Reviews Manga / Lucky Star

I haven't seen Lucky Star yet, but I have to question the idea of suggesting Family Guy to someone that would be interested in seeing Lucky Star. It seems like the series fall under two completely different audiences.

I was thinking that they both rely on seinfeldian conversations and pop culture references for much of their humour.

I was thinking that they both rely on seinfeldian conversations and pop culture references for much of their humour.

I think you were being a little hard on the characters. They are rather weak in characterization but they are not quite the cardboard cutouts you are portraying them as. Konata or as you said "Mary Sue" does suffer a moderate amount for her prentenious Otaku-ness. Kagami "angry twin" does show a softer side making her more of a general Tsundure as opposed to pure Tsun as you said. You are pretty much spot on about the other two though.

The Pop culture and Otaku jokes were pretty weak most of the time and very niche targeted (unless its Haruhi Suzumiya or Sgt Frog) the rest.

I personally could not stand the Lucky Channel segments, they weren't cute, funny, or anything really they were just kind of there and not really giving useful towards the show.

Is this a joke review?

@Trogga: If you feel it is, maybe you should write one one that you feel is more serious.

Hey, I was asking Vampire Buddha.

Trogga, this is a real review. I don't like Lucky Star at all.

If you feel differently, you're free to write a positive one.

Trogga, this is a real review. I don't like Lucky Star at all.

If you feel differently, you're free to write a positive one.

All of the references to certain other Kyoto Animation programs in the latter half nearly ruined this show for me. I made it through to the end but I will not bother with this kind of show again. I'll stick with Hayate No Gotoku and Keroro Gunso, thank you.

1.), it gets slightly better later in the show. This is simply a show that doesn't lift off much until after the first half. 2.) People find it hard to find humor in subtle areas. If you don't find it funny that pastries can't behave the way you want them to when you try and eat them, this may not be the show for you. 3.) The girls are CUTE. How could you not like CUTE?! 4.) Kyo Ani seems to eat themselves again and again by their references with this show in particular. Much of the humor won't be universal. 5.) YES, for anyone disagreeing with this guy, for PETE'S SAKE, write a positive review! This new feature is wonderful for the articles and on what they're talking about!

Hmmmm. Is it possible that the term 'Mary Sue' is being ever so slightly abused? Even taking into account the nebulous criteria, I'd be hesitant to label Konata as one (Otaku Sue?). The point that may have been missed is that she's sufficiently aware of the character archetypes embodied by the cast (including herself) and their on-screen actions to effectively deconstruct them on occasion. Anime characters referencing anime tropes? Who'd a thunk!

I've never seen ten year olds that look even remotely like that.

But then, you barely ever see any people that look like anime characters. And I wish to say something on the Mary Sue topic, but I've not seen the show, so I can't comment on it.

The only reason I watched it was for the in-jokes and the off-topic conversation. And it succeeded in that regard.

First ten episodes?

Yeah, those were okay. I admit, I started to get really bored by episode... 16? Almost quit.

THEN CAME HIYORI.

Hell yeah.

Watch the series all the way through. It gets better.

And I don't understand why you recommended Azumanga Daioh after basically trashing Lucky Star.

I felt both had the same appeal to them.

1. The characters of Azumanga Daioh at least had some depth to them.

2. Azumanga Daioh only very rarely relied on Shout Outs and in-jokes for it's humour.

Daioh was more approachable and wasn't just pandering to Otaku.

That said, I actually liked (or at least, didn't dislike as much) the Lucky Star manga. True, no Lucky Channel, however the Yonkoma format suited the humour a lot better, Kyo Ani wasn't there to overburden it with Shout Outs to their stuff or make lame and inaccurate comparisons to Suzumiya Haruhi, and the art style probably looks better hand-drawn than animated.

You call Family Guy good.

Any reliablity to your review is lost.

I agree with all of what you said, but if you just suggested Family Guy I'm going to have to question your veracity. :/

Why is this a whole series review when you only watched 10 episodes?

Ah, well if you liked the manga, then you can't be all bad.

