On May 30, 11:26 am, "Arnold Kim"
optonline.net> wrote:> "Terrence Briggs"
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>>>>On May 20, 3:03 pm, marklungo
care2.com> wrote:>>>>> and "Shrek" doesn't come out the winner. The article is similar to the
>>>>> New York Times piece on "Paprika" that was quoted in the film's
>>>>> trailer, and that Terrence Briggs noted here a while back. It's at
>>>>>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18628579/site/newsweek/.
>
>>> Not that the "Shrek" franchise should come out the winner at
>>> anything.
>>> Those movies have never been anything more than collections of cultural
>>> reference humor and cheap bashing, with horrible character design at
>>> that.
>
>> Hey! I *like* South Park :-)
>
> Yeah, but South Park usually has a point to its pop culture bashing.
I can honestly say that South Park's best gags often seem like kicks
to the groin. It really doesn't matter to me it the fatass/douche/
stupidspoiledwhore deserved it; cheap shots are cheap shots :-)
>> Boondocks has 2 out of the 3, but with good character design.
>
>> Heck, Brad Bird collection cultural references for his movies, and we
>> think he's brilliant.
>
>> The question before us: Is Shrek's collection of pop referential
>> humor, cheap bashing, and underwhelming character design funny?
>> Fitfully, I say. Then again, most of my fellow snobs note the
>> differences between Shrek 1 and its "inferior" sequels.
>
> I dunno, Shrek just seems to be the latest animated film that thinks
> dropping references is, in and of itself, funny. (True, it started with
> Aladdin, but that worked because of Robin Williams' delivery and timing, and
> not just for the Arsenio Hall and Jack Nicholson impressions.)
Shrek's creative types will certainly defend the timing and
imagination of their Aladdin-esque references. I haven't heard the
DVD commentary in a while though, so I'll let you know.
>>>> 2. Americans see animation as being for kids. This prevents most
>>>>American animators from going beyond the standards of what is and is
>>>>not acceptable for kids in America.
>
>>> OTOH, I found Japanese attitudes towards animation very limiting
>>> when I
>>> was last there in 2005. All the animes we in the States praise as adult
>>> are
>>> inundated with video game and card game sponserships when broadcast in
>>> Japan.
>>> The vibe I got from my friends in Japan was that you could not be an
>>> animation
>>> fan unless you were one of three categories:
>
>>> 1. A child.
>
>>> 2. A teenager interested only in the blood and guts and the video
>>> game
>>> tie ins.
>
>>> 3. A "Shin's neighbor" style loser.
>
>> Sounds like America has 2 of those 3 in common :-)
>
> Actually, it seems like America has exactly the same opinion of comic book
> fans.
>
>>> U.S. residents may have an attitude that cartoons are mainly for kids,
>>> but I
>>> think Japanese residents have an attitude that cartoons are mainly for
>>> kids and
>>> teens. And I felt a good deal more social pressure behind that attitude
>>> than I
>>> did in the States. So I'd rather be a cartoon fan in the United States
>>> than a
>>> cartoon fan in Japan.
>
>> You'd rather be treated like a kid than an adolescent? :-)
>
> I don't know about you, but I find kids far more tolerable than teenagers...
You've been on rec.arts.anime.misc too long :-)
> Arnold Kim
Terrence Briggs, perpetual adolescent wiseass
Peace to you...
