Ernest Schaal wrote:

> in article 4215F8D7.F09CD864@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
> etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 2/18/05 11:16 PM:
>
> > Ernest Schaal wrote:
> >
> >> Anime, as a genre, tends to be loved by the otaku, but as a class it isn't
> >> particularly well thought of. Although there are some films within the anime
> >> genre that are well thought of, such as the works of Miyazaki, most of the
> >> works in that genre are thought of as either crass porn (virgins raped by
> >> alien plants) or kiddie stuff (Pokemon).
> >
> > Which do you consider the science fiction sub genre (artificial humanoids,
> > robots, giant robots, armored suits, outer space epics, etc) to be, and what
> > titles do you claim to be acquainted with?
>
> For a short while in California, I was watching a wide variety of anime,
> mainly because I missed Japan and it was the only Japanese video at my local
> video store that I hadn't already seen. I also saw some anime on public
> television.

Why do you believe you are seeing a fair representation of anime based on the
limited selection you saw during "a short while" in "California" or on US "public
television"? It is no wonder you think it is porn or kiddy shows meant for otaku or
children.

> I thought "Akira" was a waste of time,

Oh, I see. I don't care if you don't like the characters or the plot, but the
artwork and concept mean nothing to you, particularly for its age, during a time
American animation was indeed mainly meant for children.

> but liked "Galaxy Express 999." Initially, I liked Ranma 1/2, but it got very
> predictable very fast.

Oh, and Tora-san is not? Were you waiting for him to marry one of the girls he
meets and settle down at a serious job to raise a family, perhaps?

> After a while, I realized that much of the anime that I have seen seemed to be
> geared towards losers who wished that all the women loved them, like they
> did in Ranma, or that even a goddess would dedicate her time serving him
> like in "Ah my Goddess," or horned aliens in cute tiger suits lusted after
> them, like in "Urusei Yatsura."

Or perhaps they liked the humor, among other things. While "Ah my Goddess" was
published in a magazine meant for adult readers and certainly celebrates young male
fantasies regarding women and gadgets, did you not notice that Ranma or Urusei
Yatsura were meant for children? Have you seen any of Rumiko Takahashi's other
work, such as her romance, fantasy and horror, which would merit being made into
live action TV or film for a wider audience?

> Now, what films of Kurosawa, Ozu, etc. do you claim to be acquainted with?

I have watched a literal handful of Kurosawa films. Why is this relevant? Kurosawa
is not the issue, nor is Kurosawa representative of Japanese cinema in general when
arguing its merits. Even you say "good" only "occasionally" comes from Japanese
cinema, which is effectively the same as what I said when discounting out of hand
most of which appears on video shelves (or TV). The same can be said of anime, most
of which I would not show my mother or children.

> >> Some of the amine that I have seen is amusing, like good television
> >> sit-coms, but only occasionally is it something that most people would want
> >> to pay money to see.
> >
> > Really? So how do you account for its continued success, or how Japanese
> > animation has become an international phenomenon worth billions of dollars per
> > year? Japanese live action TV shows, movies or music don't enjoy that kind of
> > popularity or financial success (except possibly in Southeast Asia).
>
> There are a lot of childish adults out there?

While the likes of Pokemon or Dragonball are broadcast for children even in Japan,
why are you not one of the adults (or adult critics) who understands the appeal or
sophistication of anime is not limited to children or otaku, and the range is not
limited to porn or kiddy shows?