Alright. So the kid gets his ass whooped.
Also, when did I call film a genre? If I did that was mistake. It's not, it's a medium. I'm trying to get a decent scattershot across the board of anime before I go back to my buddies and say its stupid.
And objectivity is not stupid. If you deconstruct most screenplays and movies there is a good (not totally) amount of it that you can take apart and say "this is what made this movie work, this is what didn't." Film is as much as science as it is an art.
Jesus what the hell is that face?Fraught said:Texas America Murphy said:The problem is that y'all are confusing medium with genre. Medium is a form of presentation. Anime I guess would be a subset of film. I hear they also do comics.
Genres can be argued for though. Genres and the individual works of art in it can be argued on a serious critical level. "Its just a medium" isn't only wrong, it's a cop out.![]()
So live action cinema is also a genre, since it's a "subset of film", right? That means that I can just watch the "movie movies" (Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Vampires Suck etc.), and declare that live-action cinema completely sucks, because it's just flat-out stupid, the characters don't act like normal human beings to the situations they're put into, the special effects are the worst shat ever shat out of a butt, the writing is absolutely horrible, it relies on way too many references that are stolen from other movies to justify writing a real joke, and instead try so hard to make the audience joke just because "Durr, its funny becuz is from nuther ppularr movie" and the plot events are so off the wall, stupid and the plot itself goes through so many absolutely unbearably mindblowingly stupid progressions that it boggles the mind?
Also, what the hell was up in Vampires Suck, where the girl turned into a hamburger, and the "vampire" ran at her with the stupidest sound effect this side of the galaxy and jumped at her, only now she was that girl again?
The whole genre of live-action cinema, RUINED!
All in all, just because you're studying film at a university doesn't give you a pre-set higher ground in this argument. There are better shows in the anime "genre", there are better features in the live-action "genre", and there are worse.
Everybody has a different opinion on something, including anime.
Some like the epicness of Tengenn Toppa Gurren Lagann, you don't. They enjoy it, remember it, love it. Get great memories from it. You think it's stupid, and reminds you of Power Rangers, which you didn't have much reverence for before.
There are animes out there more suited to you. There is to everyone. It's the same viewpoint I have on perfection. Nothing, or no one is perfect, because features something (or someone) has that one considers "perfect" is something the other just doesn't "like". I don't judge reviews on movies pretty much at all, because, for example, I really enjoy watching stupid American comedies that usually net ratings below 20 on Metacritic.
You think they're "objectively" bad, I say that "subjectively" I like them. Objectivity is a very dumb concept overall.
Also, when did I call film a genre? If I did that was mistake. It's not, it's a medium. I'm trying to get a decent scattershot across the board of anime before I go back to my buddies and say its stupid.
And objectivity is not stupid. If you deconstruct most screenplays and movies there is a good (not totally) amount of it that you can take apart and say "this is what made this movie work, this is what didn't." Film is as much as science as it is an art.