What do y'all think about Flip Flapper? Any pros or cons?

What do y'all think about Flip Flapper? Any pros or cons?

Other urls found in this thread:

www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~tpl/texts/layers.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>pros
Quality animation, backgrounds and sound throughout the series, great variety of episodes, great direction. Cute girls developing lesbian relationshsips naturally, doesn't feel like pandering. Story has potential, could go in all different directions. Speculation if you are into this. Dialog that doesn't treat you like a retard, a lot of visual storytelling.

>cons
Some episodes rely on references, might look like an episodic show with story going nowhere. A lot of plot questions from the beginning still unanswered.
Trying to think about more negative stuff, but that's all.

Style over substance, not impressed. Director is a newbie, and even then he's an untalented hack. Animation is a shitty webgen eye cancer. Excessive fanservice (they're middle school girls, you degenerates). Flat characters without any development at all. Plagiarism everywhere. Yurishit.

Subhuman niggers with double-digit IQs hyping it (because they feel 'smart' watching it), but it's not even top 3 (if only for the fluid animation), especially after the writer supposedly changed. Literally Phantom World 2.0.

An episodic format isn't nececssarily a bad thing, but I feel like there are too many unanswered questions that have to be covered in the remaining five episodes (the nature of Flip Flapper and the organization Yayaka works for, what exactly the artifacts do, who/what Papika is, why she roped Cocona into her adventures, everything).

>plot sucks after writer change
>ep8 sakkan is web gen
>muh explosion
>muh yuniko story concept/series composition/script/origin work
>is this really necessary
>amazon stalker
>visual storytelling worse than citizen kane
>not even top 3
>yuribait

>Flat characters
But that's the best part.

This is why I said that that it might seem like the story isn't going anywhere. The show spends a lot of time wih developing Coconas and Papikas relationship, which is good and works, while them trying to collect the shards doesn't really change the course of the story. Mimi is probably one of the driving forces of the story, and there are still only hints and speculation about her, and we are at episode 8.

The ending could be really rushed or bloated with exposition if they want to explain all these things.

>cockona

Pretty good as long as it doesn't fuck up the ending.

Five episodes is a lot of time to take care of unanswered questions. That's like almost half of the show still to go.

I only have one word for this.
>yurishit

>pedo degenerates XD
Why are crossboarders so transparent

Speak English nigger.

Flip flap flop

>yurishit
Where? I think you need to take off your goggles.

They weren't unanswered, you just weren't paying attention.

I consider anything with an all girls cast to be yurishit.

>the landwhale arrives

Despite all its flaws, this original show from a new studio and new directory is definitely a precious one that shows their potentials among all the generic mainstream cliche-charged adaptation-driven shitshows these days.

I get the indie feels from it and you should also definitely support them.

But isn't it the same for yurifags to think like that?

>I get the indie feels from it
What the fuck does that even mean?

>he sees guys as girls
That's some impressive del/u/sion you got there.

It means shitty webgen influences.

I assume that's not part of the main cast or he's the antagonist. Then it doesn't count

I don't understand the point of the webgen call. We've literally be in it for a decade.

He's the main duo's boss. They also have a male scientist as part of mission control and one of their three rivals is a boy. There are some male characters.

We've still got an entire movie's worth of screentime to go, I don't understand why people keep saying that it's almost over and there's no time for muh precious plot.

>I assume whatever things fit my theory.

Most shows have their plot start about ep3 now due to 13 ep limit

Their robot companion has a male brain.

It's because literal retards lack the brain power to decouple actual runtime from the time they have to wait between episodes. That's why muh pacing is such a common complaint for seasonal shows.

If it's not main characters having graphic on-screen anal sex with balls touching, then it doesn't count.

You win this round. But I'll be back.

Yurishit garbage
I'm glad its flopping

But user, you can't tell a story in under 54 episodes, /m/ tells me so.

Usually it's justified to think so, because original anime in the past tend to have shitty rushed conclusion. FliFla however seems more promising, because the storyboards and the screenplay has already finished since a long time ago. Of course, anything can still happen though.

What's wrong with webgen?? Unless having a word to blame a new tendency.

>50+ episodes to tell a story
Don't remind me on how slow VOTOMS was. It didn't end up being bad, but it could have been told in 26 episodes with more intelligent pacing and removal of most of the fluff. God.

>assuming that robot's gender
fuck off

Flip Flappers also doesn't seem to even strive for an intricate, complicated plot. All they're doing is not explaining all the universe details, which isn't something that needs a lot of time to, if it's even necessary.

yes, being a transrobot myself, i too was triggered by this assertion

It's this bizarre notion that Flip Flappers needs to have some bigmclargehuge scifi plot to actually become "deep".