I respectfully disagreed with your opinion until you suggested Family Guy. Now I disrespectfully disagree.

"However, instead of trying to be funny, Lucky Star thinks it's enough to say "Hey, look! My keychain is Keroro from Sgt Frog". Literally."

First of all, no, that wasn't the whole joke. It was the setup for later jokes. And second, Family Guy is guilty of this times 100000000.

...

I'm not really sure, but since when was Konata a jerkass?

She's an otaku perv, but never a flat out taunting jerk. I don't know where you're getting that from.

Kagami "Scary twin," is a tsundere.

By the way, since WHEN did this show make any sense?

Also, the only reason they can do niche references is because if they made flat out references to other shows they'd get sued. Which leads to them bleeping out or censoring some of the references. I mean we've got Gundam references, Detective Conan, Initial D (As if that one wasn't obvious enough), a slight one for Pokemon.

And that one bit where you compared the Simpsons to an ANIME.

Think about it. A western animated show that quite a few people in Japan probably haven't watched?

I'd LOVE to hear more about this.

And if you haven't watched the whole series don't write a review of it. You come off an an assuming jerk that can't bother to fully follow through with something before giving up and calling out the rest as awful.

Remember that bit in Super Paper Mario? The one about people going on forums and complaining about games they've never played?

That's the message that I'm getting here.

By the way, she's definably smart, just too lazy to actually follow through with the work because she likes to do other things.

And she doesn't exactly excel, last time I checked she gets low 90's and high 80's. Those are pretty average grades all things considered.

And once again comparing an anime to THE SIMPSONS.

And "Scary twin" getting angry at "timid twin"?

"Scary twin" gets angry at everyone. Cause she's tsundere.

I mean she even has the TWIN PIGTAILS.

By the way, they don't look like ten year olds. I have yet to see a ten year old look like a chibi.

Oh, and don't ask me to write a positive review. Because if you can write a negative review, then I have full right to ask you exactly why you think its so bad, and full right to deconstruct the argument to make sure you don't have a baseless opinion before reviewing.

Family Guy in the same sentence as Mr. Despair?

Cannot... process...

^^"Baseless"? "Complaning about games you never played"? Dude, ten episodes is more than enough to gives an opinion. If I wasted 5 hours watching something I hated, I certainly wouldn't continue.

Though I also have to question the Family Guy reccomendation along two far better shows.

My opinion of the first 15 or so episodes was average.

Then they decided that the same four characters were boring. They added 6 characters and my opinion became good.

I agree with Wicked223, why is this a whole series review if you've only watched 10 episodes? That's close to only the first season, because the show does change (by doubling the cast) in the second season.

And although I accept that you dislike this show, and decide to bash it (which is all well), I don't appreciate you bashing its fans in the same breath as well.

.

hum... to be fair lucky star is not a good anime to start with, way too many inside jokes and reference to other works. on the other hand if you are relatively savvy than the show is actually pretty brilliant.

Some references are brilliant, some are bad.

• Brilliant*

• Bad*

Wow, this seems to have attracted a fair bit of attention since I wrote it. I'll address a few issues.

1: Family Guy. When I wrote this review, I'd only seen that show up to when it was cancelled the first time. I've seen later episodes since then, and I agree, they're awful. However, the first couple of series were decent, and that's what I was thinking of when I wrote this review.

Furthermore, when Family Guy spoofs something, they at least try to put a humorous spin on it. Lucky Star thinks it's enough to just imitate it instead of trying to actually have a joke.

2: People seem to have issues with the fact that I compare something from Japan to something not from Japan. I don't see why I shouldn't; they're both cartoons that I've watched and have opinions on, so what's wrong with comparing them?

And yes, Akira and Mimoru have exactly the same dynamic as Krusty and Sideshow Mel. One is an established comedic actor who puts on a happy and cheerful face but has been burned out by a life in the spotlight and that depressed side tends to shine through, and the other is their long-suffering sidekick who has to put up with #1's tantrums because #1 is a huge star.

