument to be absurd. Am I also supposed to believe that Ryoko's
eyes bulge out to the size of dinner plates? Is it not far more likely that the
Misaki/Roko scene was done as a gag? If you really wish to go through with that logic
(and I hope not, because this thread would go on forever) you would be explaining
a lot
of things which most people would consider to be gags. For instance- why would it
be
hard to beleive that Misaki is not as strong as Yosho, who took Ryoko's punch no problem
in episode 3? Why does Taro give Ryoko so much trouble, etc.
Al this begs the question of how a gag (one of many similar gags recurring throughout
the
series) is supposed to indicate to us in any way that Misaki is not only a super-being,
but an EVIL high-dimensional Goddess? Is that really a reasonable conclusion to make?
It is not.
Assuming that the answer was
> is "no" or "not much", let's talk about other shockers. So, how
> much foreshadowing was there that Ryouko had a mother before
> episode six?
That has nothing to do with my complaint. Ryoko's parentage is explained quite well
in
that very same scene. Misaki is not explained in the entire episode. Your other
examples are also insufficient because either A.) They are foreshadowed, even if the
entire picture is not shown (might I mention that some of the examples you chose were
quite well foreshadowed in my opinion.), or B.) The lack of foreshadowing follows
traditional storytelling.
How much foreshadowing was there that Tenchi could
> Not every
> aspect of a story must be hinted or foreshadowed.
And unfortunately the Misaki aspect is not one of those exceptions. The very purpose
behind foreshadowing is to give meaning later on or to create a dramatic buildup.
On
both of those levels, the Misaki incident fails to meet the criteria.
Often, little
> is given to enhance its impact... and it can be certainly said
> that Misaki's appearance in episode 20 certainly had a strong
> impact.
But to a sour dramatic effect, if any.
>
> >Perhaps I'm remembering this wrong, but didn't he say that the
> 3rd OVA would reveal Tenchi's choice when he first started working
> on it a few years back? I was under the impression that the
> higher ups frowned on his desicion to do that and made him change
> his mind.<
> It was an error in translation/comprehension that was also
> emphasized by the person writing the article by bolding it.
I see.
> >I hope not. That feels cheap and greasy, like a cop out<
> That's a strange way of looking at it. Really, Kajishima
> seems to be the only major creator to actually fully execute the
> multi-partner relationship. All others use most of the romantic
> contenders (usually girls) as eye-candy, focus on one or two
> candidates, and then, by process of elimination, brings the story
> back to a conventional boy-girl love story, as if the others
> really didn't mean anything to the protagonist (usually a boy).
> Giving in to the mainstream approach would be a "cheap and greasy,
> like a cop out", don't you think?
Not particularly. I find it a cop out that Kajishima would not risk telling a possibly
unfavorable pairing (for whatever reason). It seems indecisive, and unrealistic (not
to
mention chauvinistic by modern standards).
nik
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
unauthorized access prohibited
MLtools V3.1 Copyright (c) Usagi Labs