GeneD (post: 1594799) wrote:Mmmm see that assumes that everyone has the same ethics, morals and values or that those are what they look for in entertainment. Let me use an example (sort of spoilers for those who haven't seen Baccano). [spoiler]One of my favourite characters is Rail Tracer/Claire Stanfield. And I'm not talking just Baccano characters, I'm talking favourite period. He's charismatic, has an interesting world view and a twisted sense of honour. He's also a psychopathic mass murderer with sadistic tendencies (euphemism much?) and prone to extreme violence. Logically there should be no way I should like him. But I do anyway because he invokes positive emotions in me. I cheer when he does something cool, I'm happy when he beats an opponent or makes it out alive. In my experience that's heart rational not head rational.[/spoiler]On a more general note, while I do believe than quality can be judged objectively, I don't like to put much stock into it when it comes to entertainment. Something can be objectively very good, but if for some reason I didn't enjoy it, what's the point? I'd be wasting my time, and doing that on entertainment is just silly. It also means that other people might be dictating what I should enjoy and not what I do enjoy, which is also silly. Bonus of course if I like something and it's objectively of good quality, but we can't always get what we want. So a little off topic but that's just my two cents about heart vs. head. Smiley face for friendly discussion.
That's actually a very good response. I guess that I was trying to say that FMA:B is fulfilling in ways that Baccano! is not (subjectively) but that seems to be hard to put into words that do not involve qualifying everyone else's experience. Note that I don't think that lack of moral is a flaw in a narrative or that a character cannot be charismatic without them, just that a story with a good lesson has a chance to impact you in more ways that may resonate for the rest of your life. Or at least I think so
Neane (post: 1594815) wrote:- You say the magical powers in it have an origin. I don’t see why that is any different from other mahou shows. It still is magic in people or objects.
- Then you say it has consequences. Sorry, but there is no such thing if eventually everything can be undone as easily as it is done, as proven by the ending.
- And most mahou shows eventually mention how being a magical girl means you can never have a truly normal life. It is subtle in most but it’s there. Again, Madoka took this element and raised it by the 11.
I think that you are oversimplifying what CO was trying to say. Yes, in other Magical Girl shows their lives change radically and things have origin and end... but in a negative way? (SPOILERS) Having to conceal a secret identity and getting involved in love triangles with your alter-ego (the usual fare of discomfort a Mahou Shoujo experiences) has nothing to do with being fooled into servitude to a heartless alien who is only waiting for her to go past her useful life and become a source of "food" herself, the magic that they get only some spare change out of the enormous cost they are unwittingly paying up front. Moreover, not "everything" was undone: Everyone who died remained dead.
Besides you are admitting that even if Madoka has its feet firmly planted in known tropes, it took things to uncharted territories, so why is there even an argument?