Now bebop might not have as much depth as eva but it does have more then your average anime.
I will grant this, but it's still not what I'd call comparatively deep... Of course, I'm judging against all of film so perhaps it's a little unfair. Bebop does hold up well (depth wise) to most anime I've seen.
All this means is that it clicked with whoever happened to use it as a template, both in and out of anime there are some things regarded as classics that to be honest I just don't think are very good. - So if something does turn out to be influential all this means is that there are fans of said work in the industry that get influenced by that particular work. While this might mean that said work is actually good, this isn't always nessecerily the case.
Well, ideas are important. Sometimes ideas get presented and badly executed and that's where the template comes from. It's like all the templates that Eva borrowed from but greatly improved upon as well. What I'm saying is that creating ideas is much harder than working from a template. Though articulating ideas well is just as difficult.
Defectron wrote:However I'm not saying that said works shouldn't be aknowledged for their importance, what I am saying is that you shouldn't just say something is good because it turned out to influence other things. Being important and being actually good should be two seperate things.
I'd still say that originality and influence are not only one of the more tangible aspects of measuring greatness we have, but are one of the most important. I guess what you're getting is the difference between ideas and articulation. If the articulation isn't good, it doesn't matter how good the ideas are. But I'd argue that if there are no ideas there's nothing to articulate. So both are absolutely crucial. And I see nothing wrong with listing something of monumental importance on a list of "greatest".
Defectron wrote:You should like something for what it is, not for what it did.
The two are not as inseparable as that. It's the same reason people who've heard great 70s rock find modern rock boring because it's a mere rehash of ideas while fans of modern rock say its old ideas presented in a new way. In truth, sometimes they're both right. But I'm merely saying I don't think you can discount influence and originality when critiquing greatness. Without new ideas, we have no fiction.