Also, The Simpsons is an absolutely massive franchise, which many Japanese people watch. Yes people, Japan does import and dub cartoons from America, just like every other country.

3: Regarding the amount I watched: I first heard of this show on this very wiki. I watched the first episode, wasn't impressed, and decided not to continue. Later, a bunch of people told me that nobody likes the first episode, and it starts getting good around episode 5.

Well, I watched up to episode 5, and didn't see a lot of difference between that and the first episode. Still, hoping it would improve, I watched up to episode 10, and still didn't see any difference. At that point, I figured "Fuck this; I'm nearly halfway through and it still hasn't improved, and I don't want to waste any more hours of my life on what, based on my previous experience, is unfunny drivel."

I get a real sense that its fans keep moving the goalposts every time I say I don't like it. First I said I didn't like the first episode, people tell me it gets good at #5. I watch up to #5, and then up to #10 on the off chance #5 is when it starts improving, and I still think it sucks; thus, people tell me it gets good at #16.

By the way, the show is only 24 episodes long. Nothing should take 2/3 of its length to get good.

4: I can appreciate subtle and observational humour; that's the whole reason I listed Azumanga Daioh as a superior alternative. My problem with Lucky Star is that it uses references as a substitute for humour, and when it does go for humour, the jokes aren't funny. Strangely enough, Azumanga and Haruhi both have moments of similar humour that makes me laugh out loud, so, hmm, maybe the flaw is with the pacing or structure of the episodes. Either way, it's a flaw.

Wow, this seems to have attracted a fair bit of attention since I wrote it. I'll address a few issues.

1: Family Guy. When I wrote this review, I'd only seen that show up to when it was cancelled the first time. I've seen later episodes since then, and I agree, they're awful. However, the first couple of series were decent, and that's what I was thinking of when I wrote this review.

Furthermore, when Family Guy spoofs something, they at least try to put a humorous spin on it. Lucky Star thinks it's enough to just imitate it instead of trying to actually have a joke.

2: People seem to have issues with the fact that I compare something from Japan to something not from Japan. I don't see why I shouldn't; they're both cartoons that I've watched and have opinions on, so what's wrong with comparing them?

And yes, Akira and Mimoru have exactly the same dynamic as Krusty and Sideshow Mel. One is an established comedic actor who puts on a happy and cheerful face but has been burned out by a life in the spotlight and that depressed side tends to shine through, and the other is their long-suffering sidekick who has to put up with #1's tantrums because #1 is a huge star.

Also, The Simpsons is an absolutely massive franchise, which many Japanese people watch. Yes people, Japan does import and dub cartoons from America, just like every other country.

3: Regarding the amount I watched: I first heard of this show on this very wiki. I watched the first episode, wasn't impressed, and decided not to continue. Later, a bunch of people told me that nobody likes the first episode, and it starts getting good around episode 5.

Well, I watched up to episode 5, and didn't see a lot of difference between that and the first episode. Still, hoping it would improve, I watched up to episode 10, and still didn't see any difference. At that point, I figured "Fuck this; I'm nearly halfway through and it still hasn't improved, and I don't want to waste any more hours of my life on what, based on my previous experience, is unfunny drivel."

I get a real sense that its fans keep moving the goalposts every time I say I don't like it. First I said I didn't like the first episode, people tell me it gets good at #5. I watch up to #5, and then up to #10 on the off chance #5 is when it starts improving, and I still think it sucks; thus, people tell me it gets good at #16.

By the way, the show is only 24 episodes long. Nothing should take 2/3 of its length to get good.

4: I can appreciate subtle and observational humour; that's the whole reason I listed Azumanga Daioh as a superior alternative. My problem with Lucky Star is that it uses references as a substitute for humour, and when it does go for humour, the jokes aren't funny. Strangely enough, Azumanga and Haruhi both have moments of similar humour that makes me laugh out loud, so, hmm, maybe the flaw is with the pacing or structure of the episodes. Either way, it's a flaw.

A correction, 10 episodes out of 24 is 5/12 of the length, which is significantly different from 2/3.