The plot has been there all along, and it's about Cocona growing up and becoming friends with Papika, with some vague notions about change and creativity on the side. All the fragment shit is just window dressing, and suddenly throwing in twists and drama about the nature of the universe does nothing to make it more "deep".

It's the people who think that Eva is TEH DEEPEST because it has bible quotes in it all over again.

Con: yurishit
About all you need to realize to know it's complete shit.

What is depth in the first place? Multiple layers of interpretation or perspective? Why do people employ a spatial metaphor anyway?

...

What if I like yurishit? I don't see how that alone is a pro or con.

There's been a lot of set-up already and not much yet. We're still on episodic adventures. For a 24 episode series I'd say this is pretty good pacing, for 13 episodes I'm a bit worried. Of course I have no idea what direction the show will go, so there's no point in complaining about it now, but I can see how people can think what they're thinking. Either everything from now on is focused on the "plot" and we miss out on the episodic fun, or they save it all for the very end and it gets very rushed. Of course there's also the third option where everything is just right and the show ends great, but who knows what will happen.

Honestly, with the story structure as it is, I'd say Flip Flappers would work perfectly as a 24 episode series.

Outside of baiting retards on Sup Forums, "depth" just means that there is anything more to a story than the surface level. It's not even a quality assessment.

Look at something like Flip Flappers episode 2. On the surface level, it's just Cocona and Papika going to a wacky colorful world, having a few action scenes and escaping again.
On a slightly deeper level, you think about it for a second and realize that the world is themed after Cocona's pet rabbit and the lawnmower. Since this isn't outright stated, it's not completely surface level, but its also still pretty obvious.
And then you can go full litfag and say that it's a metaphor for Cocona having her first period, since rabbits are fertility symbols and so on. The episode is vague enough to support this theory as well. Hey, why not.

The show allowing these kinds of interpretations is what makes it "deep". The entire show is full of puberty metaphors and so on. It invites interpretation and thinking about it, and that's what some people like.

Of course, none of this makes it good, you could just as easily say that it's just a bunch of nonsense intended to bait people into thinking that it's more profound than it really is. And yes, it's very vague overall. I just think that if people think it's fun to speculate and interpret, there's no harm in that.

Compare this to a show like 3-gatsu, which is also full of visual metaphors, but is COMPLETELY in the nose about what it means. You can be pretty sure that "sadness is like a deep ocean" is a completely intended reading, but does that make it more or less deep? It certainly doesn't reward thinking as much, even though you can be sure it's not just rusing you.

Or look at something like Mahou Shoujo Ikusei Keikaku, which completely lacks any depth at all. It's literally just a series of surface level plot points: x kills y, plot twists, etc. And it's still good anyway. Not all shows have to be the same.

My main concern with FliFla isn't that it won't have enough time to wrap things up or that it's not deep enough, but that it might give us a completely expected ending or end up ripping off Eva. They have the resources to tell whatever story they want, but what the writers are aiming for is still hard to tell even at this point.

>And it's still good anyway
Debatable, because it doesn’t only lack depth, it also lacks subtlety. Fucking Maeda Jun writes more subtle plot progression, and that makes the all too obvious viewer manipulation fall completely flat. At least for me.

But there are also people who enjoyed painfully obvious shows like Plastic Memories which is basically the same except with tears instead of sadism, so who am I to judge.

Samefags have really gotten shit

Hard to say, personally, because the ending is going to make it or break it. Sure, the show is more than passable in terms of animation and whimsy (and fanservice I guess), but there's this undercurrent of something bigger going on, and if that gets resolved poorly then it's just another wacky and random dime-a-dozen show.

Well yeah, "good" is always subjective. I find it entertaining, the same way something like Game of Thrones is entertaining. The utter lack of depth and subtlety is what makes "dumb fun" still "fun" to some people.

I mean, I could have used Izetta as an example as well, but that show's just no good even on that level.

>I mean, I could have used Izetta as an example as well, but that show's just no good even on that level.

Those are CGI, right? I don't like how they look for some reason. I'd say unorganic, but they're tanks.

Izetta almost has the opposite problem though. It is subtle, or rather it would be subtle if the idea of subtlety applied to it at all. It doesn’t because Yoshino pulls random twists out of his arse to connect his major events, so for the most part trying to figure out what the show will do next is a futile endeavor. Yoshino does understand foreshadowing (e.g. showing the nazi magic research early on) but often throws it into the wind because he cares more about the pacing of said major events than about making any sense at all. (“I want her to face the original white witch, how do I get there in a way that makes sense? Ah fuck it, nazi clones it is”)

He shouldn’t be writing things that aren’t Geass unless he has a second writer who can veto his bullshit.

