@zeltrax225:
I would argue that's more subjective than objective.
The momentum that made One Piece the best selling manga was built on Arlong Park and Enies which as we all know is character driven
1.) What in the hell are you even talking about?
2.) One Piece was plot-driven since the beginning. It just seems more obvious now since the stuff the series was building up slowly over the course of the first half are now at full display.
3.) I don't think Arlong and Enies Lobby arc are what made One Piece the best selling series. Would need to see some citations on that.
character writing has taken a dip to make room for world building writing.
Every character have their stories which is fine
Hahahaha what?
Character-writing has taken…..a dip and yet somehow New World has characters that obviously seem to have more thought put into them but they are weak....because.....of reasons?
Like you can say that the plot-complexity doesn't allow for more slower character moments to pop and sure, that can be argued.
But actual character-writing? In terms of how the characters are developed and portrayed? I don't see how it is weak when it has so far given us some of the best side cast as well as two of the most compelling villain characters like Doflamingo and Big Mom. Kaidou is so far a bit bland and yet also shows more character then the likes of entire CP9 cast.
You can argue your point that characters like Baby 5 and Katakuri was memorable but I would argue that's more subjective than objective.
Gonna leave the irony of someone trying to be objective by presenting a very flawed subjective look aside.
But no, actually that's not really subjective. Katakuri started off as a very bland and stoic character (with a very cool design) that later went on to become a seriously compelling character whose interactions with Luffy were pure awesome.
Compare that to say Lucci and I think you can tell the massive difference between the actual characters.
Did we have an entire half chapter of Kaku and Paulie bonding and then a Paulie sobstory? No and it would slow the shit out of the momentum and the focus.
…...Isn't that, like, the pure definition of plot-driven?
.....Which is the opposite of what you were trying to say with the Pre-timeskip = character and post-timeskip = plot.
Because the plot slowing down to give more "meat" to the characterization of Kaku would be actual character-writing.
Again, having problems with the way the characters are presented in a perfectly legit criticism.
But trying to randomly throw some nonsense about how pre-timeskip was character but then provide scenarios that literally prove the opposite doesn't make your point well thought out.
Just my two cents.
they are more involved in the narrative, with things to do at the beginning, mid and ending, as compared to the current epic saga.
Examples of this would be nice.
Also nice way to ignore Sabondy arc.
I would be interested in seeing demonstrations of how different SH's role has been in the Pre-timeskip (not including their arcs since ….well its their arcs and them having emotional center piece is literally the point) compare to post-timeskip.
I don't really see much of a difference aside from the Post-timeskip having bigger side-cast and sub-plots then pre-timeskip. Otherwise, the roles of SH's seems to be the same.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Daz:
That doesn’t necessarily mean the new approach works better, and certainly means whether or not it works better cannot be interrogated.
Sure.
But just going "old = better, new = bad" isn't really saying anything about anything.
And that's what I saw as far as the most "critical" stuff about post-timeskip.
I'll happily admit I'm wrong if that's not the case by seeing examples.
One Piece couldn’t POSSIBLY have declined in any way, and any attempt to argue contrary must be in bad faith?
Not sure how you managed to take this:
Oda has not lost his passion for the series. When he does then the whole "One Piece has gone downhill
and stretched it to this:
One Piece couldn’t POSSIBLY have declined in any way, and any attempt to argue contrary must be in bad faith? And in any case, whatever criticisms can be levied at current One Piece can be dismissed with History Will Windicate Me, Just See?"
Why are you even assuming and presenting a pure strawman argument here?
I don't remember ever stating that current One Piece is pure human perfection and cannot be criticize or whatever nonsense you are on about.
I would love to see a full breakdown of what works and doesn't work like Naruto and Bleach-level if we REALLY want to get down to what I was saying.
Constantly comparing to how Oda did in someone's favorite arc or era and then complaining that the current era doesn't have that isn't criticism. It just simply speaks to what appealed to you personally.
And yes, author losing their passion for the series is one of the most fundamentally objective way to tell when a series has lost or gone downhill in terms of quality.
Like if you are saying that Oda has gone down then can you list in terms of what? The biggest "problem" with current One Piece could be that it's too bloated with stuff but then, Oda is also trying to work within that restrictions pretty damn well. Despite the current complexity, One Piece isn't riddled with plot-holes or characters aren't introduced and then killed off for no reason, even though that would be very easy to do so.
