Just finished ep1 , it was about some instrumentality bullshit that i'm really sick off...

Those are more related to the new adaptation rather than the old one, and yes the new one was trash

just finished ep4 , it's a great show you should check it out although i must admit that the fanbase kept me away from it all these ears

It's one of those "2deep4u, dude" shows. It doesn't really have anything to say besides what you got at the second episode, which I would say is the only one good. The rest of the series is ok at best.

Attached: clp8Wdq.png (1280x720, 581K)

The 2017 adaption is shit but the 2003 one is perfection

Attached: 04. Kino no Tabi - the Beautiful World [Hi10p AAC][kuchikirukia]-0003.png (839x478, 2.06M)

Watch ep 2. If you don't like it drop it.

i'm at ep6 ep 2 was great , the rest are also good but nothing has topped ep2 till now

The 2003 version is a pretentious joke of an adaptation. It very much so is one of those shows that people watch to pretend to look unique or smart. Much like all the directors other shows, it's faux 2deep4u nonsense. If you've seen Lain and how pretentious it is in it's style you'll know. I should have turned it off once it started showing black sceen with words on them like it was some fucking evangelion ep 25-26 parody.
It's nowhere near as much as a faux 2deep4u fuckfest like Lain, but it's still enough to make it a completely different entiry from the real Kino.

Should have watched Madoka.

So is the new series any good?

It's even worse

Did you ever stop to consider that you are an uncultured swine?

Attached: OP.jpg (500x696, 33K)

Referring to it as pretentious is disingenuous, 2003 presents itself as being a bleak and morose take on the stories from the books. The visual style means nothing in regards to the substance it offers and judging it for how other faggots think of it is retarded. It's just an anthology of weird dystopian fairy tales and it never tries to be anything more than that. Being unorthodox in style is just a compliment to the otherwise quiet and minimal storytelling and getting mad just because it tries to something beyond superficiality is pretty fucking stupid.

>If you've seen Lain and how pretentious it is in it's style you'll know.

The 2003 series had the same director.

why is she so strong ?isn't she suppose to be a little girl?

Attached: large.jpg (550x780, 37K)

I legit love it. I don't think it's really "smart". Its messages are really obvious and not hidden at all. It isn't directed in a strange way like Lain that makes is confusing to watch or anything. It's a straightforward and imo nice show. And people shit on the 2017 version too much too I think. The LN is also worth reading. Kino is probably my favorite anime related franchise and I hope they don't wait as long to make another series or, even better, a movie.

Attached: Volume_16.jpg (900x1280, 855K)

>isn't she suppose

*isn't she supposed

Attached: 81DC65A8-D10E-4153-AA81-1708313058F4.jpg (450x400, 83K)

This. There's nothing smart or pretentious about Kino's Journey. It's just maximum traveling comfiness with the occasional utopian/dystopian setting.

she's a teenager, the old artstyle just makes her look younger

You are confusing direction with writing, the writing in lain its diferent from the writing in kino but as far as direction goes you can completly tell whos directing them both. As for people shiting in the new series is just natural when you fail to be as memorable as the original work, some directors are just not as talented as others and trying to fill the shoes of people like Ryuutarou Nakamura is just imposible.
Kind of disagree in the smart part, the show has really serious themes that are clearly trying to challenge your vision of the world and make you think. That said only a fucking retarded moron would see that as "Pretentious".

She'll make you squeal like a little girl for a very short moment if you try anything funny.

If you don't like it don't watch it fag

>As for people shiting in the new series[...]
Most people don't read the LN and so their only point of view is from the original adaptation. But, having read the LN, the original adaptation does some things poorly as well. It does a good job of justifying the changes it makes most of the time though. The 2017 adaptation is a "better" adaptation in the sense that it's closer to how the LN portrays things (from what stories I've read, I haven't gotten to all of them in the LN) but it clashes with people's view of the original anime and so it's "bad". The Coliseum episode in particular is interesting because both versions have significant problems I think. I went back and rewatched Kino vs Shizu in the 2003 version and I have to say that I like the 2017 version better. The stuff before that final part isn't done particularly well in either adaptation imo. The 2017 version rushes through everything too much and the 2003 version from what I remember makes significant changes, even to the people Kino fights, which I'm not really a fan of.

One problem I think is that the LN isn't limited to being a certain length for each story while you only get 24 minutes per episode in an anime. You could do a double episode like in the 2003 version but I don't think it's worth wasting another episode on that story if you only get 12-13 episodes. Though as another example I think the 2003 version improved immensely on the Land of Prophecy and probably the Land of Books too (the latter is a completely different story between the two though). I just wish we'd get more anime adaptations, preferably by different studios and people each time so we get more content as well as different interpretations of the source. Waiting so long between adaptations likely assures that 2 of the episodes are going to be wasted on Kino's backstory and Kind Country.

My opinion is completly about the anime, i have never read the LN so it would be out of place for me to make any statement about that. That said adapting a writen media to an animated one has its challenges and directors take some liverties for the sake of making the best of the format they have all the time, my problem with adaptations like this one is that despite of trying to be closer to the original source they just go and drop everything of what made the original Anime adaptations great and throw it out of the window, i would say that directors nowdays have a more "style over substance" aproach to direction and just do the same things over and over with no creativity or interesting visual direction. Boogiepop phantom is another example of this that makes the same mistake as the last kino's adaptation making it bland and devoid of the deep mood/ambient of the original adaptation. FMA:Brotherhood for example does and exelent job not only being an acurate adaptation of the original material but it keeps somethings from the original (VAs, character designs, among others) and then raises the bar over that.
In short, what i am trying to say is that visual direction is important and the current generation of directors doesnt really care about that since anime nowdays is more a "market" that needs to be fill than an Alternative form of expresion.

