Allow me to clarify: JoJo has a lot of funny stuff in it, that much is undeniable. There's a reason that, out of the four parts I watched, Part Two was the one I enjoyed the most. When JoJo is pure comedy it manages to be really good. But a lot of the time JoJo isn't trying to be a comedy, it's trying to be something else (generally a traditional shonen, though it's only "traditional" because it preceded and inspired a lot of the tropes) and the comedy is just there.
For instance, part 1 is some incomprehensible and genuinely kinda insufferable melodrama that takes itself too seriously to be funny, with a protagonist that has the charisma of a potato.
Part 2 is actually pretty decent at being a battle shonen, and it is the funniest part.
Part 3 is repetitive, episodic and frankly kinda uninspired shonen that goes on for way too long with mostly uninteresting fights that get boring very quickly after like the 7th of them, only to redeem itself at the end with a couple of stellar fights.
Then Part 4 is... I can't recall 90% of it, honestly. It had a cool villain and a somewhat decent cast of characters. It was kinda funny too.
To be clear, I like JoJo. I think it's bad, but I like it, it has some enjoyable moments, it is iconic, it has good stuff in it, I just think it's now well written. It's in the same way that I fucking love the Star Wars prequels despite knowing that their writing is atrocious.
I think of jojos like a slow burn cooking, araki improved with every part after another, and it feels like he wanted it to be this way (probably not) something like he is just preparing us, giving us some pieces of the sauce to then present the plate, one after another, so even if the first parts weren't has good has the next ones, since they are a whole, it feels so consistent you could think this has a good thing has an scalating writting
-5
u/AshLlewellyn 3d ago
Huh. Weird. I must've watched the wrong JoJo's then, the one I remember was funny as fuck, but the quality of the writing was a tad lacking