CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Thanks go to Scribs for this one.

http://christiananime.net/reviews.php?display=184

I have to disagree with a lot of the ratings. Nudity was definately NOT a 9. Yes there was nudity. They were abstract and impressionistic. Kind of like a nude painting you would see at an art gallery. Infact some were probably paintings. I would put nudity at 3. Possibly 4

Sexual Content? I did not see a SHRED of anything pertaining to sex in this OVA. It deserves a 0. If you want to stretch it, a 0.365

I think the violence is a tad too high. I would give it an 8 or 9.

Bad religion does NOT deserve a 10. Yes there is God portrayed, he moves time back and forth. He does weird things. But is it blasphemous? Not 100%... It belongs at 4 or 5. He is the whole "clockmaster god" type of thing.

Edit: For sexual content, it says "see nudity" however the nudity section doesn't mention anything sexual! Just nudity

For some reason I've really wanted to see this for a long time, but from what I can tell maybe I shouldn't. I usually like totally odd stuff like this though, so maybe. It's hard to tell from the review.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:I have to disagree with a lot of the ratings. Nudity was definately NOT a 9. Yes there was nudity. They were abstract and impressionistic. Kind of like a nude painting you would see at an art gallery. Infact some were probably paintings. I would put nudity at 3. Possibly 4

Sexual Content? I did not see a SHRED of anything pertaining to sex in this OVA. It deserves a 0. If you want to stretch it, a 0.365

I think the violence is a tad too high. I would give it an 8 or 9.

Bad religion does NOT deserve a 10. Yes there is God portrayed, he moves time back and forth. He does weird things. But is it blasphemous? Not 100%... It belongs at 4 or 5

In most cases, the quick index is left almost entirely upto the discretion of the reviewer. The mod who is approving the review does have the final say, but we don't usually alter it.

Felix wrote:For some reason I've really wanted to see this for a long time, but from what I can tell maybe I shouldn't. I usually like totally odd stuff like this though, so maybe. It's hard to tell from the review.

I think the most disturbing part itself was the beginning magician trick. The nudity isn't as bad as graded on the quick index.

Ah ok, thanks MSP. I don't think the nudity would be a problem, and as long as the violence isn't worse than Happy Tree friends, I should be just fine XD

Felix wrote:Ah ok, thanks MSP. I don't think the nudity would be a problem, and as long as the violence isn't worse than Happy Tree friends, I should be just fine XD

The most violent part was around the beginning. They go to some circus and a bearded magician (Most likely God) used a saw to cut up this woman into peices. You can see her dismembered body and the circular white stuff that's supposed to be bones. And blood is spewing everywhere. Then he twirls the body parts and some more blood is spewing, (some get on the audience members at the circus) then he reassembles the body and she's all good and new, all her blood intact.

I guess it was most disturbing because it was part of a circus act.

I saw this yesterday and I would have to agree with MSP that the sexual content was basically non-existant. There was nudity, but it was artisitic nudity in the fact that what was nude wasn't supposed to, and didn't, look real. There were no sexual references at all to my knowledge, unless there is some secret symbolism in the movie that neither MSP nor I found...

Mangafanatic wrote:In most cases, the quick index is left almost entirely upto the discretion of the reviewer. The mod who is approving the review does have the final say, but we don't usually alter it.

While I agree, I am saying that scribs is absolutely wrong. I don't think it's a good idea at all to leave something by the discretion of Scribs when he is downright wrong. Both linksquest and I have seen it, and we both pretty much agree on the same time. It wouldnt be a problem if he said the sexual content was 7 and I said it should be a 5. I am saying it should be a 0. Those are two big extremes. Same applies with Nudity! Is it a 9 like scribs mentioned, or is it a 3? There's no compromise at all, because they're at such different scales.

The review is misleading, inaccurate, and for the most part false. That's why It has to be changed.

I'll PM Scribs about it and we'll go from there.

I'd also like to remind everyone that this is exactly why we have threads for each review. Not everyone is going to agree, and everyone comes standard issue with their own opinion. People will also read this thread and see what others have to say about the series. This will get straightened out soon.

I dare say.

Things seem to have gotten tense here in this thread in my absence. I felt that the ratings I gave it were apropriate at the time I made them. I have not watched it since, and therefor cannont really acuratly update them. I do not however feel that it warrents a 0 in sexual content. Or a 3 in nudity. I think that something between the extreems is warrented. I appologise for any confusion or for upsetting anyone, but frankly, it is just a review not a world changing event, and I feel that this has been taken a bit out of proportion. The mods should change the rating in a way that they see to be fit.

Scribs wrote:but frankly, it is just a review not a world changing event, and I feel that this has been taken a bit out of proportion.

True, however the point of a review is to be completely accurate. And I find your article to not be accurate at all, (Not meaning to be offensive of course) hence why I am challenging your review.

Scribs wrote: I do not however feel that it warrents a 0 in sexual content.

There was some "artistic nudity" nothing realistic in that sense. And that would be in the nudity category not sexual content category. What did you think warrented a rating of a higher sexual content than 1? At the most it would be a 1 because of the presence of nudity... but still that is in the nudity category and not sexual content category. The nudity wasn't there as fanservice.

And please note that there can be nudity but no sexual content. A simple depiction of a nude person is not sexual content. Likewise you can have sexual content without nudity.

So what was the sexual content Scribs? The nudity? Okay how was the nudity sexual? Simply because it was nude? That doesn't make sense. Nudity and Sexuality aren't always hand-in-hand. That's the reason why they are 2 separate categories in the review-system.

I have no interest in pursuing this topic further. Gypsy will do as she feels fit, but over all it does not really matter that greatly.

Farewell.

Scribs wrote:I have no interest in pursuing this topic further. Gypsy will do as she feels fit, but over all it does not really matter that greatly.

Farewell.

I take it you have no answer to my question. Very well then

Might as well leave it up to what Gypsy has to say...

The numbers have been adjusted slightly.

I'm a little bummed about the tone in this thread, btw.

Gypsy wrote:I'm a little bummed about the tone in this thread, btw.

I'm sorry >_> I truely am. The last thing I want to do is make someone feel bummed. But this really concerned me, and I felt I needed to do something.