Comments on: First Look Fair: Kure-nai

By: Zhong

Zhong — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:20:16 +0000

Heh. I need to be less brutal in my criticisms. I take back my earlier comment about Muraski being a kid who is “spoiled ROTTEN.” She’s only spoiled.

The main characters of this show remind of the main characters of last season’s The Guardian of the Sacred Spirit except the genders are reversed. Both shows are about children who had lived their entire lives in a palace before being rudely forced into the real world under the protection of a bodyguard. However, Balsa the face-kicking, spear-wielding, ass-whooping bodyguard in The Guardian of the Sacred Spirit is a HERO unlike Shinkurou who is a passive, depressed high school kid with a traumatized past. The Guardian of the Sacred Spirit has more realistic characters, deadlier political intrigue, more drama, more imaginative scenery, and a coherent plot.

By: Zhong

Zhong — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:52:39 +0000

The main reason to watch this show is Murasaki. I might say bad things about her but the only reason I’d watch the show is because of her character. She’s definitely spoiled and she’s a brat, but she’s a good kid and she means well.

The other elements of the show is cliche:

1. The main character is a passive male protagonist with supernatural powers and a “dark” side. He’s emotionally traumatized because of childhood memories.
2. He’s surrounded by attractive, jealous females.
3. He goes to high school.
4. The plot is confusing and discombobulated with too many loose ends.
5. The plot isn’t very realistic. Doesn’t Benika have a better place to put the girl than with a high school student who is too busy to take of her?
6. The animation and the voice acting is pretty standard.

If it wasn’t for Murasaki this show would be another “bleh” show. Most of the “emotional realism” revolves around her.

By: usagijen

usagijen — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:42:16 +0000

While Kure-nai might seem like a lost cause because of the disparate elements it has, I believe that its not-so-realistic world (or so that’s what it seems at this point with the multitude of questions left unanswered) is made real in the characters, especially Murasaki and Shinkurou, as we get to empathize with both their situations, the more we get to know about their past, and have a glimpse of the path that lies ahead of them. There’s that sense of realism I feel in each episode which always strikes a chord with me, and I blame it for moving me to tears each time. I guess that realism, no matter how little, overshadows most of the negatives of the show… and makes it shine for me :)

By: Zhong

Zhong — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:34 +0000

The animation the opening song reminds me of the opening animation of the sitcom “The Nanny.” The sitcom is about a nanny with a New York accent who has to babysit a group of rich, spoiled, brattish children.

http://www.thenanny.com/

By: Zhong

Zhong — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:51:02 +0000

Murasaki is spoiled rotten. I thought the most memorable exchange was in episode 1 when she manipulated the reluctant Shikurou into becoming her bodyguard by acting sad and unhappy. In the next scene when she’s alone with him she shows her other, more demanding, less charitable side.

I think the reason to watch this show is Murasaki. She’s a traumatized seven-year old brat and she behaves like one. Shikurou is not a very good babysitter. What sort of an idiot would leave a seven year old alone in his apartment with nothing to do for half the day? Of course she’d wander off. What else would she do? Stare at the wall for eight hours?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:46:26 +0000

@Owen: right, I think on the whole the emotional believability is spot on for most of the show. The unrealism is mostly in the plot/situations. I felt much the same way for True Tears, where the plot often felt a bit forced and contrived, but the characters felt real. Ultimately I do think that matters more, and emotional realism covers a multitude of sins.

And you are, of course, absolutely right that “realism” in fiction is hardly the same thing as realism in real life. It’s like writing dialogue for film or TV; you don’t want to write exactly the way real people talk (full of hesitations, “ums,” “like,” etc.). That’s boring. Rather, you just make sure that the dialogue is in character (ie, each character has to have a different “voice”), and that each exchange accomplishes something and moves the story forward. Done well, that simply sounds “natural.”

By: Owen S

Owen S — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:21:15 +0000

I can see how you wouldn’t view it as entirely realistic, but for me the most important part isn’t so much what they do; I’m more concerned about the emotions they exhibit, and their mannerisms, although it’s easy to forget that that’s not the only way by which someone gauges realism.

It’s funny that you bring this up, though — a while ago I was laughing along with a friend about realism in fiction, and how reality is usually so far removed from what we consider realistic fiction that when we try and adopt that experience or incident, it comes off as unbelievable or cliched.

By: Kure-nai 03: I thought what I’d do was, I’d smile like I was one of those liars › Cruel Angel Theses

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:29:51 +0000

[...] practically everyone else has written about the infamous three-way dialogue to death, I’ll skip that part and save you what [...]