DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:13 pmBecause you proved nothing. Oh a movie "critic" talked about a movie he saw? Big deal.
This is emblematic of what makes trying to talk basic facts of reality so infuriating with you: Roger Ebert wasn't just some random, generic movie critic. The dude was an actual, honest to god celebrity for his time. He had a nationally televised show ("At The Movies") about movies that aired for literally
over 20 years straight. His was literally as mainstream and associated with major Hollywood movies among the general public as people like Steven Spielberg or Bruce Willis.
Ebert wasn't just some random critic: he was an actual cultural icon, whether you liked him or not, whether you agreed with his opinions or not. And he didn't just write about anime in print: he spoke about it regularly in public appearances and several times on his (again,
nationally syndicated for over 20 years) TV show.
A national figure like Roger Ebert speaking out positively and publicly about anime did a TON for the medium's visibility in the mainstream at the time, well long before Dragon Ball or Pokemon were ever on kids' TV.
People like yourself didn't know about any of this at the time because at that time you were just a small kid who didn't pay any attention to literally anything else in the world except your childhood interests (most likely just cartoons, video games, and maybe something like wrestling?). Your view of the world back then was SUPER narrow and myopic. But that doesn't mean that what happened back then at the time didn't mean anything or didn't have any impact on anything. You personally not being aware of something isn't the same thing as that something not having broader impact or meaning for TONS of other people who aren't you.
And not only that, but plenty of people who grow up sheltered/insulated or just otherwise disinterested in paying attention to the rest of culture around them when they were kids... lots of them generally at some point later in life tend to go back and read up on things that they missed or weren't paying attention to at the time and get themselves more up to speed rather than just assume blanketly that what they were aware of or knew/understood back then is somehow exactly equivalent to what the whole rest of the world knew and was aware of.
You however (like so many other people on this site frankly) seem stubbornly resistant to doing that, and prefer to look at past history of culture as if everything you knew about as a small kid was all there ever was to know about the world (or was worth knowing about it) back then. And it makes trying to discuss INCREDIBLY basic facts of history about these things basically impossible, because you only want to look at the past more or less exactly the way you saw it as a kid rather than how it actually was at the time.
You probably also weren't aware of major cultural events at the time in the 1990s like the Bosnian War, or the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the deaths of people like Kurt Cobain, Tupac Shakur, and Princess Diana, or the L.A. Riots, or the OJ Simpson trial. Or if you were vaguely aware of them as a kid, you likely didn't know WHY they were of such significance or importance. Guess what though? You not knowing or understanding these things in the world as a kid
is not the same fucking thing as those things not being significant or important in any way at that time.
Your perception of the world as a small child who was solely fixated on cartoons and video games IS NOT the same fucking thing as the reality of what the world was like back then or what the rest of the world was focused on.
Just because a name like Roger Ebert means nothing to you then or now, DOES NOT MEAN that he as a cultural figure wasn't significant in the 1980s and 90s. He VERY much demonstrably, factually was a
majorly significant voice on movies and pop culture for more than 40+ years.
DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:13 pmHe said it's "a best seller".... that's such a vague statement. Best seller of what?
Comic books. You know, those things with the words inside the little bubbles in paneled pictures?
Akira's manga was published in English in the United States by Marvel Comics under its Epic Imprint (which was comics aimed at older, adult aged readers) and was serialized in its original chapter length from 1988 to 1996 in almost its entirety. It sold generally well and was probably one of the top selling comics under the Epic brand for much of that brand's lifespan.
Akira was very much a fairly mainstream success for that time, having sold well as both a manga under Marvel's Epic brand, and as a VHS tape for the anime. People in broader culture in a general sense knew what Akira was by the mid-90s: and if they hadn't seen it, they were at a bare minimum aware of it as a "weird sci fi thing from Japan". Did that also include little kids on the playground in middle of nowhere Nebraska? No. But that demographic, as stated repeatedly now, is not the be-all, end-all of what constitutes "mainstream".
Little kids on the playground circa 1999/2000 who are obsessed solely/primarily with Saturday Morning Cartoons, Nintendo, Power Rangers, and WWF are not the center of the fucking universe. Other people, other demographics, and other spheres of interests exist, and in tremendously great abundance. You as one of those little kids back then not being aware of these other spheres of culture does not mean that they did not exist, nor does it mean that they weren't significant or part of the mainstream. You're just being willfully ignorant and refusing to face incredibly simple and not at all difficult to grasp reality at this point.
DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:13 pmIf it's exceptionally successful with its intended demo, it is considered mainstream.
Jesus wept.
