Comment on

MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• mkmusic22@sakurajima.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Thanks. ​:verified:​ ​:btr_kikuri_wave:​ Looks interesting, so I will add to my PTW...
  
  @MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz @anime@ani.social

  source

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    When you do, join us over on !dungeonmeshi@ani.social. Probably the most active community around a single anime.

    Once S2 airs, I bet the discussion threads will be even better than during S1.

    source

    • NineSwords@ani.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Hey, if we’re shilling communities, come join !lightnovels@ani.social as well. Probably the least active community around a single medium.

      source

      • mkmusic22@sakurajima.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Good to know that there is one here ❤️
        
        @NineSwords@ani.social @MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz @anime@ani.social

        source
• isyasad@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Long rant:

  spoiler

  As someone who prefers the FMA 2003 series, I have to offer a counterargument to the notion that Brotherhood is the “canon” series. The manga published from 2001-2010.
  FMA 2003 aired from 2003-2004.
  FMA Brotherhood aired from 2009-2010.
  I really consider the 2003 series to be the original story. From 2004 until 2010, there was no such thing as a “canon ending to FMA” other than what was in the 2003 series. It was finished and packed away years before the manga approached its ending. I don’t have a source for this, but I even remember reading somewhere that Hiromu Arakawa made changes to the manga inspired by some anime-original content that she liked. There’s not really a “standard set by the manga”. Rather, 2003 is what set that standard.
  You could also question what “canon” even means. Like, the events of the 2009 anime are obviously canon within the 2009 anime; the events of the 2003 anime are canon within the 2003 anime; and the events of the manga are canon within the manga. You can search up a list of differences between Brotherhood and the manga pretty easily, and even find ways in which 2003 is a much more faithful adaptation of the early manga than Brotherhood. It’s not like there’s a single continuity of canon events that defines Fullmetal Alchemist, there’s clearly three. Arakawa also requested that the 2003 anime would have an original ending, so it’s not like it’s contrary to the vision of the author, either. Last point, but I would also disagree that Brotherhood has higher production quality. FMA 2003 had much better background art, never resorted to cost-saving use of 3D models, and I prefer the character designs and lighting. Other than that, there’s not really any big differences in style/animation. I was going to paste in a bunch of sakugabooru links but really the series look pretty similar in action scenes. A lot of boring action lines, but a lot of good dynamic shots, too. Brotherhood never has anything really stunning though, like the ballroom scene from the end of 2003.

  tl;dr, FMA 2003 is pretty good, too. It’s kinda misleading to call it non-canon when it was the original completed story. I’d also argue that the 2003 version had better production value in terms of visual style/animation. It’s definitely worth watching, at least.

  source

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s definitely worth watching, at least.

    No-one is saying it isn’t.

    But of course the manga “set the standard”. The parts of 2003 that were adapted from the manga, follow its writing.

    The writing past that point, even if it had nothing to “follow”, and is since original, was by someone else. And in my opinion, you can tell. I watched 2003 without even knowing about Bortherhood, or the manga. And while I like it, I did feel it went “off the rails” in terms of the writing, charachter development and worldbuilding.

    And that’s without knowing at the time that those feelings co-incided with the change in who was writing the story.

    As a narrative, IMO, the original manga/brotherhood is a more internally consistent narrative, with charachter arcs that make more sense, and a world with greater implied detail.

    That is simply down to the fact that when you pass the bat on writing the way the 2003 series did. People can tell.

    Like two halves of a painting done by two artists, where one didn’t expressly try to mimic the other. And even when they do, it’s never the same.

    The difference doesn’t make one or the other half worse, but unlike art where creators collaborate throughout, when you “draw the rest of the owl” the “new” artist will never be able to tie up every thread the original set up, and in ways that’ll make sense in the context of things only the original artist is aware of.

    source