General & Others Oda’s Editor needs to tell Oda how bad his fight choreography is
- Thread starter Lion of Olympus
- Start date
There's no objective criteria for creative writing. That's why Toriyama can have Kamesennin just blow up the moon, why Peanuts children have adult personalities, why Togashi can wholesale steal the super Saiyan concept, why Oda can have a dude grow bunny ears as part of his hair, etc. It only has to make as much sense as the creator dictates and there's no guaranteed perception from a viewer one way or the other. There are people who hate this story and undoubtedly people who love it; your own opinion by no means can represent an objective assessment.
And because I'm saying this again, this time I'll be blunt: only a fool thinks a comic creator becomes worth $200 million just because. A "popular but objectively bad" creation doesn't exist because popularity does justify itself; it tells you that your objective opinion isn't something shared by as nearly as many as your ego would have you believe.
And because I'm saying this again, this time I'll be blunt: only a fool thinks a comic creator becomes worth $200 million just because. A "popular but objectively bad" creation doesn't exist because popularity does justify itself; it tells you that your objective opinion isn't something shared by as nearly as many as your ego would have you believe.
Like wtf is this shit? There’s no flow to these panels at all. Oda’s editor needs to stop being a pussy and needs to tell Oda how garbage his fights and choreography are.
Post automatically merged:
Oda was never good at drawing fights except for some scenes and even they were aight.
If you compare this
To that! This isn't even the best scene!
It's almost comical lmao
If you compare this
To that! This isn't even the best scene!
It's almost comical lmao
Oh great so we’re now comparing nutritional value of food to fucking drawings 
Latest chapter is a masterpiece and your criteria is shit if you think otherwise :cheers:
Latest chapter is a masterpiece and your criteria is shit if you think otherwise :cheers:
Firstly, I said "story telling" not creative writing.
Secondly, if there is no objective criteria for what counts as "good" then how can anyone say "Oh, that person is a good writer."?
An author that wants to tell a story seriously has to establish how their universe works and to follow the rules of their universe that they earlier established.
If Oda established that devil fruit users drown when in the ocean but then had them swimming with ease whenever they felt like it only to make them unable to swim every time the plot demanded some instant tension, would that be an act of good story telling or an inconsistency?
If said supposed "opinion" can back itself up with concrete proof then yes it can.
People can like or dislike anything for any reason. Folk can dislike good quality products and like poor quality products. Their personal preference for a product does not magically warp reality and turn a good product into a bad one though.
Like I said previously; consistency of plot, character consistency, quality of character development, lore consistency, quality of world building, quality of fight choreography, good setup and payoff, pacing etc. etc. These are all metrics by which a story can be judged.
If a story had an inconsistent plot that ignored it's previously established in-universe rules on a regular basis, inconsistent characters with no development that often did the opposite of their previously established character traits, inconsistent lore that regularly contradicted itself, poor fight choreography, poor pacing and poor setup for it's payoffs then would it be fair to consider such a series as poorly written?
Is that not exactly what you are arguing for though?
You appear to be against the idea of there being any objective metric by which to measure the quality of a story. If there is no metric with which to measure the quality of a story then how can anyone claim that an author is a good story writer?
If authors cannot be good at story telling then their works really do only become popular "just because".
If I am arguing against popularity itself being a meaningful metric then why would my "ego" supposedly care for how many people agree or disagree with me?
Secondly, if there is no objective criteria for what counts as "good" then how can anyone say "Oh, that person is a good writer."?
An author that wants to tell a story seriously has to establish how their universe works and to follow the rules of their universe that they earlier established.
If Oda established that devil fruit users drown when in the ocean but then had them swimming with ease whenever they felt like it only to make them unable to swim every time the plot demanded some instant tension, would that be an act of good story telling or an inconsistency?
If said supposed "opinion" can back itself up with concrete proof then yes it can.
People can like or dislike anything for any reason. Folk can dislike good quality products and like poor quality products. Their personal preference for a product does not magically warp reality and turn a good product into a bad one though.
Like I said previously; consistency of plot, character consistency, quality of character development, lore consistency, quality of world building, quality of fight choreography, good setup and payoff, pacing etc. etc. These are all metrics by which a story can be judged.
If a story had an inconsistent plot that ignored it's previously established in-universe rules on a regular basis, inconsistent characters with no development that often did the opposite of their previously established character traits, inconsistent lore that regularly contradicted itself, poor fight choreography, poor pacing and poor setup for it's payoffs then would it be fair to consider such a series as poorly written?
