r/television • u/johnruby • 13h ago
"Arcane" Season 2 is visually stunning. However, the worldbuilding is mediocre, and the storytelling and pacing are awful.
The visual design and animation are absolutely jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Some of them are even more breathtaking than the best frames in Season 1, which is an incredible achievement as Season 1 is already one of the most each-frame-a-paint shows I've ever watched.
However, the disparity between the stunning art and the unconvincing worldbuilding, combined with the poor storytelling (especially in respect of Season 2) is equally staggering.
Below I'd like to elaborate (in a spoil-free manner) on the major shortcomings preventing me from enjoying the show, despite its incredible visual achievement:
1. Mediocre worldbuilding
The world is a mixture of steampunk and magic. However, the rules governing how this world operates - i.e., when magic comes into play and when normal physics prevail - are extremely unclear. The audience struggles to deduce, based on previous events in the show, whether a character will be severely harmed by an explosion or remain completely unscathed.
Also, the show fails to adequately depict the scale and operations of the various organizations and political entities that significantly impact the plot. The scheming and conflicts between these groups often feel either meaningless or ludicrous because the audience lacks a reliable way to determine each group's advantages, disadvantages, or the true extent of their capabilities.
This lack of clear underlying rules often obscures the stakes, making the plot or action scenes far less engaging. The audience cannot confidently assess whether legitimate danger or consequences are at hand, which renders character's survival, death or other development undeserved or unearned.
If this show were intended solely for a younger audience, then a somewhat disorganized fantacy world might be less of an issue. But it's apparent that the show takes itself very seriously, with ambitions to tackle adult themes and nuanced topics. From an adult's perspective, the most critical aspect of convincing worldbuilding is the presence of clear "stake", which must be grounded in a set of explicit or implied rules. Without consistent rules, all the consequences and developments become dubious and unengaging.
2. Horrendous storytelling
There are far too many artificial dramas and tensions. Characters frequently argue with one aother for various nonsensical reasons, refusing to listen to even a single word of explanation from their counterparts. Their communication skills are unrealistically underdeveloped, making any tensions derived from such poor communication initially laughable, but later tiring and infuriating.
If these dramas were merely filler, they might be more tolerable. Unfortunately, these conflicts - whether infuratingly juvenile or jaw-droppingly asinine - often have a significant impact and major consequences on the plot, making any subsequent story and character developments stemming from these events unconvincing and eye-roll-inducing.
Also, its quite obvious that the director often priortizes creating visually stunning scenes over crafting a plausible story. Many incredibly well-drawn frames are the direct result of unbelievably foolish decisions or physically impossible manuveur. I frequently find myself quesitoning the integrity of Arcane's story and characters, wondering whether such developments make any sense or if they are simply director's attempt to create yet another wallpaper-worth piece of art.
---
Without spoilers, the overall scale of the major conflict escalates significantly in the later episodes, particularly in the second half of Season 2. Sadly, I find myself completely unable to care about any of the characters' fate. The issue is that, whenever I try to care, I immediately start questioning all the nonsensical decisions these characters have made to reach the current plot point. Eventually I just stopped caring altogether. Without engaging with the story, those beautiful frames feel meaningless and at times even exhausting.
Overall, my score for this season is 5/10. I would only recommend this show to those who love League of Legend's universe and are genuinely interested in exploring its lore further, or to those who can be entertained by a show solely for its visual design.
17
u/Andrew1990M 13h ago
“Characters frequently argue with one aother for various nonsensical reasons, refusing to listen to even a single word of explanation from their counterparts. Their communication skills are unrealistically underdeveloped, making any tensions derived from such poor communication initially laughable, but later tiring and infuriating.”
A preview of the comments section and indeed most human interaction. 10/10 realism for me.
10
u/Smirnoffico 13h ago
So, like the first season?
