Code Geass

Well yeah, Code Geass does handle racism... questionably.

What I'm protesting was that the themes themselves being blamed for why the show is bad.

That's where execution comes in, which is clearly spotty, but even there I'm not in full agreement.

And you know...I don't actually think Code Geass was trying to be too serious about any "Aesop" or what have you, especially not in terms of conveying any kind of profound messages to the audience, as opposed to an entertaining experience akin to an operatic performance with some sort of thematic contents but not meant to produce any real life lessons.

I certainly understand Scherzo really wanted the show to be more sophisticated and fully develop its potential, along the lines of a serious literary work, by following his analysis of how the main concepts and other materials should have been better executed. To some extent, I can readily agree with a specific number of his complaints and parts of that general feeling of disappointment, especially after R2, which prevents me from being on Couchpotato's exaggeratingly positive side. That's really a bit much.

But what sets my opinions and interpretations apart is that I still managed to find enough contents in the series that I thought were pretty interesting or actually well done, despite not following the "rules" to the letter, so when Scherzo calls something uniformly "poor" I don't always agree, even if it may or may not be technically problematic on paper. Or we just have different tastes, preferences and pet-peeves.

At the same time...it's always worth pointing out that, regardless of the above, not all products "designed by committee" tend to be nearly as successful as Code Geass was, in every sense of the term.

There's far more failed or mixed attempts than anything else, even just commercially speaking, which I think can be partially explained in this one case because the driving force behind the committee approach was still that of the original writer/director duo, who initially proposed this project almost entirely on their own, coming up and playing with whatever ideas they personally wanted to put into a show, and only ended up incorporating executive demands relatively late into the process. So it's not exactly a very high-minded creative work, no, but it's not free from the creator's touch either.

edited 5th Oct '12 8:41:32 PM by Madonis

It's cheesecake, I know, that's why I like it. But even executing a standard premise it does it poorly. Despite that I still do like Geass, it's just that its quality is really suspect.

I mean the characters can be fun and I don't have any problem with people liking them. It's just... it could have been better; and as much as I can enjoy what there is, to me it's a fundamentally flawed product. Obviously it isn't to all people, and I don't want to say someone's enjoyment of this is wrong.

edited 5th Oct '12 8:40:00 PM by Scherzo09

Cheesecake is one of my most favorite desserts, and I know it's not good for me.

Not going to blame the cheesecake makers though as it's their livelihood.

Am just letting myself be entertained by the verbal skirmishes between (way more serious about Code Geass) folks. Just felt more bothered than entertained by "Racism is bad" and "Weak should be protected" being labeled too broad or banal.

Maybe you meant that Code Geass was being Anvilicious about such - this I can I agree. Just not that such well-meaning themes are to be considered as banal (based on their own merits), please.

edited 5th Oct '12 8:45:09 PM by probablyinsane

It's not the themes themselves, it's the execution. Though it's just... such a basic Aesop, "The strong shouldn't crush the weak just because they can", and there have been so many articulations on that theme to show 'why' the Strong crush the Weak, what makes those people tick. WHY Racism exists. If a show is going to try to tackle those questions as opposed to just having a fun series, it should have some compelling way of presenting them.

In that case, it was just the presentation or shall we say "execution" of your thought process which I found troubling as you really did made it sound like you were assigning (some) blame to the themes themselves.

There are themes which are troubling, on their own, such as Rape is Sexy or War is Entertaining. Such themes, I think, can be, better yet - should be criticized directly.

However, themes such as "Racism is bad" or the "Weak should be protected" are "good" themes. Seeing them labeled as too broad or banal was why I had to say something.

edited 5th Oct '12 9:27:38 PM by probablyinsane

That doesn't make any sense to me. Code Geass is a piece of entertainment. The purpose of entertainment is to make people enjoy it. It's quality is measured by how much it's enjoyed. So saying you liked Code Geass but think it's of poor quality just does not compute.

edited 5th Oct '12 9:44:54 PM by RavenWilder

That falls on some pitfalls, like Quality by Popular Vote.

edited 5th Oct '12 9:59:02 PM by vandro

I can enjoy it in spite of it being really uneven. There's a genuine spark to it and I can unironicaly like it in parts, but there is a lot wrong with it and that keeps me from enjoying it to the full potential of its promise.