Is that not exactly what you are arguing for though?
You appear to be against the idea of there being any objective metric by which to measure the quality of a story. If there is no metric with which to measure the quality of a story then how can anyone claim that an author is a good story writer?
If authors cannot be good at story telling then their works really do only become popular "just because".
If I am arguing against popularity itself being a meaningful metric then why would my "ego" supposedly care for how many people agree or disagree with me?
Firstly, I said "story telling" not creative writing.
Secondly, if there is no objective criteria for what counts as "good" then how can anyone say "Oh, that person is a good writer."?
An author that wants to tell a story seriously has to establish how their universe works and to follow the rules of their universe that they earlier established.
If Oda established that devil fruit users drown when in the ocean but then had them swimming with ease whenever they felt like it only to make them unable to swim every time the plot demanded some instant tension, would that be an act of good story telling or an inconsistency?
If said supposed "opinion" can back itself up with concrete proof then yes it can.
People can like or dislike anything for any reason. Folk can dislike good quality products and like poor quality products. Their personal preference for a product does not magically warp reality and turn a good product into a bad one though.
Like I said previously; consistency of plot, character consistency, quality of character development, lore consistency, quality of world building, quality of fight choreography, good setup and payoff, pacing etc. etc. These are all metrics by which a story can be judged.
If a story had an inconsistent plot that ignored it's previously established in-universe rules on a regular basis, inconsistent characters with no development that often did the opposite of their previously established character traits, inconsistent lore that regularly contradicted itself, poor fight choreography, poor pacing and poor setup for it's payoffs then would it be fair to consider such a series as poorly written?
Is that not exactly what you are arguing for though?
You appear to be against the idea of there being any objective metric by which to measure the quality of a story. If there is no metric with which to measure the quality of a story then how can anyone claim that an author is a good story writer?
If authors cannot be good at story telling then their works really do only become popular "just because".
If I am arguing against popularity itself being a meaningful metric then why would my "ego" supposedly care for how many people agree or disagree with me?
Secondly, if there is no objective criteria for what counts as "good" then how can anyone say "Oh, that person is a good writer."?
An author that wants to tell a story seriously has to establish how their universe works and to follow the rules of their universe that they earlier established.
If Oda established that devil fruit users drown when in the ocean but then had them swimming with ease whenever they felt like it only to make them unable to swim every time the plot demanded some instant tension, would that be an act of good story telling or an inconsistency?
If said supposed "opinion" can back itself up with concrete proof then yes it can.
People can like or dislike anything for any reason. Folk can dislike good quality products and like poor quality products. Their personal preference for a product does not magically warp reality and turn a good product into a bad one though.
Like I said previously; consistency of plot, character consistency, quality of character development, lore consistency, quality of world building, quality of fight choreography, good setup and payoff, pacing etc. etc. These are all metrics by which a story can be judged.
If a story had an inconsistent plot that ignored it's previously established in-universe rules on a regular basis, inconsistent characters with no development that often did the opposite of their previously established character traits, inconsistent lore that regularly contradicted itself, poor fight choreography, poor pacing and poor setup for it's payoffs then would it be fair to consider such a series as poorly written?
Is that not exactly what you are arguing for though?
You appear to be against the idea of there being any objective metric by which to measure the quality of a story. If there is no metric with which to measure the quality of a story then how can anyone claim that an author is a good story writer?
If authors cannot be good at story telling then their works really do only become popular "just because".
If I am arguing against popularity itself being a meaningful metric then why would my "ego" supposedly care for how many people agree or disagree with me?
Good, again, is opinion, not factual. Your extreme example uses an inconsistency not found in his work (DF users swimming) where actual examples would be arguable because you are trying to build a case where we are talking about something that isn't subjective, but we are.
So again we circle back to quantitative. If MORE people have MORE to say about a work of fiction, and if MORE people spend the SAME amount of money (McDonald's burgers can be bought for 39¢ so of course they can sell more than a quality burger starting as low as $3 from other sellers) then even if you want to say this isn't an objective standard for quality you still don't have data that supports lesser quality. If this guy earns significantly more money than others in the same occupation, you have to work significantly harder to explain that success than I do in simply saying that he must be particularly good at what he does, and that things you like better about other works aren't taking the majority opinion or some creative factors into account (like comparing the level of detail you find in the art of monthly chapter releases where the art direction differs in the first place).
