Originally Posted by Kaplan
I guess I don't understand the idea of dismissing any subset of films.
And a subset of size 1? Like Adam Sandler's movie.
Even if 99% of said films are terrible in your opinion, there's always going to be a few that stand out. There's also subsets of films I have no interest in, but would never be dismissive of--because I have no interest in them. I guess that's just me.
I never dismissed, I said they were boring. I find movies made in the noir style boring, because I noticed that property after watching several noir movies. That's called taste: people like things with certain characteristics, noir movies have certain well defined characteristics. Anime does not.
That's not remotely similar to things I get uptset about, I didn't get upset when for instance, Zotis said he hated moe Anime which is a subset of anime that has certain characteristcs like noir is a subset of American live action that has certain characteristics. And I didn't care about that. There are many styles of anime that I dislike as well, just like there are styles or types of American live action that I also dislike.
In both cases I consider them as mediums in the same way so I don't actually understand when people say they like "anime", I never hear people say they like "American live action", even though it's the same type of thing. I say I like Miyazaki's films just the same way I like Kubrick's films, and I don't think of Miyazaki's films as being remotely in the same genre since each of his films is very different from the others.
I get upset when people say prejudiced things equivalent to saying "American movies and TV shows are all stupid", that's not preference that's just xenophobia and/or ignorance. This ignorance in many cases comes from the use of the term "anime".
But my main point was simply if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I never said anything comparable to the things you say I can't take, so I did not dish it out.
I can't take people saying things about ALL of Japanese animation but I never made generalizations like that (I never said things about ALL of American live action). If you disagree I challenge you to find one.
You clearly don't understand the enormous difference between saying things like "All animation produced by the Japanese people is crap" and "I dislike 1980's American action movies like Commando". One thing is preference the other is prejudice, I get upset because being racists torwards anime is considered ok, even though it's essentially a type of insult to another culture these people know nothing about. I find that disgusting and it makes me mad because it's an act of racist aggression.
But I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything, just giving you a hard time. I guess that's a bad idea.
It's was a bad idea because you are plain wrong in your association.
I'm also an anime fan, but the comparison doesn't hold up. There is a certain aesthetic to anime, it is possible that someone doesn't like it. There is a difference between saying: ''Anime is bad'' and : ''I don't enjoy anime''. Saying that you dislike american movies includes anything made in the united states, there isn't any sort of indication to the art itself from that criteria. Anime is a type of animation made in Japan there is a particular indication toward the art itself.
You are incorrect, the term anime means ANY animation made in Japan (that's the definition from specialized sources like ANN). And by the way, that's the bulk of animation made in the world.
It does not say anything about the art style. It's a common misconception among anime fans to think it means a style when it does not.
For example, Keiichi Hara's, Mamoru Hosoda's, Satoshi Kon's movies and Miyazaki's movies have completely different art styles (the only similarity is that they are hand drawn). And I am talking about the most popular guys here.
A case can even be made for the assertion that disliking anime in in fact can be a stronger statement than disliking American live action film and TV:
While in American live action the "art style" is always exactly the same because it's almost always the photographic reproduction of caucasians. You can change only the colors, direction and the cinematography but not the "art". In that sense anime is even more varied because the art varies a lot while American live action always has the same "art". Therefore, because of it's lack of variation in art style, American live action is more taste dependent than anime is.
People who think "anime" is a style are just ignorant. Unless you redefine the term to mean a specific style but them you cannot say that Miyazaki and Kon's movies are simultaneously anime. Which means the term loses it's meaning it usually has; you cannot use the term "anime" and Miyazaki and Kon in the same sentence if you said it has an aesthetic.
Well, I am against the use of that term, it's a label that leads to invalid generalizations. In Brazil we call any animation "drawings", we do not make any distinction of name from it's country of origin (which is a non-prejudiced way to deal with it).
In the Anglo-Saxon countries they came up with the term "anime" because in Anglo Saxon countries there is not serious animation so people who are into animation in these countries decided to make a new term for animation since cartoon does not invoke respect. Eventually the new term also acquired connotations and it backfired on the fans of animation.
Anyway, I just use the term ANIMATION for ANIMATION because that's the method of production of the films by guys like Miyazaki, Chomet and Hara.
Reply to Topic