I understand that but there's also a distinction there between a remake and a separate adaptation. People judge the new version against the 2003 version, but it isn't a remake and isn't trying to be. And I think what you're also getting at is that an adaptation should be separate from its source material, and in some cases I agree, but sometimes when something strays from its source it does improve on it, and in other times it ends up being shit. I think that judging a separate adaptation against the original is no different really than judging it against its source and doing one but not the other seems kind of hypocritical to me. Especially when the original adaptation is just a single person's interpretation. I've for instance seen people complain about Kino's design in the 2017 adaptation because it's not a chibi potato or that it isn't as hard to tell that she's a girl. Complaints like that are just stupid imo.

>media presents itself something unorthodox or of marginal substance
>duude maan what the fuck is this smartass bullshit?! you're all just pretending

this
I can see why you'd call something like Lain pretentious, but calling Kino pretentious because of its style is just retarded

post cute kino

Attached: 1555213219202.jpg (900x1273, 531K)

zoomer detected

explain this post

She can fucking try.

The problem is that it IS diferent compating a LN to an Anime since one its more visual than the other but when you have an Anime against Anime the comparition its going to be inevitable and more so since you have fans that already have expectations about the material you are producing. Now im not saying that you are wrong, i do agree with you to some degree but the fact is that really good re-adaptations always shine over the originals and this is clearly not the case.

The complaints I see aren't visual in nature. They're about the flow of the show and what happens in it, which can be compared between anime and LN. And also I just can't get behind holding up an adaptation as the shining beacon of what should be done regardless of what people always say. It's one thing if the anime adaptation is way better than the source, but in this case that isn't something I believe (about the 2003 adaptation). Shitting on an anime just because the interpretation of an earlier anime was the first one you watched and so you're used to it just doesn't make sense to me as someone who does read manga and in some cases (like this) LNs. This is a bigger topic than just about Kino though but it's something I see all over the place from people who really only watch anime and so their views are shaped through the interpretation of whoever was chosen to adapt something rather than from the view of the original story itself. For the stories that both adaptations have people complain that some stuff happens differently despite the 2003 one being the one that changed things significantly. To me stuff like that just comes from a place of ignorance and goes back to the shaping through the interpretation of someone else but that becomes the gold standard despite it being some whim of the anime director/writer change.

You can have an adaptation that stands well by itself and I feel like the 2003 version does but to me it just strikes me as "old thing good, new thing bad" even if new thing isn't a remake and is going back to the source for a new interpretation. I do think that adapting those 3 stories that both adaptations share was a mistake though just because I know people will compare them. But after 14 years the backstory kind of has to be there at least.

Don't give him (you)'s.

How is Kino this sexy?
This shouldn't be allowed.

Favorite episode?

Land of Prophecy for anime probably. Land of Heroes from the LN.

Why did the 2003 series never get a sound track release?

youtube.com/watch?v=hMDv3Z89JsE

Just fuck off to watch shonen, boy.

Not an argument.

dilate

Fellate.

I agree with you there; although I preferred the more unique visual style of the 2003 anime I think it and the 2017 one are equally hit or miss when it comes to adapting the show. Like you said a lot of the stories don't fit neatly into a single episode; the Coliseum one probably needed an episode and a half. The 2017 show tried to fit it into one but rushed through things and I missed some of the subtlety in the story as a result. The 2003 show cut it into two but filled most of the second episode with bullshit that just laboriously explained everything to the viewer as if they're an idiot and took all of the ambiguity out of the story in the first place. It was only when I read the LN chapter that I understood what the actual point of the story was.
I preferred the authenticity of the 2017 adaptation but I think the story choice was poorer. It was nice to see some Shizu stories but including them plus the Master stories plus the Photo story all in a single cour show meant that it ended up feeling like we barely got to see Kino herself. Plus the sheep episode...

I'm really interested in getting to the sheep story (don't know what volume of the LN it's in) because I actually really liked it. I think it was probably a poor choice to use for the final story (or maybe a poor choice in general with only 12 episodes and several of them already used for non-Kino stories) but I just find it hilarious that there's actually a story where Kino massacres a whole field of sheep.

Also the fact that the sheep were CGI.

Attached: KinoSheepMassacre.webm (710x400, 2.99M)

It's Gulliver's Travels with a darker tone, about trying to find joy in life despite facing a dismal world.

Volume 20 according to wikipedia. I liked the episode itself too but it was just so jarring that that was what we get as the series finale, and then it cuts from that to Journey's End which is supposed to have a nostalgic sentimental comfy feel to it. Talk about mood whiplash. I honestly couldn't think of a more inappropriate story to end the show on.

Then how is Lain good but Kino really fucking bad

It's actually the other way around.

Attached: KinoGlass.png (1000x1000, 443K)

They're both good.

uhh excuse me but only one of those is kino

It's a poor mans Violet Evergarden.

Violet Evergarden is a poor mans Kino

Violet Evergarden isn't Kino, it's ludo

Kino is a poor (wo)man

Attached: 72469469_p2.jpg (643x900, 169K)

She's rich in experiences

how would you fuck Kino if you had the opportunity?

Attached: 18ac177f234c7fb1d6bfd6c31bd543d5.png (726x1204, 741K)

with my peenus weenus.

You'll end up like the guy that snuck up on her while she was bathing in the river.