Pros
>girls are hot
Cons
>shameless yuri pandering
>shameless pedo pandering (I know I'm being a hypocrite here, but whatever)
>overall boring

Funny you say that, because if Izetta managed to do scenes like that consistently, I'd probably like it. The problem is that it only had like two scenes of this caliber so far, which is not enough. And the rest of it is plotty bullshit that doesn't even check out logically (unlike MSIK), combined with an unearned sense of maturity because muh historical events (even though that just means you have CG Panzer IIIs and Bf-109s in your mentally challenged magical girl show)

>imaginative settings
>consistently good production
>cure characters
>studio pablo
>good ed
>papika!

vs.

>poor direction
>characters have no chemistry
>moves too quickly
>weak attempts at sentimentality
>playing too hard at anime clichés
>feels purposeless

Not great, but still the best show since 2014.

Stop spamming your shitty Generals

All of the action scenes featuring Izetta use 3DCGI for the vehicles and her weapons. Which makes for really boring action, one of the show's many flaws.

#
I don't think it's right to call gatsu on the nose just because you can figure out the intention of the visuals. Sure, you know that the reading is probably about the nature of despression or how the sisters throw him a lifeline or whatever, but there's definitely subtly when it comes to their actual execution. You're rewarded for thinking in that you figure out how the visual cues tie into a premise you're already mostly aware of. Flip flappers is different because you're given visuals for which the intention isn't clear, but that alone doesn't make it subtle.

>Flip flappers is different because you're given visuals for which the intention isn't clear, but that alone doesn't make it deep.
Yes it does, that makes it deepeer than more obvious visuals because those are more on the surface level while these are, well, deeper. And more subtle.

I agree that 3gatsu does have some depth though, they could very well be spelling it out every episode. No matter how obvious the visuals are, they are still a layer below surface level narration. That is depth in the very literal sense of the word.

>moves too quickly
Thank you. I find it bizarre as fuck how people say it's slow when half the time you're watching an episode and it feels like you've somehow missed a week.

Sure, but there's a difference between the single metaphor and the show itself. I find it completely appropriate to call 3gatsu's water metaphor on the nose, even though the show as a whole isn't... as much. The storytelling is subtle, but the metaphor it uses for it is not.

>metaphors = depth

The only time I felt this was watching the third episode. But by the end of it it's made pretty clear how it connects to the previous week since they come out of the thomasson.

I'm certain that if this show didn't move at this kind of pace, it wouldn't have been able to feature different worlds in 7 out of 8 episodes so far.

Metaphors are by definition using something other than the surface level to say something, so yes, that formula is entirely correct.

It's the inverse that doesn't check out, depth doesn't have to mean just metaphors. But I never said that.

Sorry for fucking around with post deletion. I think I get what you mean a bit bitter now. I was gonna say that it's possible for a show like FF to create shallow depth (heh) by throwing around visuals which the artist themself had no intention of tying to anything but that's probably what you were addressing with the ruse talk.

Yeah. Feels like they're trying to cram more ideas / bigger stories than there ought to be in to the confines of a single episode. You can feel where things are cut or abbreviated. I think more episodes, a more lingering pace and a less strict adherence to the one episode = one pure illusion rule would do wonders.

You must realize this is how anime is now. There's no room for anything longer than 13 ep series anymore if it isn't a big franchise or doesn't have some gimmick like a Gackt tie in

Well that's the issue though isn't it. For (some) people the more hidden a meaning is, the more rewarding it is to discover it. But if it's perfectly clear what something means, or if the creator goes out of their way to confirm a theory, it's hardly "hidden".

Like for example, look at Blade Runner. For decades there was the debate whether Deckard is a replicant, and many words were spent on interpreting it either way. Then the various Director's Cuts came out and pretty much confirmed that he is, and instead of the "he is" crowd throwing a party, everyone mostly just went "oh... but that's not very interesting, is it".

What's with this hate for the webgen style? I think its minimalism is quite interesting.

Of course, but as a fan I'm entitled to complain about things.

Waste of get.

You're not entitled to anything.

a) "I don't like things that are different/muh 90s anime"
b) preference of slick gloss and detail of expressive movement (or wanting both, not realizing that very few shows can afford that)
c) buzzwordism

I'll keep complaining regardless.

d) webgen looks bad

Or well, compare it to a later Ikuhara show like YKA, which is nonsense on the surface, with the intention to force the viewer to consider a deeper meaning, because there is none otherwise. I think Flip Flappers strikes a pretty good balance between a thin but valid surface level plot and leaving room for interpretation so far.