But it's pretty close to 1/2, which isn't much better.

@Cliche: I was actually referring to Unknown 72.148, who said it gets really good at ep 16. 16 episodes is halfway through. I should have been more clear on that.

@Cliche: I was actually referring to Unknown 72.148, who said it gets really good at ep 16. 16 episodes is halfway through. I should have been more clear on that.

I get all the references, I just don't think it's funny or interesting. Humor, plot, character development, personality...Lucky Star has none of these things, and I'm supposed to like it?

Oh and FYI, if a character's personality can be summed up entirely by the word 'tsundere,' then that character is flat and poorly thought out.

^That's because Lucky Star isn't supposed to have much of the latter 3, and keeps its humor pretty mild. It's like in the King of the Hill genre or something.

Everything has been done by the simpsosns! In fact, there is a trope that used to be called "the simpsons already did it" before the name was changed to "its been done before" if I remember corectly.

Lucky star is adorable although i agree it isn't completely as good as other animes and regular comedy cartoons but lucky star isn't supposed to be just for amusment it's to make you think, "man, was i that weird when i was in high school?" and then laugh at yourself at a bit at the odd characters. give it a try.

Both Lucky Star and Azumanga Daioh were charming. Neither made me laugh out loud many times but both put a smile on my face and made me feel good. As to to which did the better job? Both equally. They are good for you want to take a break from all the pretentious "serious" animes out there. I still like both kinds thought.

I like luck star but you shouldn't need to watch the whole series to write a negative review.

^Correction: You shouldn't have to wait 10+ hours watching an anime/playing a game before you start becoming entertained. Unless if you're one of those hardcore otakus who don't have anything better to do with their time.

Please remove the Family Guy recommendation before you ruin hundreds of innocent lives.

I wholeheartedly agree that Lucky Star is a horrendously bad and completely unamusing series.

Lucky Star has a slow, deliberate pace. Many people would find it boring, especially if they don't get the references, wordplay, or aren't particularly interested in the interactions between the characters. Not accusing the reviewer of this, but some people simply want lots of eye candy, and Lucky Star doesn't provide it.

Azumanga and Zetsubou-sensei are frenetic to the point of hyperactivity...a given scene rarely lasts longer than two minutes, and it's almost entirely visual or a one-note gag on the character's quirks.

Family Guy has been ripped a new one several times already, so we'll just skip over that...

Lucky Star is subtle, requires a background knowledge many won't have, and is an acquired taste. That doesn't make it bad any more than say, baseball is. Or Lost.

Now, you want bad, watch Gasaraki. Or don't. It hurts my soul to remember watching it. Or Bubblegum Crisis 2040. I'm amazed that some people actually think that show is anything but a bland generic series trying to capitalize on the franchise name.

@jejl: I think you mean Its Been Done. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not The Simpsons used a trope at some point.

@Unknown 70: I gave it two tries. The first time, I just thought "Meh, this isn't interesting." The second time, I came to see that it's utter shit.

@Pufferfish: As I said, I wrote this before the bad episodes of Family Guy were available. That said, even when it's bad, Family Guy is superior to Lucky Star. That's not a praise of the former, it's a condemnation of the latter.

@KendraKirai: Azumanga Daioh? Fast-paced? Are you on sedatives or something?

I disagree about the eye candy thing. Lucky Star is absolutely chock-full of bright, eye-catching visuals designed to attract people like me. The trouble is, the quality of the writing is on a par with that of bad web fiction  ^*

I have no problem with subtlety. Subtlety is good. Esoteric background knowledge is fine in moderation, as long as there is enough stuff that can be appreciated by the average viewer. Lucky Star, however, has none of that; all it has is a string of references to other anime, manga, books, and geek culture, without even attempting to joke or comment on them. There is nothing more to this than "Hey, look! I'm making a Haruhi reference!" In comparison, Haruhi was also chock-full of references, but it was good due to funny and clever writing and dialogue, as well as the presence of elements that weren't references.