You literally have been spending this ENTIRE thread thus far refusing to accept examples of things that were successful with adult/non-child audiences and branding them invalid unless they also are a hit with middle school kids circa the turn of the millennium. You're entire stance in this thread has been "If I as a kid in the early aughts wasn't aware of it, then it wasn't mainstream and it doesn't count for anything."
And now you're moving the goalposts suddenly back to "if its successful with its intended demo, its mainstream"? Despite that COMPLETELY contradicting everything you've been saying up to this point?
Answer a simple question then: is an adult audience a "valid" demographic to you or isn't it? If something is aimed at adults rather than kids and is a success among adults but not among children, then would you consider it to be "mainstream"?
DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:13 pmI'm not saying Pokemon didn't introduce people to anime
just that it's contributions weren't necessarily benefit to its image. There's a reason why it fell off.
If you want to bring whether or not a major hit anime was "beneficial to the image of anime" into this discussion: then I can be here a LONG time going into detail why Dragon Ball was no more beneficial to anime's Western image than Pokemon was. BOTH Pokemon and DBZ alike I would argue were equally detrimental to the overall image of Japanese anime in north America during the turn of the millennium.
Yes, they lead to the monstrous success and continued juggernaut that is "Shonen": but guess what? Anime is a LOT more than just fucking Shonen. Not all of us are (or ever have been) enthralled with the dominance of Shonen. Not everyone believes that Shonen being the dominant face of anime in the West is or ever was such a fucking good thing.
If you want to bring in "which did more good for anime's Western mainstream image" between Pokemon and DBZ into this discussion: then my answer is
fucking NEITHER of them. BOTH did gobs of damage to anime's image and reputation in North America, damage that its STILL not come anywhere close to recovering from (and may well possibly NEVER recover from).
Your entire premise in this whole thread is flawed at its very core: not only is "mainstream" not solely defined by what was popular among small children in the late 90s/early 2000s, its also not necessarily such a universally welcomed or positive thing that "Battle Shonen" was helped along by Dragon Ball in completely enveloping and smothering out so much of anime in North America for so long.
Anime is (and certainly has been and certainly can still be) so, so, SO much more than just Shonen. Mon or Battle, or otherwise. And also so much more than just Shojo as well for that matter: I'm no more fond of stuff for little girls taking dominance than I am stuff made for little boys - for the simple reason that
not everything needs to nor should revolve around what appeals to small children. Boy or girl. Both Pokemon and Dragon Ball's success among children at the turn of the millennium did a TON of damage in making sure that children's anime are the main/primary lens through which mainstream Western culture perceives anime.
And this is, without question in my view, a massive net loss for art, media, and pop culture on our end. And its certainly a massive net loss for anime and manga as artistic mediums, and for animation more broadly as a medium.
DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 8:10 pmSiskel Gene has a net worth of only $5 and Ebert only $9. That's not exactly what I'd call mainstream.
Do we actually need to go over why/how exactly gauging a person's impact on the cultural landscape by how much money they made is... incredibly flawed, incredibly moronic, and shallower than all hell logic?
Christ, Mozart's music has literally helped set a new baseline for musical theory and composition, and he literally died penniless and was buried in a pauper's grave. Same with van Gogh with painting. Henry Darger ended up becoming one of the most significant avant garde artists of the last half century with his work having an incredible impact on visual design for countless future artists and just for many people's basic conceptions of art more broadly: and he spent pretty much his entire life as little more than an anonymous hospital janitor, no richer than you or I.
Some of the most significant figures in culture and society have very minimal money to show for it: while some of the most useless lumps have more money than they'd ever know what to do with.
Note that I'm in no way comparing Siskel and Ebert to those earlier figures in terms of the level of importance and impact they've had:
obviously guys like Mozart were SIGNIFICANTLY more important and impactful to human culture than freaking Siskel and Ebert. And that just further proves my point more: Siskel and Ebert died being worth millions of dollars (and DBZAOTA is somehow considers them "unsuccessful"? Because they were "just" worth millions, and weren't worth HUNDREDS of millions?), while Mozart died totally broke.
DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 8:10 pmMasenkoHA wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:36 pmYou earlier in this thread: Oh yeah well that anime block on Sci fi doesn't count because it was meant for adults!
Because from the jump, it obviously narrowed itself to an extremely specific audience.
You literally JUST said before this:
DBZAOTA482 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:13 pmI think you are confused. When I say being considered "cool" or "trendy" by society, it obviously doesn't include everyone. If it's exceptionally successful with its intended demo, it is considered mainstream.
If it can crossover, that's a bonus that ensures longevity.
Do you not realize how you're literally contradicting yourself within a couple of posts back to back in the same thread? Either something is mainstream if it does well within its intended demo OR its mainstream if it crosses over beyond just its one demo. You can only PICK ONE of these, you can't literally say two things that are the exact opposite and claim that both are true.