| I know that only japan makes anime, and is like the home of anime, but in the future will US start making anime like RWBY? From all that matters, they actually do make some kind of animations that looks like anime, like cartoons mostly, but I've seen some pretty good English made Anime. I would like to this happend, but I just hope Americans can atleast get better sound artists, since I never ever watch dub because of the fake shit americans produce lol. |
| Well there is stuff like Avatar, Boondocks, Teen Titans. But they'd never be considered anime due to weebs getting pissy about what the term "anime" covers and then you have MAL being picky about it too. I mean theres already been projects in places like France for years covering the anime style in their cartoons. /shrug/ I don't always agree but I think Mothers Basement covered the subject on it relatively well. |
 |
| Neo Yokio is anime, it's bad, but it's definitely anime. It's better than Wonder Momo. |
 |
| Yeah , I mean , they've already made Anime Style series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime-influenced_animation#United_States , but I think what anime means in the occident must be different from what it means in Japan so don't really know if things like Avatar are considered anime there. |
| Well, the definition of anime is that it's made in Japan so for anime to be both made in Japan and made in the US it has to be a coproduction between the two countries, which has already happened plenty of times. |
  |
| I hope United States are not gonna making anime anytime soon, we already got so much anime per season that I'm not even start watching lol |
| . |
ToxicEclipse said: ... just hope Americans can atleast get better video artists Their character's body and face are so unattractive, compared to Japan. |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
Hoppy said: Wonder Momo is okay.Neo Yokio is anime, it's bad, but it's definitely anime. It's better than Wonder Momo. Haven't seen Neo Yokio in detail, though I think I wouldn't enjoy it as much as Wonder Momo. Neo Yokio struck me as being very forced in its approach to appeal and humor. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| the US cant make anime since that would just make them regular cartoons instead of glorious japanimation :) |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| The US knows theres a market for it of course so there's no doubt that more companies will try to make american shows that look like anime. |
 |
| the pro here is that if the usa did make anime, it would inherently be dubbed in HIS one true master race language. the con here is that media is controlled by the devil so we will end up with anime like roseanne that contain things unfavorable to HIM. this is why HE has left anime to japan. |
 |
| The Castlevania TV series released by Netflix in 2017 is probably as close to an American anime as you're going to get. Looks and sounds like an anime. |
 |
| Nah, they will just made more cartoons, with the political agenda in them as usual. And not a single video made by an anime youtuber change that LOL. And at the very end its really bad idea because Nippon is producing more than enough garbage every season, we really dont need more form the west. |
SwagernatorApr 20, 2018 1:01 AM
 |
| I can see a good market for shooting based anime. I mean, that's all america can think of when it comes to making a heartwarming story. Fight me. On topic, I'd watch more american if they don't wage war just because they can't stand watching other people's way of life seems happy without using a gun. As of now, Japan for the win. |
Circa 1994 I only know of its existence due to the fact I was gifted some hand me down toys and I was all like, "wtf even are these things? Its Exo Squad fam, u dun know what is gud?". |
 |
| NO, US don't make Anime they make Cartoons! |
| Seeing as modern anime was born out of Disney, makes sense for it to come full circle again. And again. And again... |
| Well Avatar the last Airbender is great I guess and it's definitely anime inspired and it feels like anime |
Nabelia said: The real "Anime" is only exist in Japan. Anime is not just about animation product, but it's a Japanese culture. If US start making animation like RWBY, i will gladly call it as a "animation product that uses anime art style", not as anime. And what constitutes Japanese (or any) culture in a global melting pot? The last 10 years have seen more change in Japan than the last 50, the last 50 more than the last 500. The next 10 will see even more. Why use culture to gauge a style of animation? Why not see Brazilian anime? Nigerian? Why be satisfied with one form of stylised animation when we could have the infinite? Don't get me wrong, there’s is a unique flair to any nation’s input to one’s experience. However, like cooking, such uniqueness is enhanced, not denigrated or diminished, by embracing its plurality. In the case of anime, it is already an inherited style of anime. It was borrowed FROM Disney, after all) AND we already have multi-national community of subbers interpreting the dialogue. For Pete’s sake, why be pedantic about the labelling for what is, in essence, an already democratised medium? |
Hey_Taka-tin_Hey said: @Jaarin There's absolutely nothing wrong with just calling it cartoons. It's what they are. The pedantry of labelling. Anime is just another word for cartoons - or rather cartoons and anime are a style of animation. Why add unnecessary criteria when the basic concepts will last WAY longer than any petty feelings we have now? |
| boondocks and avatar are better than 90+% of anime tho so why are weabs so mad about it being called anime |
| "I like young-girl sexual creations, Lolicon is just one hobby of my many hobbies," he says. I ask what his wife, standing nearby, thinks of his "hobby". "She probably thinks no problem," he replies. "Because she loves young boys sexually interacting with each other." |