It's like something I heard on a Podcast: "We live in a generation that's lost any sense of degree... everything sucks unless it's awesome."

edited 5th Oct '12 10:09:54 PM by Scherzo09

So? That's only a problem if you assume that quality needs to be objective or something other than how you define it. In most sense, "quality" is a measure of how well something does its job. In the case of entertainment, it's mostly built around the job of amusing people. We've got so many ways of describing things, why use such a narrow definition when you can define more about it?

But there are means of comparing works to one another, to see what works. That's what Aristotle did with the Poetics. There are mechanics, things that work that create great works, and works can be compared by how well they are produced. By understanding what works and what doesn't we're able to move forward with arts, with everything really. And to throw all that out and say "well everything is just subjective" brings everything to a halt; you can't evolve an artform if you can't differentiate good forms from bad. I don't care if you like it or not, but it's structurally flawed. It's inconsistent, its not that well written, and the characterization is, again, inconsistent. If you enjoy the sum of the product, that's completely fine. But that doesn't make the product objectively good. And if we cannot agree that some forms are good and some are bad, what's the point of discussing anything because, in the end, we all just live in our own little worlds where nothing matters besides what we will to be. And to me that's stagnation and death.

In short, if we cannot agree that, to be a bit hyperbolic, that Code Geass is culturally inferior to say, Citizen Kane, then culture is dying.

Reaching your audience is how you define something as "working" is it not? To form an experiment, you have to have a set of criteria that you test. If all you do is set a list of criteria as good, and then declare things better the more aspects of the list it hits, you haven't generated a list of objective good, you've created a list of features you like.

How does that make it wrong? Subjectivity means it varies from person to person and there's no objectively correct answer, it doesn't mean there's not objective patterns in behavior that can be studied and catered to. That's like the difference between "red is objectively supperior to green" and "[some large percentage] prefer red more than any other color". You need to have an actual standard of comparison to determine how well it does something. And then you need a way to actually friggin' test that theory. Popularity (or sales, or a dozen other things) objectively exist and can be quantified as a level of response. You need the actual feedback data or you're just blindly operating off of a set of principles.

I won't comment on Kane since it's not something I've seen, although I did read the cracked article pointing out continuity errors.

Also, evolution is not goal oriented, it isn't a state of continuously improving, it responds to stimulus, so it responding and adapting to what works is said evolution in action.

Good riddance.

Critics and reviews also exist, as is critical consensus.

Not sure if serious.

You're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. You're way of thinking is what is killing this site; the destruction of artistic meaning to a mere popularity contest. It's a cancer that promotes mediocrity, that stagnates objective criticism with unthinking populism. We need foundations because to submit entirely to relativism is to lose all meaning. It is the death of meaning in a sea of undeserved egotism. Art requires work and that requires skill and we as humanity have developed means, through culture and society, to interpret and spread that knowledge. There is always room for cheese, I'm not saying that Geass or transformers or anything should be banned because they all are, to varying degrees, creative products. But we can discern traits which put some works above others, and yes, not everyone will agree, but these understandings WORK.

If I were to pound my fists against a keyboard, could I call it a masterpiece? There is a science to music, and there is a science to all forms of art; you can change it or even break it as long as you know what you are doing. But Geass is not transgressive; it's flaws are not some artistic statement, merely artistic laziness and mediocrity. And to raise the mediocre to a position of sublime is to wear away what it actually means to be a good piece of art.

Therefore, I think it's important for people to separate their enjoyment of a product from its actual quality. There is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying something you know to be objectively mediocre. I care about Geass, I really do. But to let your enjoyment of a product get in the way of your objective appraisal of it hurts art.

