Forum - View topic

Hey, Answerman! [2007-02-02]

In my opinion, a real fan would see the movie to support the franchise and then complain about how it ruined the story (if that is that fan's opinion). For example, I'm a Star Trek fan, and I'll (pay to) see anything new that the franchise produces, no matter how it mucks up the story/timeline (although a repeat viewing would be questionable). I simply appreciate that people still care about it, and I'm willing to support their efforts because I still care about it, too.

You very rarely do, mostly because it costs a fair amount of money to support oneself in the environment which best fosters one's creativity and imagination. You will see inexpensive art - paintings, books, items which one can create with minimal cost - for sale, but what you're not going to see is inexpensive art which costs a lot to produce (e.g. anime, motion pictures, etc.). So to answer your question again, you'll only find that sort of art where the production costs are low; we need enough money to survive each day, after all. Strictly moral support doesn't cut it.

"Those of us who seek the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow should feel mistreated when we find it doesn't exist." Come on... If you start on a fool's errand, your only hope is to wake up, realize your quest was for the fictional, and make something of your life.

Steroid wrote:

For those who do not care about the work and offer no devotion are given that which satisfies them, but those who do are denied it.

Are you referring to artists who are doing their work just for the money? Or fans that only buy what they like? Something else? Whichever way, there are plenty of examples to contradict that bitter statement.

I'm referring to the sort of fan who has no passion for what he sees, and so is unmoved when bad sequels or adaptations come out. They will be fans of anything, and have no particular standard. Therefore, nothing can hurt them. Those of us who are passionate can be and are hurt when our golden calfs are toppled. Practically, this suggests that passion is the moral inferior to indifference. I hold the opposite view, because passion is a greater deviation from the norm.

Steroid wrote:

I'm referring to the sort of fan who has no passion for what he sees, and so is unmoved when bad sequels or adaptations come out. They will be fans of anything, and have no particular standard. Therefore, nothing can hurt them. Those of us who are passionate can be and are hurt when our golden calfs are toppled. Practically, this suggests that passion is the moral inferior to indifference. I hold the opposite view, because passion is a greater deviation from the norm.

I would argue that rather than "toppling the golden calf", they're building another golden calf right next to the old one and maybe it's crappier or you just don't like it as much, but the old one is still there. Sure, you can point out that the new one sucks, but why does that change your opinion of the old one?

I would argue that rather than "toppling the golden calf", they're building another golden calf right next to the old one and maybe it's crappier or you just don't like it as much, but the old one is still there. Sure, you can point out that the new one sucks, but why does that change your opinion of the old one?

A sequel takes both the fates of the characters you know and the vagaries of those you have to guess on, and contradicts the set fates and canalizes the vague ones. So while it might not affect the original movie per se, it does affect those parts that the fan fills in himself.

And I'm confused. I thought Tezuka Osamu was the Walt Disney Of Japan?

I've always thought Tezuka was a better Disney analog than Miyazaki.

sounds stupid, right? well, Osamu Tezuka, the honored "Manga no Kamisama" based his caricatures inspired in the 50's classic cartoons of Disney, but the man had stories on his own, and he was a doctor!!! instead of a mouse, he had a boy that wished for a human heart, instead of transforming horrible stories (as in cruel, horrid, sordid folk tales) in pompous, charming classics, He questioned life and death in depht in the eyes of an illegal doctor and the fabled phoenix bird, and gave inspiration to the next 10 generations of comic storytellers, so then...Both cannot be compared.

Miyazaki hates Disney...And to be compared by him... Miyazaki got his own inspiration and his own art style from his experiences around planes, his mother's sickness and his love for europe, so not, not a single miyazaki movie can be compared for his similarities (even though, Miyazaki still is getting away for ripping off "Dune" for creating "Nausicaa" that dirty ol' man)
So I will say, please don't insult such geniuses into petty comparisons, just say you like some movies better than others,

Plus, Studio Ghibli is not Miyazaki only, where you guys are leaving Isao Takahata? (the grave of fireflies, my neighbors the yamadas, the cat returns...)

Whenever I have seen Miyazaki referred to as "The Walt Disney of Japan," I always believed that it wasn't really the men themselves that were being compared, but the way they are seen by the people of their respective countries. When an average American thinks of animation, Disney is sure to jump to mind. Everyone grew up with Disney's movies and cartoons. Likewise, the Japanese would probably think of Miyazaki.

Why people keep comparing events or people that should not be compared?