Well, OK, there is a little more to the series than that. There's also Mary Sue. This is a weird, perverted little girl who thinks that adult dating sims are an accurate reflection on society and models herself on the women in these games, and insists her friends do as well, due to a distorted worldview in which she has to act like a stereotype in order to please men. This could actually have made for an interesting character study, but it is presented as a positive approach to life...

My Gods. I've just realised. Mary Sue is a female Chris-chan!

@jejl: I think you mean Its Been Done. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not The Simpsons used a trope at some point.

@Unknown 70: I gave it two tries. The first time, I just thought "Meh, this isn't interesting." The second time, I came to see that it's utter shit.

@Pufferfish: As I said, I wrote this before the bad episodes of Family Guy were available. That said, even when it's bad, Family Guy is superior to Lucky Star. That's not a praise of the former, it's a condemnation of the latter.

@KendraKirai: Azumanga Daioh? Fast-paced? Are you on sedatives or something?

I disagree about the eye candy thing. Lucky Star is absolutely chock-full of bright, eye-catching visuals designed to attract people like me. The trouble is, the quality of the writing is on a par with that of bad web fiction  ^*

I have no problem with subtlety. Subtlety is good. Esoteric background knowledge is fine in moderation, as long as there is enough stuff that can be appreciated by the average viewer. Lucky Star, however, has none of that; all it has is a string of references to other anime, manga, books, and geek culture, without even attempting to joke or comment on them. There is nothing more to this than "Hey, look! I'm making a Haruhi reference!" In comparison, Haruhi was also chock-full of references, but it was good due to funny and clever writing and dialogue, as well as the presence of elements that weren't references.

Well, OK, there is a little more to the series than that. There's also Mary Sue. This is a weird, perverted little girl who thinks that adult dating sims are an accurate reflection on society and models herself on the women in these games, and insists her friends do as well, due to a distorted worldview in which she has to act like a stereotype in order to please men. This could actually have made for an interesting character study, but it is presented as a positive approach to life...

My Gods. I've just realised. Mary Sue is a female Chris-chan!

Your logic in accusing Konata of being a Mary Sue is a complete and utter fail.

Wow, this has been going on for two years?

It's been getting necro'd for two years.

@Vampire Budda: "This is a weird, perverted little girl who thinks that adult dating sims are an accurate reflection on society and models herself on the women in these games, and insists her friends do as well, due to a distorted worldview in which she has to act like a stereotype in order to please men. This could actually have made for an interesting character study, but it is presented as a positive approach to life... "

And this completely invalidates this review. It shows that you haven't watched it and are merely regurgitating what others have said on forums.

Those that have seen this series know that Konata never claims anything of the sort, except humorously. If you'd actually watched the series, you'd have seen that when she compares something to a dating sim she usually points out that stuff like that doesn't work in real life. When she doesn't, it's equally plain that it's meant as a joke, since those around her react shock/dismay/resignation and then Kagami usually comes back with a snarky put-down.

You claim that you didn't watch the whole series; which is obvious. So if you don't care for the series, why do you keep coming back to defend your review?

I do wish people would stop acting as though being aimed at hardcore anime fans is a bad thing. Honestly, say a show was released that was aimed exclusively at mathematicians, would you complain about that existing? As a mathematician myself, I certainly hope not. Yes, alright, people who watch enough anime to understand the majority of the references will get more out of this, but so what? Shows, works of fiction, have their target audiences; they have to, because people, thank the Lord, don't all like the same things. Some are more specialised than others, admittedly, but no one's asking you to like that stuff; well, no one reasonable, anyway, and if a certain portion of the Fan Dumb do then that's hardly the original work's fault.