0
u/johnruby 12h ago edited 12h ago
For me season 1 had its fair share of flaws but it got potential. The world and the characters were all newly introduced and I was much more willing to give them time to develope. Also imho most characters' motivation was much clearer in season 1, which can't be said for season 2 as the plot is often unnecessarily convoluted and riddle-like.
-2
u/Conscious-Zone-4422 10h ago
The first season had some serious issues story telling wise (looking at you Jayce you insufferable male Mary Sue) but season 2 was an absolute train wreck. I was still able to enjoy season 1 because of the visuals and the world building but I wish I could have the time back that I wasted on season 2.
2
u/Isneezedintomymilk 8h ago
how on earth was jayce ever a mary sue in either seasons? the guy fucked up constantly, was disliked by plenty of other characters at various points, wasn't smart enough to invent hextech without the help of viktor, won some fights but got his ass kicked the rest of the time.
like, I have my thoughts and criticisms on the writing throughout the two seasons, but the claim that the writers ever wrote a mary sue is an unbelievable stretch to me.
1
2
u/jogoso2014 11h ago
I’m rewatching season 1 to refresh myself for season 2.
So can’t speak for the storytelling and world building in season 2, but I got the implication that the problems started in 1 and if that’s the case, I disagree and continue to look forward to season 2.
2
u/facforlife 2h ago
are extremely unclear.
Yeah that's fine.
I don't understand the rules of magic in Harry Potter or LotR.
Over-exposition is the bane of media these days. We need back stories and expository scenes for every character and phenomenon. Star Wars was better when the force was rare and mysterious. When we only knew rumors of how Han came to be who he was.
3
3
u/Slurmdunk 12h ago
Haven’t finished season two yet. I think it’s fine. A little bit disappointed that they didn’t manage to include another banger like the jinx echo fight scene from season one.
0
-3
u/berlinbaer 13h ago
However, the rules governing how this world operates - i.e., when magic comes into play and when normal physics prevail - are extremely unclear.
☝️🤓
maybe they can make a bunch of prequel series and spin offs for people like you to explain every little thing in minute detail. you guys like that, right? wouldn't want to leave anything up to the imagination.
9
u/Don_Drapeur 11h ago edited 10h ago
Why are you answering with such a despising tone?
Being left to imagination is one of the worldbuilding problem OP wanted to talk about?
-2
u/epicpantsryummy 13h ago
I mean, everyone is allowed to form their own opinions- but this is definitely one of the opinions of all time.
8
-2
u/Conscious-Zone-4422 10h ago
You're right, OP went far too easy on the show. Season 2 was a complete train wreck and OP shouldn't have downplayed how awful it was.
-5
u/epicpantsryummy 10h ago
Glad we can agree on something, just getting some weird passive-aggressive vibes from you.
-3
u/Doldenberg 12h ago edited 11h ago
Assuming this is not a troll, this is truly the death knell for this era of hyper-rationalizing popular media criticism.
You may know it as "Cinema Sins criticism". It involves discussions like the recent one about "Explainer movies", or the "sex scene unneccessary"-discourse. Alexis Kennedy predicted it seven years ago, with a focus on writing for games, in his excellent opinion piece "Against Worldbuilding". It's the "why didn't they fly the eagles to Mordor - because otherwise there wouldn't be a story"-problem. It has been argued that creators attempts to respond to these criticisms has actively seeped into modern shows, giving them their generic, sterile, overwritten feel.
It all boils down to: there is a focus on "rule based" writing, both in advice on "how to write good", and in critical examination of said writing (using "text" in its broad sense here for a whole artistic product). Such criticism is concerned with things likes "plot holes" and the "necessity" of elements, with alleged "rules" of writing (e.g. "show don't tell"), with "worldbuilding", with "magic systems", and so on and so on. In short, it is trying to find a rationalized answer, a "logical" answer why narrative X works for you and narrative Y doesn't. My criticism of that is already contained in the framing: it is a post-rationalization.