Give this level of complexity to any other writer and tell them handle it on a weekly schedule and I can guarantee that even best of the best would struggle with that.
Or even better yet; could you name a series like One Piece would similar level of scope, complexity, release-schedule that can be consistently be high quality and is prone to making mistakes and such. Because I sure as hell would love to see that.
What Oda has done despite the current bloatness is fucking impressive as far as I'm concerned. And is far far greater then the claims of One Piece being "mediocre" after timeskip.
And yes, I prefer to look at the other side rather than ripping the series over every little detail possible.
But what would those reasons then supposedly be?
Like say criticizing the way Oda wrote Rebecca and executed her character, who is for me one of the worst characters in the series, as oppose to starting a dick-measuring contest of how the pre-timeskip did it and that's why Rebecca is bad because post-timeskip.
Likewise, I find Lucci, Cp9 and Boa Hancock to be some of the laziest and overall worst characters Oda has ever written.
But if that were the popular belief that Lucci being a lazy one-note character wouldn't be a thing because pre-timeskip = good and post-timeskip = bad. I haven't seen a single major character more lazy and more one-note then Lucci or Boa Hancock in the post-timeskip.
If you have actual criticism then say so. But constantly pretending that pre-timeskip is this part of the series that is perfect while post-timeskip sucks is just not legit.
Its fair that you like Post skip One Piece, but can you not symphatize with pre-skip having unique strengths that appeal to different people?
No.
I would if people realized how that is a two-way street and that just like you can have people who prefer or were more appealed by the earlier series, you can have people that love the later stuff.
that criticism is unfair bad faith nitpicking with a side order of “People are taking this WAY too seriously
Criticism isn't really criticism just because people say it is. Likewise, there is a very clear limit as criticism can be applied in certain ways and not every way in every situation. The best that comes to mind is Darth and his mindless rumbling about the Marines not being portrayed as the good guys. That wasn't criticism. That was someone being confused by what they were reading and pretending that One Piece HAD to be like Nausicaa in terms of realism, thematic complexity and subject matter.
You won't approach Pokemon the way you approach Berserk because there is a certain "limit". You won't expect Ash to suddenly become like Guts or for Pokemon's light-hearted tone to turn into dark fantasy.
Or you won't expect Death Note to be like crime and punishment because the former is just an entertaining shonen series while the latter is a more serious in-depth look at how someone who killed someone would deal with that. One is entertainment, the other is a realistic work exploring human psychology of what someone who actually feel when they killed another human being.
My uni-level comment was about how there are people that try to rip every chapter apart with super deep analysis while Oda probably did certain stuff like that because he thought it was cool.
One Piece is a shonen series for teen boys. While the more critical people tend to pretend that each drawing, each line of dialogue, each character, each plot-thread etc… must be perfected to hell otherwise it doesn't work or fails.
And I'm not even getting into the nostalgia and how people tend to favor their favorite stuff while at the same being being super critical to stuff they don't like.
Or is the argument just that given time, all One Piece arcs be viewed favorably –or at least the ones which got negative pushback?
No.
The point is that knee-jerk reactions to things can be opposite from someone having had the time to understand the arc, and its goals and appreciating it for what it was.
The only difference now is that people are just more critical of the post-timeskip and regardless of what Oda does, those people won't be happy or like it. Cough Darth cough Joyboy cough
Again, I would love to see examples that demonstrate the opposite. I'm just speaking from my experience on this site and from the discussions in spoiler thread or chapter thread since Punk Hazard days.
Like, you refer to the fights in Enies Lobby as if they’re objectively negative
In terms of visuals? No.
But in terms of having anything even remotely interesting character-wise? Then yes. I usually don't use the word "boring" to describe anything because it is such a generic word that doesn't mean anything but EL arc was exactly that; boring. The character-drama outside of the battles were great and it's the only reason why the arc isn't straight up shonen garbage. It's the type of arc that I would expect in a series like Demon Slayer due to how utterly boring, bland and generic it was with it even having some straight up number-based power-level system.
It was the first and the last time thus far Oda relied on trying to appeal to the more casual shonen crowd when the series was/has been/is above that shit. There is a reason why EL tops the chart of best One Piece arc purely because it was as close to a generic shonen series as One Piece ever got.
EL has been Oda's weakest work to date by a long shot even including Fishman Island arc.