I just feel very strongly about this, I'm not asking that you agree with me. But I believe that by holding Geass's feet to the fire for its artistic failings, we help make art better. Most likely not in a significant way, but propagating that kind of critical thinking helps us all and allows us to have more fundamentally satisfying appreciation of art.

But if the product is a piece of entertainment, its mission is to create enjoyment. If we don't judge its quality based on the enjoyment it creates, then what do we judge it on?

edited 5th Oct '12 11:57:55 PM by RavenWilder

Judge it by two measures then, how much you individually liked it and what it's actual qualities are. And sure there'll be some overlap, but defining what makes a product good or bad beyond mere statements ("Robots and Magic together are cool", "Lelouch is a cool Magnificent Bastard The Chess Master Villain Protagonist"), the essence of the work, is how we create better works of art.

edited 6th Oct '12 12:03:23 AM by Scherzo09

Criticizing Code Geass for catering to lowbrow audiences is like criticizing fast food restaurants. They do so to make $$$.

Unfortunately, good quality doesn't immediately mean success. Especially when we're talking about highbrow fare.

But these "qualities" are just attempts to take what enjoy and figure out a pattern to it, to discover why we enjoy what we do. As such, if we enjoy something that doesn't meet our standards for quality, then we need to redefine quality so that it encompasses what we enjoy.

edited 6th Oct '12 12:09:20 AM by RavenWilder

Quality is not a matter of enjoyment here, it's about artistic integrity and recognizing what something 'does', not just in how it entertains us. Someone, for example, can appreciate what Half-Life has done to revolutionize the FPS genre without actually caring for it much personal. Being able to dispassionately appraise something is a very useful skill in critical analysis.

edited 6th Oct '12 12:24:38 AM by Scherzo09

Being good and being influential are two completely different things.

Well I mean, the specific ways in which, to use Half-Life for an example, the storytelling was done through the world while always maintaining a first-person perspective with (with a few exceptions) complete player control during them.

I think your definition of Art is a bit limited. Art isn't just to Entertain, but to challenge and reflect upon reality. Good works do that, even ones primarily meant for enjoyment, because that adds to the enjoyment.

It's I think a lot like Social Research; you're always going to find outliers, but that doesn't discount general trends that lead towards a certain outcome.

To change the discussion, recently saw an animation about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and I got the idea that the song from it would go really well being juxtaposed against a battle in Geass.

edited 6th Oct '12 1:00:23 AM by Scherzo09

Thing is, I'm a hedonist. I believe the ultimate goal behind everything humans do is to bring ourselves happiness. So, as I see it, entertainment (defined loosely) is the only thing that matters, not just in art but in life. Challenging or reflecting upon reality are simply means to that end.

But even many Hedonists contend that there are 'higher pleasures' than moment to moment passions.

It's not just a matter of principle either, following those sorts of guidelines results in art that is more enjoyable. Being able to dissect what a show does right and what it does wrong allows us to make better shows, and you can do this by means of measuring between shows.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is some objective 'quality' to a show, the gestalt of the talent poured into it, that exists outside any single person's subjective experience of it. That objective quality might not be able to be fully ascertained any one person, but there is a show with specific qualities out there. If you're to deny that an objective show exists then there is no point in even arguing or discussing about shows because there'd be no way really that any individual could logically convince another that their views are true because there would be no singular show, just a multitude of subjective interpretations that exist in the minds of each viewer. You don't get anywhere with that approach though, which is why we assert that there is an objective show out there that has inherent qualities to it.

edited 6th Oct '12 2:17:29 AM by Scherzo09

An example of a show that's both entertaining and does something with his premise. Kinos Journey.

Plus, well, dividing the world into the Strong and the Weak rather raises the implication that the Weak are innocent, helpless dumbasses who must be protected by the Strong, rather than people with their own goals and agency. Which rather feeds into Code Geass's gigantic (and rather creepy) hard-on for Great Man theory and benevolent dictatorship.

Seriously, for a show about the evils of fascism, it can get pretty goddamned fascist at times.