>>
|
No. 37527
[Edit]
File
161246013678.jpg
- (1.27MB
, 973x1576
, 1ba37f965add8468df47e4d7eca2ff67.jpg
)
>>36803
I got into another pointless argument, this time with somebody on mal in a bad thread. This guy in particular got on my nerves for some reason and I kind of suspect he was a troll. I can't stand the fake sophisticated thing.
Him:
>Anime isn't considered for adults these days because the execution is bad and the writing is childish. You can find a lot of dark teen fanfiction on the internet but all of the dark elements don't make it any less childish. Japanese anime is better when it comes to the actual animation (usually), but western "anime" has better writing and execution (usually). Romance doesn't need sex. Adults consider a romance that relies on sex (erotica) to be trashy. Popular at times, but trashy. Romance is about the up and down of emotions and portraying that. (insert disney Hercules clip)
Me:
Your post is even more embarrassingly ignorant than op's. Anime isn't a genre. Hentai isn't either. And stop watching dubs.
Him:
>Dark means "more mature" but not always "adult". You can see this nuance in stuff like Australia's rating system which has an MA15+ rating. (The MA 15+ rating was introduced in 1993, to flag content that was too strong for the M classification, but not so much so that the content should be restricted only to persons over the age of 18. - Wiki) Attack on Titan is dark and has killing, but receives the 15+ AU rating
Me:
Australia is a free expression hell hole and their example shouldn't be followed. "Nuanced" rating systems are just an economic tool used to discourage certain content.
Him:
>The function of the rating system is irrelevant. I'm pointing out that there is a difference between something being mature and still aimed at kids (teens) and something being mature but aimed at adults.
>Literature makes these distinctions as well, though it has more to do with the protagonist. You have young Adult (typically 13-17), New Adult (typically 18-20 something), and adult (anything above). A young adult book, generally has a different tone and style than a new adult book.
>Keep in mind that this isn't to say one is worse than the other, but saying something is meant for adults just because it uses dark themes is not taking into account how the writing and execution also play a factor. So, going back to my original point, (in my opinion) anime isn't largely considered for adults because the writing and execution aren't done for adults (adults being early 20's and higher).
Me:
And somebody who's an anime enthusiast doesn't care about how non-fans perceive it. Seinen exists and specifically targets an older demo. Plus "maturity" is a false god and stifles free expression and enjoying "immature" things. Westerners think all anime is "for children" because of economic and cultural factors crippling animation in the west as a medium. That and people willfully being ignorant of foreign attitudes. You're a putz and you don't belong.
Him:
>Lmao. The OP himself cares. I'm providing reasoning. I just want good anime. I don't care what other people think of it, but I personally want fantasy/isekai anime that has better all-around quality.
>Also, my Disney example is evidence agianst your economic and cultural reasoning. I can also add DC and Marvel to the list. Additionally, I could point to the popular animes that are universally renowned like basically anything produced by Studio Ghibli. Adult westerners have a negative perception of most foreign anime because of how they are executed, not some cultural bias.
>When I show my Dad a lot of anime, he laughs and says it's better than most movies or tv shows. Want to know why? Because I show him the good stuff (mainly in the form of action). But that's only in snippets or compilations. It's hard to find a show that can entertain an adult all the way through because the other areas are lacking (writing/execution). Another reason is that a lot of animes are largely helped by the Japanese voice actors and dubs are rarely able to capture the same energy (imo), though some like DBZ were actually helped by their dubs.
Me:
For a westerner bitching that anime doesn't meet their fine art standards, capeshit and Disney's ugly, water-downed fairy tales don't make a good argument. Most movies are bad, but people don't say "movies suck". Anime is an entire medium, but your oh so mature and intelligent adults don't think of it as such generally. Instead they spend their time on more sophisticated things like syndicated sports and crime dramas. "Universally renowned" anime is praised so much because it's inoffensive and child-friendly. Nobody cares about Monster except people who already like anime.
Him:
>You sound so silly. There are plenty of animes that meet my standards, just most fantasy/isekai don't. Art isn't the only quality to a good anime, just like it isn't the only quality to a good video game (which is why I still enjoy older rpgs). How am I saying "anime sucks" as a general statement, when I literally pointed an anime that I like. That's not the only one you know.
>Also, people absolutely do say movies suck. Sounds like you are stuck in a bubble. Go ahead, type it in Google, "Movies suck".In addition, Princess Mononoke is universally renowned, I believe. Just old, however.
Me:
"How am I saying "anime sucks" as a general statement"
"Anime isn't considered for adults these days because the execution is bad and the writing is childish"
Okay, backtrack and ignore most of what I wrote. Princess Mononoke is about half as well known as Spirited Away and Ponyo, if that, and made way less money in the US. Critics liked it, but it's not what most people think when they think Ghibli. Googling "Movies suck" returns mostly results complaining about Hollywood or "modern movies", not people saying that about the entire medium.
Him:
>Yes, but in your context, you are making it seem like I'm saying anime=bad. As if I'm saying something being anime cannot be good simply because it's anime when my follow up is providing animation that has superior execution than what you normally see in current anime. My statement is simply saying, most anime is poorly written and executed, thus not well received by adults. Though I will admit, it can be read as a general statement, so that's my fault. Most people usually don't need the #notall. People do say movies suck, the google search easily proves that. You just apply the #notall to them, but decided not to apply it to my statement so you can argue whatever it is you're arguing.