Of course, some will retort at this point, appealing to a particular base is one thing, but these are otaku! They're losers! Freaks! Yes, because only the cast of Welcome To The NHK could possibly have sufficient knowledge to comprehend Lucky Star. You know, I actually think that's complimenting it in a strange way, given how much literary snobs seem to praise to the high heavens anything that can only be "appreciated" by approximately 5% of the population, lest the dreaded hoi poloi come along and ruin their perfectly dusted and polished fun as brought in by the maid... sorry, that's the old British class background coming in for a moment. Ahem, anyway. The point I want to make here is that the 'hardcore anime fans' aren't all obsessives with serious social problems whose lifestyle must be derided to the fullest possible extent. Some of us just really like anime. We go out, we have a drink, we laugh and we love just like everyone else, but when we come home we'll put on this week's episode of Nichijou rather than the most recent offering from Comedy Central (although we might do that other days).

And hell, as I mentioned on another review, I watched Lucky Star before I'd watched any anime other than what little found its way over here on the TV channels and Rosario+Vampire. I enjoyed it just fine. It's remained perhaps my favourite comedy series to this day, particularly of the silly and cheerful variety as opposed to, say, Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei (which is far more guilty, might I add, of throwing in obscure references necessary to understanding the joke - not that that's a bad thing, it's just it seems odd to criticise Lucky Star on that basis whilst praising SZS in the same review). I find it hard to credit that you could call me an 'otaku' then, even if you might now.

So yeah. In conclusion, it's at times like this that I can almost concede that those E-prime nitwits have a point. The verb 'to be' is tremendously overused in our speech and most of all when we talk about art (or fiction, if you prefer). You weren't entertained by this show. That's fine. Suum cuique. But for the love of God, don't be a Fan Hater. Because the only response to that is to call He Who Fights Monsters. And none of us wants to have to do that, I hope.

Here we go again...

Uldihaa:

"And this completely invalidates this review. It shows that you haven't watched it and are merely regurgitating what others have said on forums."

Actually, I did watch the first 10 episodes. I based my conclusions on those episodes. I did not read opinions on any other forums before or after writing this review. All this statement shows is that someone else, somewhere, watched the same show and came to the same conclusion that I did. Is that really so implausible that you have to assume that I'm copying someone else, as opposed to, say, stating my own, honestly-held opinion?

Yes, I am aware that the writers intended Mary Sue's comparing real life to dating sims to be humorous, but the way it's written, she's lamenting the fact, and the narrative always takes her side. I find that disturbing.

The reason I keep returning is because I check the review activity every so often, and sometimes someone leaves a comment which brings this review to the top. And why shouldn't I defend my opinion?

By the way, you and others seem to think that I have no right to write a review since I didn't subject myself to episode 11 - 24. To those people, I ask: Is episode 22 significantly different to episode 10? And if so, how? If there are major differences, fine, I might try rewatching it for purposes of reappraisal. If they're more or less the same, then I see no reason to watch more of what I know I dislike.

Osric:

I have no problems with hardcore anime fans (except when they complain about the existence of dubs). What you do in your spare time is your own business.

There is also nothing wrong with references to other things, whether humorous or just there. The problem with Lucky Star is that the writers think that A) references are an adequate replacement for jokes, and B) the mere presence of a reference is all that a scene need contain. SZB also has heaps of references, but they always take a back seat to satire, social commentary, and general wackiness, whereas in Lucky Star, it's a long stream of "Hey, look! A reference to something!"

And I don't just dislike it because it's aimed at hardcore otaku. If that was all, it would be one thing; I might not have enjoyed it any more, but it wouldn't have offended me. No, my problem is that it's a badly-written show with unlikeable characters, the protagonist of which encourages the viewers to be like Yamazaki in Welcome To The NHK before his Character Development. And since that message is in the show, it counts as a flaw with the product and not the fans.

Here we go again...

Uldihaa:

"And this completely invalidates this review. It shows that you haven't watched it and are merely regurgitating what others have said on forums."

Actually, I did watch the first 10 episodes. I based my conclusions on those episodes. I did not read opinions on any other forums before or after writing this review. All this statement shows is that someone else, somewhere, watched the same show and came to the same conclusion that I did. Is that really so implausible that you have to assume that I'm copying someone else, as opposed to, say, stating my own, honestly-held opinion?

Yes, I am aware that the writers intended Mary Sue's comparing real life to dating sims to be humorous, but the way it's written, she's lamenting the fact, and the narrative always takes her side. I find that disturbing.

