in article 42184FFC.7C60ADDF@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 2/20/05 5:53 PM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>> in article 42173746.903BCEA@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
>> etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 2/19/05 9:55 PM:
>> 
>>> Ernest Schaal wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Eric,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know if your otaku obsession with anime
>>> 
>>> What obsession with anime? It is you demonstrating an obsession with a
>>> handful of directors or movies, as if it meant something about another
>>> entire genre of work with its own merits which you disregard.
>> 
>> Eric, like Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, you "doth protest too much, methinks."
>> 
>> Ever since your stupid rant on February 16th about how fluency in Japanese
>> language is essential before one could even dare comment on Japanese film,
>> you have been trying to apply a double standard, where live action genre are
>> not "good" unless made by only hand full of talented directors, but anime is
>> good if it really doesn't make you want to barf.
> 
> I said none of those things.
> 
> This is a demonstration of how full of yourself and defensive you are, Ernest.
> My first post on this thread was wondering if you were not underestimating
> your so called beginning level of Japanese, or were just being modest, if you
> were able to understand those movies you were referring to in this thread. If
> you were able to understand those Japanese movies, you'd be doing a lot better
> than Japanese who've studied English for years, yet still do not understand
> English language entertainment.

Actually the tone was snotty, along the lines of how dare I criticize
Japanese cinema without being fluent. You may not have meant it to be
snotty, but it was. You subsequent messages confirmed the snottiness.
> 
> And most importantly, I had not thought of subtitles, or you reading them.

Then why didn't you say that earlier, rather than continue your tirade about
how no one should comment on the arts unless one knew the language?
 
> How many times do I have to tell you I don't care if you are at some beginner
> or intermediate level of Japanese? I don't know what my Japanese level is, nor
> is it important.

I don't care if you care if I am at some beginner or intermediate level of
Japanese. I do care about your rudeness to me and others. Some poor guy
starts this thread wanting to talk about Japanese cinema, and you pull your
nonsense. I feel sorry for the guy, and I dislike your Kaz-like approach to
usenet etiquette .
 
> I did not say Japanese cinema was not good if it were not made by certain
> directors; I clearly stated I do NOT choose or note works (any genre) for
> their directors.

Apparently, your knowledge of cinema is almost non-existence, as is,
according to your own comments, your knowledge of Japanese art, history, or
literature. And yet you seem to imply that knowing the language is more
important in film critique than actually seeing the film.

> I did NOT say anime was good in general, as I told John, even I wouldn't watch
> 80% of anime, and I have not been interested in seeing any released to video
> after 2001 (except two or three of those big scale Miyazaki's works).
> Therefore, I have no clue what all this "Cowboy Bebop" or "Trigun" craze is
> about, and looking at the boxes on the shelves, I'm not interested in even
> finding out.

But you apparently hold it to a different standard. For "good" cinema of
live action genre seems to be limited to the exception, but "good" anime is
anything that people will pay money to see.

>> The vehemence in which you try to protect anime from any criticism is like
>> that of a mother tiger protecting her cubs. You slam the masters of Japanese
>> film,
> 
> Other than to say Kurosawa, or the star of Tora-san are dead, I did not slam
> the masters. You, however, slam anime, as if you have never heard of such as
> Tezuka, who is also dead.

Go back on the thread and you will see a clear bias for your anime, made
clear by your two different standards of quality.
 
> Go ahead and criticize anime. I have on this thread. Porn's porn. Kiddy stuff
> is kiddy stuff. It features too many young girls. Most stuff I wouldn't allow
> my kids to watch, wouldn't show my mother, and maybe 80% and almost all new
> stuff, I wouldn't care to watch myself.

You have been defending it more than criticizing it, trying to spin the porn
and kiddy stuff not reflecting anime as a whole.

> Your problem is you think it is limited to basically two types, and that it
> appeals to basically two audiences. If there is a wider appeal, as with a
> Miyazaki piece, it is only incidental.

Your problem is trying to label anime as better than it is, merely because
an exceptional director may make something that is good.

Notice how the "wide appeal" is considered to be proof of the goodness of
anime, while the "wide appeal" of other genres is not.

>> without even seeing more than a few of the films (by your own
>> admission), then object to my remarks that as a genre the anime tends to be
>> on a par with American sitcoms (with my having seen plenty of both).
> 
> How many films one sees is irrelevant to the fact that even you admit "good"
> only "occasionally" comes from cinema. The argument of how good cinema is in
> general, or how many are actually "good" is settled, if only you were not so
> defensive about Japanese cinema.

It has everything to do with being able to determine the good from the
mediocre. That is like someone who never saw opera arguing that rap is
better, or someone who never heard a rap song saying the opposite.
 
> When did you say anime was on a par with American sitcoms? Are American
> sitcoms also mostly porn and kiddy fare which appeal to otaku and children?
> That is not fair, either. Married With Children was the last sitcom I can
> recall following, and I would not do so now as an adult, nor would I let my
> family watch it now.

Actually, I didn't say that anime was on a par with American sitcoms. I said
the better anime was one a par with good American sitcoms. There are plenty
of poor sitcoms and poor anime.