>Princess Mononoke came out in 1999 (US). Spririted Away made more money, but that's not to say Princess Mononoke was not its own success, and you can even say Princess Mononoke paved the way for the success of Spirited Away. Doing rough math, it made 7x its budget which is comparable to the Matrix but it's certainly no Lion King. Regardless, being universally renowned is not about the profit, it's about the reception. How it is received by a wide audience and whether they liked it or not.
Me:
Something can't be "universally renowned" if it's not well known. It was watched by anime fans and arthouse viewers on release, not the general public. Princess Mononoke is only as well know as it is because it was made by the same studio behind My Neighbor Totoro, Kiki's Delivery Service and Spirited Away, not the other way around.
Your entire premise that adults like things based on how "well written and executed" they are, and they wouldn't like things that don't fit that bill, is extremely moronic. There's a million and one examples that prove that's not the case.
Him:
>You really want to argue about Princess Mononoke? It came out before Spirited Away. Allow me to just paste the snippet from Google. "Box office. Princess Mononoke was the highest-grossing Japanese film of 1997, earning ¥11.3 billion in distribution rental earnings.
>That's not my premise. I said (and let me quote this time), "Anime isn't considered for adults these days because the execution is bad and the writing is childish." and "Japanese anime is better when it comes to the actual animation (usually), but western "anime" has better writing and execution (usually)."
>I didn't say adults like things based on how well-written and executed they are. I said if you want an anime to be considered for adults it has to be well-written and executed. Serious themes can get lost in an animation (whether Japanese, American, or whatever) if the execution is not done right. There is an inherent softness to drawings that has to be overcome, an inherent softness to colorful worlds, and an inherent softness to animated characters since it is more difficult to make them show emotion, especially subtle. So, because animation has inherent softness, it's more difficult for an adult to take it seriously regardless of the theme. It NEEDS to be executed right and/or written well. The execution involves things such as music, color palette, transitions, settings, voice acting, etc. Some animation that keeps the inherent softness (like Disney films) heightens values, such as music, to a level that even adults can appreciate.
>A rape in anime can come off as a depiction of real-world issues or hentai based on the execution. It's hard to make that error in live-action. Crying in anime can come off as cringe or actually sad, based on the music and voice acting. In live-action, it's mainly the actor that sells it.
>If you are an artist, you have to choose the best medium to tell your story. Anime is an uphill battle for telling adult-themed stories. It takes skill from both the writers and the animators. Something that was dark and gritty as a manga can come out like a kid show when animated if not careful. Terra Formars season one vs Terra Formars Revenge is a good example.
Me:
The performance of Princess Mononokoe in Japan is entirely irrelevant. People there don't "not consider anime for adults". Anime and manga for every age group is produced. When you say the reason anime isn't seen as "adult" is because its execution isn't up to par, that obviously implies that being "well-written" is a prerequisite for being seen as "adult".
Now you bring up animation's supposed "inherent softness". I disagree with that notion. There's no "inherent softness" to animation and you only perceive that as such because you were conditioned to see animation as inherently childish. You have a western perspective. Don't treat it like fact. "it's more difficult for an adult to take it seriously" is nothing but skewed bullshit.
Either you're a troll or you're an idiot. Keep watching your /co/ shit and fuck off.
Him:
>Imagine this hostility in a forum that talks about SJWs not being able to handle stuff. lmao. You are honestly making yourself look foolish trying to deny one of the most popular anime films in history. I've also been watching anime my whole life. You say an anime fan doesn't care if someone thinks it's for adults or not, but it really seems to be getting to you.
>Anime has inherent softness. Sorry, you refuse to believe reality. It takes effort/intention to make anime look as gritty as the real world. Older anime was better at having rough styles but now, it's too soft as if they aren't trying to add a real-world feel. This is a good style if you want to do a mature theme, as was the first season of Terra Formars.
>The problem is that even that intentionally styled aesthetic pales to the grit that live-action can capture, simply because it's live-action. The dirt on people's clothes, their wrinkles, their sweat, the dust that erupts when someone disturbs an old room.
Me:
I care when somebody masquerades as a fan, but sees anime being more beautiful than real life as a negative. Being more beautiful adds to emotional impact. Part of why I watch anime is so I don't have to look at disgusting 3dpd. You worship ugliness and you don't belong. Back of the bus.
Him:
>The softness can be a good thing, but it's not when a soft theme isn't your goal. You have to make some conscious decisions to overcome that softness. Now, if you're making a Disney movie, that softness helps add to the fairytale.
>It's not one-sided. Live-action has its limits and often looks terrible when it tries to adapt an anime, especially an anime that has supernatural elements and powers. Live-action has to overcome its limitations and make conscious decisions, just in a different way, however, they often fail to do so. I don't have to bring up the Dragonball movie, do I?
>Admitting that anime has to overcome its softness is not an insult. It's something for anime producers to keep in mind. Adding music can help make up for that. Some change the style for particular scenes (sometimes for budget, sometimes artistic, and sometimes both). Some play around with transitions and shots. In other words, execution can make or break an anime and its reception.
Me:
"it's not when a soft theme isn't your goal"
Wrong. Saying the same thing over and over wont make it true. Some of my favorite rock hard, throbbing anime has a moe art style. That adds to it, not subtracts. The contrast between moe and dark elements creates greater emotional impact than live action shit. Empathizing with a 2d character is easier too.
The vast majority of adults are morons who consume the dumbest, least creative, most play it safe shit possible. You try to blame that on some inherent short-coming of anime because you're a fake fan. Anime wont change for your up your own ass, "mature" taste and that's a good thing. Last reply.
Him:
>Then you are delusional. Can't admit to the success of Princess Mononoke but want to call others fake fans. Yeah. Okay. Glad that's your last reply so you can stop embarrassing yourself.
|