And now, for something different, I present the words of Quentin Tarentino, putting film crit hulk in his place:
“And I mean if you want to do this for a fucking living and you’re absolutely serious, then never hate a movie. You can learn so much about the craft from bad movies. I man you can’t like fucking look at Kurosawa and be all “Oooh just do what Kurosawa did. You know, it’s easy!” Fuck no! Bad movies teach you what not to do and what to correct in your process and that’s way more helpful. You know how many feet of film I burned on this thing [Kill Bill] when I was trying to be like something else that was great? Like fucking Pole Fighter, like what you said? No, all the best stuff came out of me just trying to avoid mistakes.
And fuck man, hating movies closes you off to stuff that seems like whatever you hate. Or stuff by the same guy. And who knows? That other stuff could be awesome. Some of my favorite filmmakers made bad movies. It won’t help you. It just won’t. It stops your development right in its tracks, okay? I mean like everything and I ain’t trying to get you to be like fucking me or anything. I’m just saying I think it’s better for you. And it makes me way, way happier. Never hate a movie. They’re gifts. Every fucking one of em.”
From the same entry (please excuse his hulk-like style):
AT THE TIME HULK DIDN’T REALIZE HOW MUCH TARANTINO WAS BREAKING A WIDE-OPEN HOLE IN HULK’S LATENT ADOLESCENT PERSPECTIVE. ABOUT THINKING YOU KNOW EVERYTHING JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOMETHING. HULK LOOKS BACK ON OPINIONS, WRITING, FROM A DECADE AGO AND SORT OF SHAKES HULK’S HEAD. IT NOT THAT THE WORDS INARTICULATE, OR THE IDEAS NOT COMPLEX… IT JUST SO UNFORGIVING.
REMOVING THE HATE CREATES A NEW AND BETTER CLIMATE. IT’S SHOWS US THAT BEING SO FOCUSED ON DESIGNATING MOVIES AS AWESOME OR SUX, PREVENTS US FROM HAVING THE BEST POSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS.
I’ve said something similar to this in my other posts, so what I am doing here is simply finding a more eloquent version of what I was trying to say.
Has anyone ever heard of this bullshit called “type a” and “type b” otaku? Let me post the descriptions:
A person who simply enjoys “anime.”
Is proud of Japan’s anime.
Evaluates anime based on direction, voice acting, art, etc.
Hates shallow anime with no real content.
Story emphasis >>>>> Moe anime.
A recent example would Higashi no Eden. Fans of anime like Lain or Ghost in the Shell would probably be this kind.
A person who simply enjoys “characters.”
Will watch an anime if it includes cute or beautiful characters.
Doesn’t care if story is awful, as long as the characters are of interest.
Evaluates anime based on which seiyuu are in it and what the characters look like.
Loves moe elements. Doesn’t like complex anime.
The otaku the media picks up on are usually this kind.
Doesn’t know that much about anime and so is often criticised as by Type A otaku.
However, they make much better customers than the more discerning Type A otaku.
Recently there has been a huge increase in anime targeted at Type B otaku.
People who like K-ON!, Queen’s Blade, Strike Witches and so on would be in this class.
This description is obviously biased towards the type A; it was clearly written by one.
He likes some anime, he even loves some anime. But his love is conditional on a thing called “quality”, and he hates anything that he perceives as lacking sufficient amounts of it. All of his discussions are geared around this thing called quality, about whether this thing or that thing increases or decreases the quality. And the sad thing is, he thinks this way of thinking makes him smarter and more sophisticated.
What a boring man.