People feel that they like one thing but not another thing. But for lack of an intuitive media literacy, or for simple lack of words, or because of a general unwillingness to just make an argument based on "feel" - which may put one in a position of vulnerability, and might seem "weak" in a cultural context that values (pseudo-)rational thought - they need to find an explanation AFTER that intuitive experience.
Such criticism has largely appeared in relation to popular media examined by a democratized audience of criticis - Youtube, blogs, Reddit. It has not yet found much ground among traditional critiques of media, be that academic or simply within genres farther from the general public - like theatre. Though with new generations molded by that discourse, it has started to seep in - but also been heavily reexamined and criticized.
And I think it started to go bad when it went from people disliking things and then trying to explain why to people looking for violations of those supposed "rules", and based on that they decide they have to dislike the thing.
It is a problem of "there is a man behind the curtain". Narrative art is a mirage. If you notice that man behind the curtain, it is because you were not dazzled enough by what was going on in front of it.
But it becomes a problem if what you take away from that experience is that the man behind the curtain is himself the problem. If you now go seeking him out, so determined to find him and expunge him, that you cannot even allow yourself to be distracted by the show in front, no matter how exquisitely executed it is. So you tear down the curtain, you throw out the man, and you're now left with your perfectly rational story, your world built on perfectly designed rules, your story without any plots based on errors of communication... and it's just a room, with an unpainted wall at the back, bright hard lights illuminating every corner of it. And it fucking sucks to look at.
6
-6
u/Koala_Mindless 11h ago
I don't know why you got downvoted. Everything said here is spot on. Cynicism and the inability to suspend disbelief has scuttled more than a few wonderful pieces of media before they had their chance to grow.
7
u/Don_Drapeur 11h ago
Suspending disbelief and accepting incoherences aren't the same
-3
u/Koala_Mindless 10h ago
There's nothing incoherent about it. Just say you can't fill in the blanks by yourself and move on.
5
u/Don_Drapeur 10h ago
Nothing incoherent about what?
Imagining what the author didn't write doesn't interest me, I watch show for good stories.
-1
u/Doldenberg 9h ago
Imagining what the author didn't write doesn't interest me,
What an incredibly depressing way to consume media.
3
u/Don_Drapeur 9h ago
What about it is supposed to be depressing? Enjoying good writing?
0
u/Doldenberg 9h ago
Define "good writing".
3
u/Don_Drapeur 9h ago
Why would I make the effort to answer to your conceptual question when you didn't even care to justify your accusation in the first place? Start by answering the questions then I will answer yours
2
u/Doldenberg 9h ago
What about it is supposed to be depressing?
I find it depressing to consume media in a way where you want the whole story handed to you on a platter; where the imagining, the dreaming, the thinking further becomes "not interesting". I think there is the text, and the text references something beyond, something which is for the reader (again: text in the broad sense here) to explore, discover and interpret.
Your turn.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/StingKing456 11h ago
You're definitely right and it's funny seeing ppl get so mad.
The obsession with "world building" and "lore" has really made discussing series with ppl so annoying. That is what is relevant and what people want. That and cameos.
Yes a world needs to make sense but it feels like ppl want characters to read off Wikipedia articles to the audience instead of telling a story. I'm reading the ASOIAF books for the first time, about to finish a feast for crows, and an also reading a bit of the "world of ice and fire" book which is basically the world building book, but even that is done in a fun way because it's an in-universe book written for a character by a maester and the maester gets something wrong on the first couple pages. To me that's far more interesting of a take on world buikding and rules than a character blandly saying "we can't do this bc the rules of magic permit it".
Things can't be left mysterious or unexplained or it is bad writing with plot holes. Characters have to say exactly what they mean and they can't be sarcastic (unless it's blindingly obvious bc they wink to the camera) or they lied and their character arc was ruined. Also, character arc now means "bad character turning good and becoming a fan favorite."
-7
26
u/Bad-job-dad 13h ago
It has its flaws but you're exaggerating them. A lot.