Writing an article for “All in All Is Very cute” before the second season AIRS would certainly focus on Kinjo Hadaka, but if I’m just talking about the plot, it doesn’t make any sense. To put it bluntly: I’ve seen animation before, so I thought it would be better to rely on memory, since I’m the man who approached the speed of light before NASA.Don’t you think the hero Suzuki Starry Sky is too good? It struck me as I was writing this, and that is that this is too perfect for a character like this, don’t you think?
According to the introduction: as long as through hard work that can accomplish all the genius, so let me ask you: Can you give birth to a monkey? Ha I seem to have found a bug~ so for such a character, in fact, is a very unlikable character, why? Because too good, too stubborn, too willful, too casual.
1. Excellent
Good people do good things, this is the truth of the world, after all, the world is promoted by good people, so for most people by the awake starry sky this role is actually very helpless, excellent some abnormal, too abnormal, so for such a role, in fact, not pleasing.
It would be a mistake to focus too much on the characters, since “All in All Cute” is a very funny show, but you can’t see your character ooc, can you? So for such a male master, in fact, excellent it is a mistake, and this mistake will appear very stubborn.
Two, stubborn
What can be solved through efforts, then it will be easy to enter the scope of stubbornness, after all, equal to you are a superman role. If you can do everything by yourself, then you can get the answer without the help of others. Then you just continue to be funny, no matter it is anime or original manga. So why do you want a cute girl, the girl who is destined?
So it’s kind of a set, misleading, contradictory set, and of course it can be understood that Hadaka intended it that way; It would be better to set a bit of contradiction; Later in the comic, the character can be broken, so it is a serious ooc. And such a setting, design will make people feel too capricious.
Three, capricious
As long as you can get the value or direction you want through hard work, it seems very idealistic. Therefore, in such a problem, we will find that in fact, it is very capricious, capricious to do what you want to do, and for such a model, the whole role will be very easy to collapse.
Of course, as a character prone to ooc and collapse, maybe also because of the keyword funny decision, so designed it. Which makes perfect sense, since it’s a funny comic? But this kind of self-justification, it’s really a very haunting existence of this character, because it’s very easy to undermine, to undermine the definition of this character.
We can think of it this way: originally, a character’s path of action is one of the four paths in the ABCD, and this willfulness becomes: the ABCD can walk four different ways. So the character is really conflicted, capricious and random.
Four, casual
As said above, because of the positioning of the role and setting easy to cause ooc, so for such a casual person set, plus very helpless, no focus (not to say really no focus, but funny love marvel), willful, casual animation works, so for this role, in fact, too casual is because of the word funny decided.
To put it bluntly, the value of funny is to make people feel very comfortable with a keyword, so for such a word, if coupled with love, it is really become: about funny and with some love this thing. So for this character, in the context of the situation, in the fun-centered drive, it seems very casual and self-fulfilling.
Five, not out
From the above analysis of my characters, we found a key point: as long as you are a comic, you can ooc, break the story, and be casual (note: I added the word casual to the characters! ooc is easy to justify. So it is very helpless, but also a very helpless way to deal with this role: as long as it is funny, everything is possible.
This “no out” mode, in fact, is in the “funny” this keyword, gives a sense of reasonable value. But does this no-run really make no run? In fact, it is not, because this funny cartoon contains love elements, so in fact, the “in a word is very cute” is very contradictory and helpless.
So the character was designed by Mistake Stansky to be a complete failure.