Swagernator said: Nah, they will just made more cartoons, with the political agenda in them as usual. And not a single video made by an anime youtuber change that LOL. And at the very end its really bad idea because Nippon is producing more than enough garbage every season, we really dont need more form the west. We don't need more shows indeed. but Anime does need more resources if the amount per season keeps on increasing, I mean jesus Christ we already have like 50+ a season! and more of it only means that resources will be spread only thinner and thinner and thus more Garbage that will fly under the radar...... AND WHY IS NO ONE HERE TALKIN ABOUT CASTLEVANIAQ? IT'S PRETTY GOOD! |
Hey_Taka-tin_Hey said: Jaarin said: The pedantry of labelling. Anime is just another word for cartoons - or rather cartoons and anime are a style of animation. Why add unnecessary criteria when the basic concepts will last WAY longer than any petty feelings we have now? Because it's a term created, specifically, to describe a product from a particular country. There's no need to muddle the waters. The term "cartoon" already exists and describes perfectly what these things are. Why obliterate the original meaning of the word "anime", just to include stuff like RWBY? Just call it a cartoon. No one cares if it's not an anime. Anime relates to a specific style of animation, no? That is to say a significant number of people (and experts) have, over time, identified a particular trend of animation that can be codified as 'anime'. It is more coincidence than providence that this style of animation is more commonly (but not exclusively) found in Japan. The nub of my position is that (and to address the subject of this thread), why tether anime to Japan when it is clearly a style of animation? Animation, after all, is universal. |
Hey_Taka-tin_Hey said: Jaarin said: Anime relates to a specific style of animation, no? That is to say a significant number of people (and experts) have, over time, identified a particular trend of animation that can be codified as 'anime'. It is more coincidence than providence that this style of animation is more commonly (but not exclusively) found in Japan. The nub of my position is that (and to address the subject of this thread), why tether anime to Japan when it is clearly a style of animation? Animation, after all, is universal. And who decides what qualifies as anime and what doesn't? Anime doesn't have one particular style, it has many, and every decade the standards shift tremendously. That's why anime from the 80s looks nothing like anime today. Or is everything with big-eyed characters an anime? Is it the stuff that looks like Ping Pong the Animation or like Madoka Magica? Maybe it's the stuff that resemble Abunai Sisters. It kinda reminds of me the term "muscle-car". Do other countries (Germany, Italy, Japan) have vehicles that are essentially the same as a muscle car? Yes. Are they muscle cars? No. Why not? (They look and perform the same as a muscle car. It's the same shit!) Because they're not fucking American... just because you made something that mimics a muscle car, doesn't mean you get to appropriate the designation! Though I get the thrust of your argument, I feel your time frame is too narrow. Though I concede that automobiles edge out animation by a few decades, they are essentially both creations of the 19th century. I will not claim to understand your analogy of muscle cars (I know nothing about cars), what I do know are trends. And the trend you are referring to only encapsulates a very small period of time. The same is true of anime. I started by posting on this thread by citing Disney. If you discount the emergent Japanese animation industry (1916-1927), the major influence was Disney...heck the animation from 1950-60ish was from Japanese artists trained at Disney studios. Tezuka himself mirrored his style of Disney. Anime is based on American (sic. French) style animation (i.e it is cel based no graph). Now to bring it to our current niche of the last decade or so. I agree, Japanese animation (well let’s be honest here, it is 10% Japanese 90% outsourced to Taiwan, China etc.) is unique, it is still the same style. I mean, look at a Miyazaki storyboard and compare it with the storyboards of, say, Frozen or Monster Inc.s. They are identical logics...albeit the output do ‘look’ somewhat different (additional stylistic flairs etc.) The point I was making is that, certain styles starts as regional quirks, but RAPIDLY become to norm. Why? Because style is not cultural, but mechanistic. Only comedy is culturally, and comedy knows now language but culture. Animation is presentation...visual at that. Visual presentation is the most universal and safest mode of communication (smell is too powerful, speech clunky and signs even more so!) Look at the food industry to see what I mean. |
| That's called a cartoon (unless you're on Kitsu). |
| "No, son, you may not have your body pillow at the dinner table!" |
Jaarin said: It is more coincidence than providence that this style of animation is more commonly (but not exclusively) found in Japan. I wouldn't quite go that far. But I agree with Jaarin in general. Sure, one can define "anime" as cartoons from Japan, but in that case, why not just call it "Japanese animation"? A more flexible, useful, if subjective definition would be the style itself. |
