english language storytelling vs neo-latin language storytel

The following lines were taked from this link http://www.storylink.com/article/321 , and became the motivation for the ramble presented later on

"(...)
Q: Quentin Tarantino once said, "The thing that distinguishes an American artist is his capacity to tell a good story." Would you agree?

Robert McKee: I generally would agree with Tarantino, but only in a limited way. First of all, it isn't just Americans; it's the whole English language tradition. Anywhere that English is the dominant language, from America to Britain, Australia to India, the English language has a grand tradition of storytelling that is very rich, and a world view, as a result of this tradition, that inspires stories that we consider are well told. On the other hand, I would argue that the most impressive and creative film culture in the world right now is in Asia, and they are telling stories out of their great traditions and cultures that are just as compelling, comic and/or tragic, as anything coming out of the English-speaking world. But Quentin Tarantino is overstating it, because every great language tradition, certainly the Spanish language, has magnificent storytellers, but

there is a tendency outside of the English language, especially in the romance languages, the cultures rooted in the romance languages, to put more emphasis on mood than emotion. Or they put more emphasis on static moments of life rather than dynamic moments of life, and consequently the storytelling on the continent of Europe is often more open, more moody, more contemplative, more intellectual perhaps, than the stories that are told in the Anglo-American tradition.

But those are broad generalities, and one could argue that many writers outside of the English language tradition are trying to use story to explore aspects of life that the English language tradition tends to ignore, and those aspects of life are more static and more contemplative, more mood than emotion. But no matter what, the tradition of every great culture in the world produces master works. So Tarantino's statement tends to imply that stories told in the English-language tradition are better than stories told outside of that tradition, and that's simply not true. They're just different, not necessarily better.
(...)"

While those are, as McKee said, broad generalities, i can't get out of my mind that this may influence how the expectations/tolerances different publics from different cultures have with different types of storytelling, be it in prose, comics, animations, cinema, etc.

What i will say now is a completely partial obsevation.

In romance (neolatin) languages speaking countries, specially in the older generations, it's way more frequent to find people dismissing any movie/comic/book that tends toward "action". They say that if the story is moved foward by force at all the time, there isn't time to make a proper exposition of feelings and mood. To try to compensate, the reactions became over-exagerated and "fake-looking", and feelings too undeveloped.

In the other hand, in english speaking countries , specially in the younger generations, there's a tendence to find people dismissing slower paced movies/comics/books. "It's boring", "The story don't advances", "Nothing happened", "The characters are dull" is the kind of thing i head/read.

Where i'm trying to go with all this? Maybe i'm just frustated with younger generation of english and older generation of neolatin speaking countries dismissing a lot of good fictions. How can i convince them into experiencing properly different things, to give those work a proper chance?