Controversial Worst Written Manga Here?
- Thread starter Light D Lamperouge
- Start date
On my first watch I found part 1 boring but after rewatching it it is a really tight story. The character motivations are simple enough but Jojo and Dio are so colorful that it elevates the story itself.
Then you add the voice acting and overall production value and it quickly becomes an awesome anime.
Then you add the voice acting and overall production value and it quickly becomes an awesome anime.
You're once again conflating terms and arguments.
There are objectively bad things in a story that aren't merely matters of personal perception. A contradiction, a factual inconsistency, a broken plot rule, an unresolved setup, or a character acting in direct contradiction to their established characterization can be objectively identified.
You can disagree about how bad those things are, or whether they outweigh the strengths of the story, but that doesn't make the underlying flaw subjective or miscounstrued.
And while yes, people can create false negatives and misinterpret stuff, that does not indicate that objectively bad parts are constructed out of thin air.
See, again, while someone can have illegitimate expectations of a story they can also simultaneously identify a legitimate and actual flaw in it and the execution of it. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
To take up your example, Gear 5. Someone can dislike Gear 5 because of expectations, but that doesn't prove every criticism of Gear 5 is expectation-driven or that its writing is objectively flawless.
The main issue here is that you believe that you have reached Nirvana and a higher understanding of everything. You're also assuming that if people genuinely understood storytelling technique, they would necessarily arrive at your conclusions. But understanding technique doesn't eliminate disagreement. Two people can understand the same narrative device perfectly well and disagree about whether its execution works.
I don't necessarily disagree about people often confusing their expectations with the quality of the writing/how it is written. But just like that, even if one can perfectly understand and explain why a writer did what they did, it would not mean that it is objectively good.
Kudos to you br0. I am not sure what to say here.
It's been fun, but I feel like we're talking past each other here. Agree to disagree.
There are objectively bad things in a story that aren't merely matters of personal perception. A contradiction, a factual inconsistency, a broken plot rule, an unresolved setup, or a character acting in direct contradiction to their established characterization can be objectively identified.
You can disagree about how bad those things are, or whether they outweigh the strengths of the story, but that doesn't make the underlying flaw subjective or miscounstrued.
And while yes, people can create false negatives and misinterpret stuff, that does not indicate that objectively bad parts are constructed out of thin air.
See, again, while someone can have illegitimate expectations of a story they can also simultaneously identify a legitimate and actual flaw in it and the execution of it. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
To take up your example, Gear 5. Someone can dislike Gear 5 because of expectations, but that doesn't prove every criticism of Gear 5 is expectation-driven or that its writing is objectively flawless.
The main issue here is that you believe that you have reached Nirvana and a higher understanding of everything. You're also assuming that if people genuinely understood storytelling technique, they would necessarily arrive at your conclusions. But understanding technique doesn't eliminate disagreement. Two people can understand the same narrative device perfectly well and disagree about whether its execution works.
I don't necessarily disagree about people often confusing their expectations with the quality of the writing/how it is written. But just like that, even if one can perfectly understand and explain why a writer did what they did, it would not mean that it is objectively good.
Kudos to you br0. I am not sure what to say here.
It's been fun, but I feel like we're talking past each other here. Agree to disagree.
Yes I agree and I tell you that perception can impact the way people see these things. Usually in bad ways for this place for example. You can try to show me plot hole in One Piece, I'm pretty sure I will be able to show you how you are simply overlooking a parameter. This is something I've dealt with for years all over this forum, by experience, I know that people use their perception, not they knowledge of storytelling.
My point is not that objective parameters are not analyzable, my point is that people are either not looking at these parameters correctly, either ignoring them to simulate the illusion of an objective flaw.
Once again : Gear 5. Objectively technically amazing, perceived (only by a part of the fanbase) as objectively bad. I could try for hours to deconstruct how technically good it is, people will not listen.
The fundamental problem is that we are reaching a point where the perception of a media is considered superior to an objective analysis of the media. And this is happening all over pop culture. The last example is the last episode of Lanterns, which is objectively good, but perceived as bad, again, by the same type of people.
I also agree. I for example have a problem with the way Oda present the gentlemaness of Sanji. I believe it to be a deeply flawed portrayal, not in the fact that it is not realistic, but in the fact that it is contradictory, Sanji doesn't hurt woman yet he still find ways to act in toxic ways against them.
Well give me the critics that are objectively rooted in the storytelling and I'll demonstrate how they are flawed. Gear 5 is OBJECTIVELY an incredible storytelling revelation. So much so that it is a one in a million case of generational revelation and an historical storytelling accomplishement both contextualy and narratively, for many reasons that I have explained multiple times over.
Disliking G5 because of illegitimate expectations is one things, calling the revelation and transformation bad by pushing the illusion that it is an objective narrative fact is a problem of media and narrative literacy. My problem, again, is that people in all types of fandoms are starting to confuse the two. Which is dangerous, not only for culture, but politically as well.
Learning to analyze storytelling has been seemingly rendered accessible because of the overpresence of youtube videos and media, but this is just the illusion of capacity. In reality, it takes skills and patience to do the job correctly. Stories like One PIece are structure in such a way that they make us think that they are simple enough for us to see through the narration easily, it's not. One Piece has layers that even fans who have read the story for 20 years can't even see.
I don't. That would be arrogant to think that. I simply reached a point where I can see layers of the story that most people can't, not because people are stupid, but simply because they were not trained to see them.