>> I can only explain the vehemence and irrationality of your arguments to a
>> personal stake in the discussion, like it being you chief source of
>> amusement (i.e., your being an otaku).
> 
> Wrong on both points. I have not had an interest in anime since my kids were
> born, and haven't bought any since 1995. I have rented about 270 videos since
> late October to take advantage of the 100 yen campaigns at local stores. About
> 80% of that was Hollywood movies, mostly action, less than a handful of other
> foreign films, and the remainder being good Japanese movies (except Love
> Story), and the entire series of animated Heidi and Dog of Flanders for my
> kids, who watch one to three episodes per day. My kids were not interested in
> Masked Rider or Ultra Seven which I saw as a child, or Sailor Moon or Cutey
> Honey.

Then why the ridiculous defense as an alternative to mainstream cinema?

> If you are referring to time, naturally, most of my time is on the computer. I
> am not at sites featuring anime or women, either. Most of my time is spent
> reading news and magazines, or searching Goo for a car or motorcycle to bring
> home. Last night after posting, I was up till about 5 am reading about circus
> freaks, particularly conjoined twins and the recent births and surgeries of
> "two headed" children.

Frankly, I don't care how you amuse yourself, since you have already
admitted a general lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.

>>>> is effecting your reading ability, but I never say that all live action
>>>> genre in Japan is good, nor do I think that.
>>> 
>>> If you disagree that less than 10% is not cliched AND also good (or that
>>> less than 20% of the total is good), what is your own estimation?
>> 
>> Probably about the same as the good cinema in France. The percentage would
>> vary greatly depending on how strict a standard one has for the term "good."
>> I notice that your standards for anime seem to be quite low.
> 
> Even I would not watch 80% of anime I see available, ie, I might watch 20%
> (but
> don't), means I have low standards? That I watch no current anime (having
> stopped
> showing Sazae-san and Chibi Marukochan to my kids nearly a year ago), and that
> my
> children currently watch only one, that Pretty Cure commercial formulaic magic
> girl
> crap, means I have low standards?
> 
> So why can you not give me a number of "good" Japanese film, even your own
> estimation? Mine is 15-20%. You can't make an admission? Don't want to offend
> your
> dead masters by possibly excluding any of their work from your count?
> 
> You think Japanese cinema is on a par with French cinema? Do you mean
> historically
> or in the present? I'd be interested in hearing more about this.
> 
>>>> I merely said that you, who had already admits a gross
>>>> ignorance on the topic, discounted live action genre in favor of anime.
>>> 
>>> When? Where? Did you notice me saying I was NOT claiming anime to be better
>>> than movies? What I was discounting was the vast majority of movies not
>>> worth
>>> watching, which is also true of TV, anime and manga. "Good" only
>>> "occasionally" comes from Japanese cinema, remember?
>> 
>> If you mean by "good" the great films, then I would agree with you that it
>> comes occasionally to Japanese cinema, but if you apply the same standard to
>> anime it becomes almost never.
> 
> So what is your problem with my assessment of the thousands of live action
> Japanese videos on the shelves?
> 
>> If you mean by "good" the amusing or entertaining films, the your statement
>> that it comes only occasionally to Japanese cinema, then you are wrong.
>> 
>>>> The tone of your messages is all to reminiscent of other statements I have
>>>> heard from otaku of the anime genre. If that is you life, how sad.
>>> 
>>> Fiction has little to do with my life, and at the moment, movies of the
>>> mainly action or dramatic genre are my preferred form of fiction. I hope you
>>> clinging to your superficial knowledge of some notable Japanese directors or
>>> movies as if it meant something important does not represent any aspect of
>>> your personality or life. Are you sure your retirement was not too early?
>> 
>> You speak of superficial knowledge of some movies, but it is you who
>> admitted to limited exposure to Japanese cinema and to limited (actually no)
>> interest in Japanese arts.
>> 
>> If fiction has so little to do with your life, why the obsessive defense of
>> anime as being "the alternative" to live action or dramatic genre?
> 
> As I said, animation is an alternative to making the large investment of time
> or money, and previously technological shortcoming, of making a live feature.
> And there are still things live action cannot do, at least economically. Also
> some animated characters or the manga they are based on, may have more
> recognition value than some unknown or relatively unknown Japanese performer
> if a live feature were made.

So the test of "goodness" is commerciality? Does that mean Morning Musume is
today's divas?

Or is the test "recognition value"? Colonel Sanders seems to have
exceptional recognition value, as does the girl in front of Fujiya
restaurants. Does that mean, they deserve Oscars?
 
> I did not say anime is "the alternative" to watching movies. My alternative to
> watching movies or using the Internet is reading popular books of the action
> thriller genre.
> 
> The reason I need to be so repetitive is because you will not accept my one
> paragraph post that there is more to anime than porn or kiddy fare, and John
> keeps going on about influences on US culture, as if those aspects of US
> culture did not exist before and needed help from Japanese.

I wouldn't have pointed out your obvious weaknesses in logic and in
credibility if you had not been so offensive throughout the discussion. More
and more, you are becoming the twin of Kaz.