I find the anime pretty good so far, and it mostly stays true to the original 4komas. You say the jokes are lost in translation (some are), but it’s mostly not the case. If they sound lame, well… it’s because they weren’t so good to begin with. Did you read the manga? All these jokes and word plays you’re complaining about are, for the most part, straight out of volume 1.

Obviously, Lucky Star doesn’t cater to everyone, and some people will not like its style and humor. But this is what Lucky Star IS, both in 4koma and anime form. I don’t think you should say the anime is crap, just because it stays true to the original. Maybe you don’t like it, but in your case it seems more like a critic of Lucky Star’s genre (or sub-genre, what have you) than of its execution.

The main problem of Lucky Star IMO is the hype about it, and the dissonance it creates: between what it leads people to expect, and the actuality of what Lucky Star is. Had you read the 4komas before, you may not like Lucky Star anymore than you do now, but I think you wouldn’t have such a negative view of the anime.

On a side note, while you can compare anything to anything, I don’t find Azumanga Daioh and Lucky Star too similar, except on the surface. They both have similar premise, but a school themed comedy is really… generic. They’re both originally 4komas, that’s about it.
Where they differ alot, IMO, is in their respective anime executions. I think the Azumanga Daioh anime deviates quite a bit from the manga in the presentation; although the content is basically the same, it’s heavily reinterpreted for the anime medium. On the other hand, so far Lucky Star anime stayed much closer to the original 4koma style, with its deliberately disjointed realisation and endless chain of small jokes.
You may or may not like either, I think both have merits.

Disclaimer: Yea, I like Lucky Star.

Anyway, the argument has gone past whether Lucky Star is good or not the moment I got told off for comparing it to Azumanga Daioh.

I’ve time and again said different strokes, meaning that if you like it, that’s cool, I’m not going to say anything if you like it. All I’m going to say is that I don’t like it and explain why that is so.

Can I appreciate that there is a different perspective, in which one would find Lucky Star to be good? Sure, which is why I kept repeating what I was repeating. However I don’t think it’s fair to say that the two can’t be compared, and then throw personal insults at me.

I personally feel that Lupus merely means that there is not enough addressing of the issue rather than disrespecting anyone. Just a point of note of course, but what Lupus talks about in his last few lines about Lucky Star is spot on: It is targeting a narrow and small audience.

And I have been very respectful of everyone’s opinion until I was personally attacked. I understand that there are differing opinions, and I can understand that sometimes I won’t understand where you are coming from even if you explained it to me, which is why I don’t personally attack anyone, regardless of how their opinion differs from mine, unless provoked. For example I never called anyone stupid or ignorant for disagreeing with me. I would pay the shit out of Lucky Star because I don’t like it, and I gave my reasons for doing so. When told that I shouldn’t compare the two, I give my reasons for comparing the two. The ones who are disrespectful are the ones who tell me that I can’t compare the two and then insult me by calling me ignorant and illogical.

Impz’s paragraph and your reply outlines their differences, but I still don’t understand how that’s sufficient reasons to not compare them. All I need for comparison are a) same genre (in this case comedy, or character-centric slice-of-life comedy if you really want to thin-slice it) and b) same medium. If, as you say, “Lucky star demands that one must be interested in the things talked about in conversation.” then it’s a downfall of the show in my opinion, because something that only targets a narrow and small audience isn’t going to be as well received and well-liked as a show that has universal appeal.

You say characters in azumanga are hilarious but in lucky star they’re boring, therefore most jokes made in azumanga are delivered funny while the ones in lucky star blow. Azumanga is about hilarious and touching moments stemming from character interactions in high school setting. Yes Lucky star is comedy but the moments that shine in Lucky star are nothing like Azumanga and I don’t think they’re even trying to be. Yes Lucky star is too set in high school but no it’s not nearly as much focused on school life as Azumanga is. It’s focus is instead on various japanese (un)popular culture and embodying that is Konata. Azumanga gives spotlight to many characters but Konata is the star (pun not intended). She shines the most when she talks about popular culture with others, like when she teaches Kagami about her philosophy on TV prizes. Also when her knowledge randomly sparks during the most normal conversations, like when she imagines a drill mecha while the other ‘normal’ girls are talking about drills at dentists. They all make fun from the culture and it only demands sassy character from Konata, while other girls only need to fufil their typical roles (one with common sense, totally obnoxious one, perfect moe one but bit slow) to let the star shine. And that instantly separates Lucky star from Azumanga in a way that their purposes are different and therefore their focuses are different because Lucky star demands that one must be interested in the things talked about in conversation. I’m not saying you’re wrong to not compare but I hope you stop this ‘o no everyone is ignoring me meh’ and have some respect left for netizens other than yourself to at least appreciate where they’re coming from.

And I was genuinely shocked when they slipped in the Getter Robo Reference. Getter Robo is serious business, darnit >_

Next you’re going to tell me that it’s stupid to compare Spyro: A Hero’s Tail and Jak and Daxter because OMG THEY’RE TARGETED AT DIFFERENT AUDIENCES (if you don’t get that reference, both Jak and Spyro are 3D platformers, but while Jak is targeted a more mature audience with plenty of crude jokes etc. Spyro’s squarely targeted at kids. Jak [90.2%@gamerankings.com] is far superior to Spyro [64.6%@gamerankings.com] in terms of gameplay. Again, that is my opinion so I guess it makes me, and every games publication whose scores are taken into account by gamerankings.com, ignorant and illogical, since they all agree with me that Jak is better than Spyro.).

Anyway here’s some opinion from #animeblogger@irc.irchighway.net:

For comparing:
[00:14] < +Guncannon> They are the same genre IMO.
[00:17] < +DrmChsr0> After all, both are similar in content, and delivery.

Against comparing:
[00:13] < @kur0gan3> different target audience

Everyone else ignored me so meh.