I analyze One Piece not as a fan, but as a writer. I need to know better or I'm done. I'm not trying to be pretentious, I simply had to learn the hard way how wrong can a bad analyzis be and how our perception can create a sense of false objectivity. (And I'm always learning, not always adamant in my analysis).
I'm trying to warn people that confusing objectivity with perception creates illiteracy.
Not necessarily, they would see the objective qualities, but it doesn't mean that they would like them.
That is the thing.
The execution of a technique, in storytelling, CAN be an objective parameter. The question is how do you judge an execution. Well the answer is : you analyze what the author is trying to tell. If the message and impact is created correctly, then it's a win. If not, it's not.
No problem, good discussion.
My point is not that objective parameters are not analyzable, my point is that people are either not looking at these parameters correctly, either ignoring them to simulate the illusion of an objective flaw.
Once again : Gear 5. Objectively technically amazing, perceived (only by a part of the fanbase) as objectively bad. I could try for hours to deconstruct how technically good it is, people will not listen.
The fundamental problem is that we are reaching a point where the perception of a media is considered superior to an objective analysis of the media. And this is happening all over pop culture. The last example is the last episode of Lanterns, which is objectively good, but perceived as bad, again, by the same type of people.
I also agree. I for example have a problem with the way Oda present the gentlemaness of Sanji. I believe it to be a deeply flawed portrayal, not in the fact that it is not realistic, but in the fact that it is contradictory, Sanji doesn't hurt woman yet he still find ways to act in toxic ways against them.
Well give me the critics that are objectively rooted in the storytelling and I'll demonstrate how they are flawed. Gear 5 is OBJECTIVELY an incredible storytelling revelation. So much so that it is a one in a million case of generational revelation and an historical storytelling accomplishement both contextualy and narratively, for many reasons that I have explained multiple times over.
Disliking G5 because of illegitimate expectations is one things, calling the revelation and transformation bad by pushing the illusion that it is an objective narrative fact is a problem of media and narrative literacy. My problem, again, is that people in all types of fandoms are starting to confuse the two. Which is dangerous, not only for culture, but politically as well.
Learning to analyze storytelling has been seemingly rendered accessible because of the overpresence of youtube videos and media, but this is just the illusion of capacity. In reality, it takes skills and patience to do the job correctly. Stories like One PIece are structure in such a way that they make us think that they are simple enough for us to see through the narration easily, it's not. One Piece has layers that even fans who have read the story for 20 years can't even see.
I don't. That would be arrogant to think that. I simply reached a point where I can see layers of the story that most people can't, not because people are stupid, but simply because they were not trained to see them.
I analyze One Piece not as a fan, but as a writer. I need to know better or I'm done. I'm not trying to be pretentious, I simply had to learn the hard way how wrong can a bad analyzis be and how our perception can create a sense of false objectivity. (And I'm always learning, not always adamant in my analysis).
I'm trying to warn people that confusing objectivity with perception creates illiteracy.
Not necessarily, they would see the objective qualities, but it doesn't mean that they would like them.
That is the thing.
The execution of a technique, in storytelling, CAN be an objective parameter. The question is how do you judge an execution. Well the answer is : you analyze what the author is trying to tell. If the message and impact is created correctly, then it's a win. If not, it's not.
No problem, good discussion.
Last edited:
I watched all of them but i don't remember most of work about narouto or bleach as i do with op , so i can't judge them .
...
Tho jojo is something else is really great one .
...
Now op , even though i grow up with op
But still there's really nothing like op ever as shonen i hated this shit this and i really like it the most lol 😆
...
So op is da best
I give bleach or naroto worst 😕
...
Tho jojo is something else is really great one .
...
Now op , even though i grow up with op
But still there's really nothing like op ever as shonen i hated this shit this and i really like it the most lol 😆
...
So op is da best
I give bleach or naroto worst 😕
None really stand out as well written stories
one piece is brilliant until chapter ~600 that's literally 600 chapters of retcon, indirect wank,false hype and asspull city
Bleach made sense for the first 20 chapters then became a mess that looked amazing, aura/10
Naruto dived dramatically after pain, increasingly so with each ongoing arc and boruto fucking butchers most of the lore and re-established the whole fucking verse in the shittiest of ways
Idk or ever really cared about JoJo enough to analyse or hold any fucking information but DIO so take that as you will
So ig Naruto>onepiece~bleach with JoJo wherever BC I'm uninformed trash.
Naruto takes cake for being the most consistent for longer. Over half of Naruto was goat shit
Favourite wise? Naruto/one piece > bleach >jojo
one piece is brilliant until chapter ~600 that's literally 600 chapters of retcon, indirect wank,false hype and asspull city
Bleach made sense for the first 20 chapters then became a mess that looked amazing, aura/10
Naruto dived dramatically after pain, increasingly so with each ongoing arc and boruto fucking butchers most of the lore and re-established the whole fucking verse in the shittiest of ways
Idk or ever really cared about JoJo enough to analyse or hold any fucking information but DIO so take that as you will
So ig Naruto>onepiece~bleach with JoJo wherever BC I'm uninformed trash.
Naruto takes cake for being the most consistent for longer. Over half of Naruto was goat shit
Favourite wise? Naruto/one piece > bleach >jojo
What don't you like about the later parts? Part 6 is actually the only animated part that I haven't seen...
Really damn? The mystery element had me hooked instantly.
I feel like past the fishing rod fight early on Part 7 was very consistent
Part 7 is great though it does becomes bit boring in middle part. I couldn't get past 10 chapters in part 8 though 
I feel like past the fishing rod fight early on Part 7 was very consistent