There’s bad webgen animation. There’s bad normal animation too, but you can’t yell at a bogeyman as easily there.
Webgen stuff being so easily recognizable makes it one of babby’s first sakuga words they learn, and that in turn means it will always have a special place in their minds too, hence everyone sperging about webgen stuff.

It's amusing how people overanalyze this show so much. Flip flappers is just a show about silly girls doing silly shit in a silly alternate dimension, and that's why I like it.

What's the problem with enjoying it on both levels, or at least accepting that various people enjoy it on different levels?

To me, the various interpretations are interesting, but people who swear up and down that that's what the show "really" is all about are just setting themselves up for disappointment when it doesn't do whatever they imagine it should do in the end.

And I like doing silly things such as overanalysis

At this point I think a lot of dudes are just waiting for Flip Flappers to not deliver on some gigantic groundbreaking statement about everything, just so they can gloat on Sup Forums that they were right in calling it shallow all along.

Boredom until Thursday.

The writers will have the last laugh when it turns out this is just a show about friendship prevails all and nothing else.

I'm still confused with the concept of depth. It's a spatial metaphor about relations between interpretations (surface-below, etc,), but how do you apply it to visual arts at the very least, let alone moving pictures/cinema? I googled it and I got

www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~tpl/texts/layers.html
it's literary. Also, Tomino's script confirmed to be deep, hah.

There's that one guy who keeps spamming his pastebin. It was a bad joke. Chances are he's here in this thread.

I am 100% OK with this.

Making a statement about friendship is not in itself shallow or stupid though. Even if it ends up that way, Flip Flappers has already done enough to make sure that it's more than just "hur the power of friendship saves the day because anime" in the end, if only because Cocona has had character development every single episode so far.

Well in the simplest terms, cinema/anime also has a narrative, so all of the rules about interpreting literature also apply to it no matter what the visuals add. And what they add can easily be even more food for interpretation. I don't understand why you have a particular problem with using a "spatial" metaphor for these layers of meaning.

Even a single still image can have layers of depth to it, just look at this screencap. And that's not even considering what it can say in a narrative context, or historical context, or in a metaphorical context, and so on.

Part of the idea is that interpretations have a "surface layer" which refers to only that which is explicitly told/shown to the reader and ignores things which are uncertain, ambiguous or merely implicit. You go "deeper" by finding other layers of signification in the work which might enhance and altar that narrative, or completely subvert it. These vague levels of interpretation are rarely holistic in their entirety, and so it's up to the interpreter to pick and choose which pieces they group together under what signification. For example, a single sentence might have 3 possible meanings, where the most obvious and sensible reading would be the surface layer, and the other possible readings would create ambiguous layers of meaning with regards to how they relate to the work as a whole (if they even do at all).

A show that has depth doesn't necessarily have anything interesting to say. Depth is more about the way it's being said, and how much meaning is being layered into individual instances of narrative or signification. Things like subtle background details which suggest something not outright states (like Cocona being protective of her thigh-scar) add these layers and pack more narrative into a smaller space. It doesn't necessarily need to advance some profound insight into the human condition or spiritual metaphysics, and doesn't necessarily even need to be setting up for some explosive plot turn. Just as long as it has some point, some meaning, or some oppourtunity for the viewer/reader to interpret it (and thus read meaning into it), it's adding depth.

Do you actually want to make OP not watch this show?

Hi Doom!

Interpretation is purely up to the audience. Saying something is deep because the "surface" story has a symbolic meaning is pointless because all fiction is symbolic. Not only that, but thinking about stories that way elevates the "intellectual" prestige of stories that are purposefully vague on the surface in order to "hide" the "real" story. But in reality, stories don't need to be puzzles to be deep, they just need to have a little substance to them. And you're right that having substance typically means there's more to the surface than what's immediately recognizable, but that has to do more with observation than construction.

The problem with that is that "substance" is hardly a significantly more easy to pin down quality than "depth". Sure, "depth" can be defined as "hidden substance", but then you're just adding "what is hidden/dies this show hide anything" on top of the question of "what is substance/is this show substantial".

It doesn't really matter all that much if you say "depth = hidden substance" or "depth = substance" when substance itself is up to interpretation. You make it sound like substance is intended by the author as opposed to found by the audience, but that's not always true and you don't even need to go all death of the author to see that. A lot of "substance" in stories is not intentionally put there by the author but informed by their personality or history nonetheless, for starters.

>No Papiwo
What a waste.

>so much meta discussion
>serious but still shit