The reason I keep returning is because I check the review activity every so often, and sometimes someone leaves a comment which brings this review to the top. And why shouldn't I defend my opinion?

By the way, you and others seem to think that I have no right to write a review since I didn't subject myself to episode 11 - 24. To those people, I ask: Is episode 22 significantly different to episode 10? And if so, how? If there are major differences, fine, I might try rewatching it for purposes of reappraisal. If they're more or less the same, then I see no reason to watch more of what I know I dislike.

Osric:

I have no problems with hardcore anime fans (except when they complain about the existence of dubs). What you do in your spare time is your own business.

There is also nothing wrong with references to other things, whether humorous or just there. The problem with Lucky Star is that the writers think that A) references are an adequate replacement for jokes, and B) the mere presence of a reference is all that a scene need contain. SZB also has heaps of references, but they always take a back seat to satire, social commentary, and general wackiness, whereas in Lucky Star, it's a long stream of "Hey, look! A reference to something!"

And I don't just dislike it because it's aimed at hardcore otaku. If that was all, it would be one thing; I might not have enjoyed it any more, but it wouldn't have offended me. No, my problem is that it's a badly-written show with unlikeable characters, the protagonist of which encourages the viewers to be like Yamazaki in Welcome To The NHK before his Character Development. And since that message is in the show, it counts as a flaw with the product and not the fans.

Message? I think you're taking this a little too seriously. Lucky Star has no "message", and if anyone takes any such thing from it... well, frankly, I think they're the sort of people we'd have to be worried about anyway. I like to think we can all (or most of us can, anyway) distinguish between shows that are meant to be taken as a serious comment on human existence and shows that are just meant to poke fun at certain aspects of our life by whatever means necessary. The two may not be mutually exclusive, but Lucky Star still falls squarely in the latter category. It's not as if, whatever your comparison to the Mary Sue trope, Konata is fabulously successful at everything she does; she's just an Otaku Surrogate who maybe doesn't have the downsides of her lifestyle explore in the depth that works like Welcome To The NHK explored them in. But that's fine. It works for the plot. Comedy has always glossed over things that in Real Life would be a lot more serious - that's just the nature of comedy. And she is called out on her 'Otaku-ness' by Kagami regularly, so I don't think you can argue it's glorified beyond what's appropriate for that standard, not credibly. Heck, if she were a true Mary Sue, she'd have gotten into Tokyo U - something that, at the point the manga has reached, she applied for, despite her mediocre grades. She didn't. That should speak for itself.

I also think you're putting too much focus on the Shout Outs as the source of the humour. As others have pointed out, whilst they may be a good part of it, they're not the focus, at least not most of the time, and there are sides the humour that other viewers can, if they're of the right mind, appreciate. Again, how would I have enjoyed it so if it were exactly as you say? I was aware of none of what it was referencing at the time of my first watching it. Heck, even the really quite blatant Haruhi references went straight over my head - I simply wasn't a part of the anime world at the time. Given that, there has to be something I found entertaining and amusing nevertheless - I don't think my taste is that bad as to like utter drivel to that degree.

Is Lucky Star clever? Not as such. But that doesn't mean it's dumb. It's somewhere between the two, and that works just fine for it. Ultimately, whatever you might think, there's nothing malicious about this show, and getting offended by it is, frankly, going rather too far. Dislike it? Fine. But Hate Dumb and Fan Hating is going too far.

Lucky Star doesn't encourage viewers to be like Yamazaki from Welcome to the NHK, it encourages viewers to be like Kousaka from Genshiken; i.e. otaku that are unashamed of their habits.

This probably disturbs you because you're ashamed of watching anime, which makes you closer to Yamazaki than you would like.

Another attempt at humour comes from pop culture references. However, instead of trying to be funny, Lucky Star thinks it's enough to say "Hey, look! My keychain is Keroro from Sgt Frog". Literally.

...

Instead of this tripe, try Family Guy...

What the hell is wrong with you?