|
|
Post by rakujan on Mar 2, 2006 1:36:43 GMT
What were your overall thoughts on the series? Ive basically had to watch it in my own time due to me being swamped with things to do and not being able to attend >sigh< anyway! Yeah, good series, I found the baseball episode rather amusing! Man that blind woman was really freaky, well not as much as the guy who caught the fish I suppose...
|
|
|
|
Post by Indefinite Description on Mar 2, 2006 8:45:13 GMT
I'm amused by its wilful nonchalance towards the overall plot arc: 'Oh, we're looking for a samurai who smells of sunflowers' -- as a pretext for lots of stuff connected largely by character development and character history exposition. It reminds me of Cowboy Bebop in that respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by phanax on Mar 2, 2006 12:23:43 GMT
I just love the interplay of the three main characters, the slightly dopey girl with an obsession wth food, the quiet, mysterious one, and the complete psychotic, (which reminds me, I want to catch and trai a stag beetle to win money with)
|
|
|
|
Post by chemistry tom on Mar 2, 2006 14:14:38 GMT
Go to japan and buy one from a vending machine.  |
|
|
|
Post by Indefinite Description on Mar 2, 2006 17:09:04 GMT
Maybe that'll be because it has the same director... I think. ^_^ Wouldn't that kind of similarity between shows have more to do with the scenario writing than the directing? A given director's works will have similarities because that person will choose to work on certain kinds of project, but that director won't necessarily have been the one to determine the shape of the story originally... not that it matters that much anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Indefinite Description on Mar 2, 2006 20:35:58 GMT
Right. Directorial influence → stylistic input,
but not
Directorial influence ↔ stylistic input
since someone else might have been responsible for making the relevant stylistic decisions, the director just approving them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Indefinite Description on Mar 2, 2006 22:50:50 GMT
Exactly right. The influence of directors lets them affect the style -- but it doesn't follow that an affected style was affected by the director. Thus:
'If the director influences the style the style will be influenced.'
But not: 'If the style is influenced the director [was the one who] influenced it.'
Hence not: 'If the director influences the style the style will be influenced AND if the style is influenced the director [was the one who] influenced it.'
Someone else could have influenced it; that the director could have overruled the decision doesn't mean he actually did intervene. Maybe he's ended up as director precisely because of his experience with similar stuff; no need to postulate an auteur theory there.
As I said, it doesn't matter much; maybe the director was the one who originally decided to do things this way, or maybe not; I'm not going to lose sleep over not knowing.
|
|
