>>23440020
>Are you actually saying you weren't just shitposting back with your initial reply?
I was making fun of the fact that when OP was praising SEED, rather than try to mention something substantial in the show or even imply that the contents are good he chooses to allude to commercial success and popularity instead. If you boast about something that is merely related to your object of praise rather than something that is in the object itself that makes it seem as though said thing doesnt have as much actual merit as you pretend it does.
>Firstly, wasn't the popularity boost primarily owed to fujos and gunpla? Secondly, all you've done is highlight the importance of popularity since Gundam wouldn't exist as it does without that success. Saying that popularity doesn't matter because a show became popular later on makes no sense.
This shouldnt be hard to grasp, but Im saying that anecdote about the show illustrates how the quality of the show doesnt strictly correlate with its success and popularity. If it were then 0079 should have been popular out of the gate but it was on life support by fujos and got cancelled until its popularity slowly rose because of TV reruns and Gunpla sales. Notice how the Gunpla or the reruns are unrelated to the quality of the show, only its popularity. 0079 was always good but it took other things to make it become popular and successful, this shows you cant conclude a show is good if its popular, only that a show might become popular if its good. Therefore, SEED, or any popular anime for that matter, isnt necessarily good just because its popular.
>all you've done is highlight the importance of popularity since Gundam wouldn't exist as it does without that success.
What Gundam owes its existence as a product to is irrelevant to whether its good as a piece of art or not. Popularity and success are markers of profitable entertainment, which SEED certainly is, but not surefire ways of identifying good art, which SEED probably isnt.
