Forum - View topic

Hey, Answerman! [2006-11-24]

There would be no individuality, no free thought, no uniqueness amongst people which an aspect of freedom that most people on this planet treasure. We'd all be the same person, and anyone who finds that an appealing prospect is obviously too stuck on themselves to really have any objective input on the matter. I wouldn't want a world of me's, yes, I think that would make for a very boring society.

And this of course is a commonly used and pointless excuse of sorts. Like it or not anime or a specific title within anime isn't popular because many people just aren't interested and don't like it. You can't force people to like something and whether or not you think it's great is irrelevent to them, they can make that judgement for themselves. People have different tastes, you can't just trick them or make them adopt your own just so you can have the benefit of their added income. It's a tragedy that some titles get lost because they just don't bring in enough popularity to fund further releases or production, but that's just how it is, if people don't like it then they don't like it, it is their right to make that choice. Though honestly, it's hard to argue with someone so obviously set on the idea that freedom of thought and individuality is actually a bad thing.

indrik wrote:

Boy, there was a term for 24-pagers that were bound and glossy. I can't think of it, though.

Usually, people just call them "comic books", but other common slang terms include "pamphlets" or "floppies."

jgreen wrote:

indrik wrote: Boy, there was a term for 24-pagers that were bound and glossy. I can't think of it, though. Usually, people just call them "comic books", but other common slang terms include "pamphlets" or "floppies."

No, it was like "prestige format" or something like that.

Concerning the flake, it sounds to me like they are describing Pretear. But I could be wrong.

The show the "Flake of the Week" is referencing is called Aquarian Age: Sign for Evolution, and ADV Films released a thinpak of it earlier this year. The english cast was headed up by Monica Rial and Chris Patton, and supported by Greg Ayres, Luci Christian, Vic Mignogna, Hilary Haag, Mariela Ortiz, Andy McAvin, Chrisine Auten, and me.
Yours,
Lauren Goodnight

Whereas McCloud uses 'sequential art' as a synonym for comics, but it should be noted that McCloud outright defined single panel comics (like family Circus and most political cartoons) as not comics, but "cartoons."
-t

But there's a difference between everyone being forced to act the same way and between people choosing the same values. We're all living in the same world, in the human condition, so there are some universal principles. And I think the world would be interesting if all we had was those universals.

I'm all for freedom of thought, but not so much for freedom from thought. And individuality means you actually have to craft a personality, not just soak up the pabulum and pretend that it's a considered choice. If I can trick the people who do, I consider it a good thing. For both of us: I get another boost to the market and they get to experience something deeper. But while people have the right to choose mediocrity over excellence, I don't have to celebrate it.

But while people have the right to choose mediocrity over excellence, I don't have to celebrate it.

The only way everyone would adopt the exact same style and principals is if they were forced. I personally don't think that world would be interesting, for the same reasons I listed, we'd all be the same people with little to no individuality, variety, or uniqueness. Some people might think that sounds so incredibly good, but I would think the vast majority think otherwise.

If everyone were forced to share the same style and principles (ed.), wouldn't we have obtained world peace?

If everyone were part of the same cultural/social order, wouldn't we have an almost Utopian world without war or most crime?

Is peace worth having if you must sacrifice individuality and freedom to obtain it? Is freedom acceptable if it means people are free to choose to be cruel, useless, violent or stupid?

Um, short answer, no we'd have a military state.
Enforced peace isn't really peace is it? I can't recall any incidents of enforced "peace" actually resulting in a stable, peaceful society. Revolution and war, yes; peace, no.

Okay, why do we still not get that it is not about making everyone the same it's about awareness and acceptance of our differences?

When humanity evolves enough to actually create and maintain world peace we will, almost universally, have grown beyond the desire to make negative choices like these. At that point it will no longer be a question of obtaining peace, it just will be.

Take a look at any one of Miyazaki's films; if there's a message in there, by god you will know what it is by the end, because odds are he'll spend 2 and a half hours telling you in the most obvious way possible. Don't get me wrong - obviously he is a master storyteller, but watch Princess Mononoke and tell me he isn't being at least a little heavy-handed with his message.

Hell, his colleague at Ghibli, Isao Takahata, directed probably the most ridiculously over-the-top eco-movie ever, Pom Poko Tanuki. That movie is like 8 hours long and every second of it are designed to tell you that the ENVIRONMENT IS IMPORTANT, WEEP FOR THE TANUKI!