I just gave you a direct quote. When I explained the difference between a person and their tastes, you argued there was no difference.
No I didn't say that: for the 100th time, STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH,
A persons tastes are a part of a person but not the whole of a person. They reflect a person's culture and personality. For instance, you can deduce that if a persons top 100 favorite movies only contains Hollywood movies that person is either:
1 - Not very knowledgeable about movies.
2 - American, Canadian or British.
Also, a person's taste in terms of genres reflect that person's personality. A person that likes crime movies a lot is usually very different from a person that likes science fiction movies. The first type tends to be more down to earth, more practical and be more close minded while the second tends to have more open ideas about the world.
Simple: because they gave a perfectly reasonable explanation (you nominated a film in the middle of a series, and not something standalone). And if it was "obvious," why did jal90, who is not some "xenophobic redneck" ignorant of anime,
agree with them?
Thing is: he ACCEPTED another sequel: Madagascar 2. So that excuse is completely invalid: if they rejected my nomination for "technical" grounds he would have rejected Madagascar 2. Therefore the "technical" argument is moot.
Also, Jal90 did not watch anything related to Nanoha so it's not like he knew what he was talking about. His justification was that he didn't want to watch a movie adaptation of a series he was planning to watch, which is as valid as claiming you cannot nominate The Godfather because you want to read the book.
And later I nominated a THIRD movie and he just discarded it. That's tremendously disrespectful.
Wait, you're disputing the idea that, when people have criticized anime to you, you've ascribed it to their being American?
Precisely, because Anglo-Americans are the ones who invented a term to describe Japanese animation. Other people just don't have such a term so they cannot "criticize anime" because "anime" does not exist for them. For me "anime" does not exist.
But you have implied it explains when someone doesn't like it. I see a lot of hedging in the language that you might use to disingenuously claim otherwise, like when someone says they don't like a narrative and you say "some people..." (emphasis added) "...might have difficulty digesting a narrative that's different and more complex than typical Hollywood movies I guess."
True that. Many people here have very narrow ideas of what a movie is supposed to be and then when the movie fails to satisfy they prejudiced notions of what a movie is supposed to be they don't like it.
Notice the term you didn't link to (from the same source):
Anime. There, you'll find this:
"In English, anime (/ˈænəˌmeɪ/) is more restrictively used to denote a "Japanese-style animated film or television entertainment" or as "a style of animation created in Japan".
In other words:
not just a term for animation made by a group of people, but for a style common to that group of people. And there is nothing bigoted about not liking a
style.
Which "style" you speak about?
This is "anime"?
Then, obviously, this is not:
Neither is this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
So, that's 9 styles. Which one of these 9 is your so called "anime"? If 1 is "anime" the other 8 are not "anime". Or maybe it refers to another style than these 9?
So clearly, 80-90% of Japan's animation is not "anime", given any style you might choose to call "anime". Neither is 90% of my favorite animation is "anime" according to any style that might fit that "definition".
Thing is, nobody who is serious about animation uses "anime" to mean a style because it's bigotry to think that Japan's animation is all the same anyway. There is no such thing "anime style" which comes as obvious to a person who is not ignorant about animation.
So tell me, please, which one of these 9 styles (or another style) is the style people here use to describe "anime"?
Because from people's reactions here they appear to use "anime" to mean "any style of drawing portraying females with exaggerated facial features." Sometimes they use the term "anime" to mean "animated TV show featuring fantasy and action".
By the way, even if this definition were not listed, it should be obvious that this is how people talking to you were using it.
How is that obvious? It's obvious to me that there is no such thing as "anime style" unless you pick one of the dozens of styles used in Japan (excluding all others). There isn't actually a typical or common style to Japanese animation.
You can tell quite easily from context that they don't care who made it, they just don't like the aesthetic tropes they tend to see in it. So even without being literally wrong, you'd still be calling people "bigots" for merely using a word incorrectly (or just loosely), which is absurd. That's what people do when they're going out of their way to take offense. Or when they're just really mad people don't have the same tastes and are trying to find ways to give their opinion more force.
I don't think you understand what we're talking about. Words are useful when they convey ideas. When people say "anime," almost everyone on this forum thinks of an aesthetic style. Therefore, it's a useful word for describing that style. That's it. The fact that you use the word differently is irrelevant for this particular point.
Not true. In this forum the term anime is used to means all animation made by the Japanese people. When people here say they dislike anime they are saying they dislike all animation made by the yellow Japanese and that they only like animation made by white people. Although I only remember 1 person here saying that he disliked anime and he made that in explicit reference to ALL Japanese animation.
Of course, since most people here are completely clueless about Japanese comics and animation they think everything these yellow people draw looks the same so they think that there is such an "anime style", which is, again, bigotry.
Thinking that all Japanese animation follows the same style is like thinking that all Jewish people think in the same way.
See above: in the context of the discussions you've had about anime, what indication other than the use of that word have they ever given you that they were criticizing the entire Japanese people? Virtually none, right? That's because they were using the word to describe an aesthetic.
An aesthetic that changes for every single case apparently.
You must know this. You must realize that's what they mean. Which means you're deliberately assuming they're using your definition (knowing they aren't), and then calling them bigoted for that definition (which they aren't using). That's nuts, even before we get to the part where the word has different connotations to English-speakers, as established above.
Of course, I know now that most people here think that all Japanese animation, that is, all animation not made by white people (since nobody here ever watches anything animated from Korea, China or other non-white countries anyway), looks exactly the same. They even claim that Miyazaki's work looks exactly the same as Satoshi Kon, since it's all "anime" and "anime" is a "style", right?
I can only conclude that everybody in this forum must be blind to not perceive the difference between the style used in Miyazaki's films and in Kon's films.
Or actually, understand that the fact that the concept of all Japanese comics and animation being ONE style is in itself deeply racist and ignorant.
Thing is, there is really no such thing as "anime" as an style (as I clearly demonstrated 9 different styles in the 15 minutes while writing this and I can demonstrate many more). The word's only actual effective use and meaning refers to the ethnic group: Japanese and that is the effective meaning they used. For example: Holden Pike never watched "Gunbuster" he only knew it was Japanese and was animated and he called it "anime". Also by associating "anime" with me and therefore my favorite works of animation, my favorite lists which contains many styles, he obviously was using the term in it's ethnic sense and not in it's "style sense" (WTF that might mean).
Or when Miss Vicky said back in 2012 that they should just block "Japanese animation" (not "anime") from being nominated in the HoF. That's ethnic discrimination in the face.
This discussion is a waste of my time: your objective is not understand anything, your objective is simple "refutation".
Also, can you ever find a single EXAMPLE of a person using ANIME to mean a style? I don't think there ever was a case in this forum when a person used "ANIME" to mean a "single style".
1) Gunslinger use of the term just now in the Ghost in the Shell thread: "Dragonball, Avatar and GitS" are "anime", which are 3 styles. He used the term to mean "animation that is not comedic".
2) Omnizoa use of the term "anime" is of ALL Japanese animation, given the high variety of styles in his thread.
3) Zotis use of the term "anime" if of ALL Japanese animation again.
4) When you talk to me about "anime" you are obviously talking about ALL Japanese animation.
5) When some user whose name I don't recall said back in 2012 he "dislikes anime" he was saying he dislikes "all Japanese animation".
Anyway, you are being silly here it's rather obvious that you are trying to defend the indefensible: you are defending ethnic discrimination by your fellow Anglo-Americans against other ethnic groups and you are sure that they are not discriminating anything.