YoungVagabond said: Jaarin said: It is more coincidence than providence that this style of animation is more commonly (but not exclusively) found in Japan. I wouldn't quite go that far. But I agree with Jaarin in general. Sure, one can define "anime" as cartoons from Japan, but in that case, why not just call it "Japanese animation"? A more flexible, useful, if subjective definition would be the style itself. I mean that was not 'quite' my intent. I was more suggesting that if one looks at say, Iranian (or other) animation, one would find a similar, if not synonymous 'anime' style. The point is that animation is rooted in techniques, and these techniques are not rooted to a single national industry or cultural tradition (or at least not entirely). Animation is not dissimilar from other cinema in this regard. If one looks at 4-7 different European films from the 1899-1909 and compares them with 4-7 films from a random sampling from the rest of the world, one would be hard pressed to determine a difference. Likewise, if one continually samples animation globally, one can detect certain trends, but these trends are not limited to one country. It just so happens certain countries had the economic means to broadcast certain styles globally earlier than others. My point was that, as time goes on, the status of 'being first' diminishes as the popularity of the style itself becomes more prevalent. |
| They already make lots of them. It's called cartoons. |
Jaarin said: I mean that was not 'quite' my intent. I was more suggesting that if one looks at say, Iranian (or other) animation, one would find a similar, if not synonymous 'anime' style. The point is that animation is rooted in techniques, and these techniques are not rooted to a single national industry or cultural tradition (or at least not entirely). Animation is not dissimilar from other cinema in this regard. If one looks at 4-7 different European films from the 1899-1909 and compares them with 4-7 films from a random sampling from the rest of the world, one would be hard pressed to determine a difference. Likewise, if one continually samples animation globally, one can detect certain trends, but these trends are not limited to one country. It just so happens certain countries had the economic means to broadcast certain styles globally earlier than others. My point was that, as time goes on, the status of 'being first' diminishes as the popularity of the style itself becomes more prevalent. Yeah, I largely agree. I can understand why MAL adopted the "made in Japan" definition, though. Much simpler and objective, avoiding a lot of arguments and headaches. |
| @Jaarin If a Swedish animation studio decided to try making a cartoon that imitated the Russian style of animation would that make it a Russian cartoon? You can imitate a style, but you can't accurately imitate the cultural reason behind that style so it will never truly be the same. Americans can't actually make anime that feel like anime unless they're working with Japanese for direction, but MAL allows those anyway. |
|
| when will we all learn that cartoons and anime are essentially the same - 2D animation. You can layer whatever style you want on top of that. the best way to define anime now is probably, 2d animation produced by a Japanese studio and made for a Japanese audience (in other words, the original audio is in Japanese) |
| https://combosmooth.itch.io/ - I make free-to-play browser games for PC and I sell pixel art animation here |
zombie_pegasus said: @Jaarin If a Swedish animation studio decided to try making a cartoon that imitated the Russian style of animation would that make it a Russian cartoon? You can imitate a style, but you can't accurately imitate the cultural reason behind that style so it will never truly be the same. Americans can't actually make anime that feel like anime unless they're working with Japanese for direction, but MAL allows those anyway. Everyone is forgetting about one crucial thing. Voice acting. "Anime" without Japanese voice acting is not an anime. Nabelia said: The real "Anime" is only exist in Japan. Anime is not just about animation product, but it's a Japanese culture. If US start making animation like RWBY, i will gladly call it as a "animation product that uses anime art style", not as anime. /thread |
rsc-plApr 21, 2018 11:05 PM
| Dub = fake crap. Always. |
zombie_pegasus said: @Jaarin If a Swedish animation studio decided to try making a cartoon that imitated the Russian style of animation would that make it a Russian cartoon? You can imitate a style, but you can't accurately imitate the cultural reason behind that style so it will never truly be the same. Americans can't actually make anime that feel like anime unless they're working with Japanese for direction, but MAL allows those anyway. The point I was making was more directed to how 'style' is *not* a cultural dimension of anime (or any media) any more than a wrapper is not how one understands how a candy bar tastes. Animation is, after all, a technologically driven media -- it's techniques (the foundation of style) deriving from productive, rather than cultural, concerns. If one looks at how and why certain techniques, and pattern of techniques, are developed over time, then one will gain greater insight to why certain forms and styles of animation become popularised over others. But setting that notion aside, one can take the historical perspective -- as I eluded with reference to Disney. Animation style is not rooted in any one country, it is a global evolution. Techniques and trends continually develop, cross pollinate, merge and divide across borders. Well, I mean, aside from in North Korea; so, I guess if you look at North Korean animation as a case study you *might* have some wiggle room…I guess? Point is that: no one country can say they made their own domestic brand of animation without influence; nor is any form of animation unique to any one country. Like I said before, look at animation made by, say, Iran, Brazil, or Chad from, say, the 1970’s -80’s and compare it to US, Japan and UK of the same period and determine the a distinct differences. There ARE differences, for sure, but as the decades go on, those differences blur, divide continually to the point one might (hypothetically) say that Brazil and Iran switched styles. Or, heck just look at Disney 1920s-40s. So, if the technical and historical context for anime cannot be linked to, say, Japan (or any single country), what is the basis for the feeling that only Japan can make anime...aside from it just being an arbitrary feeling/emotional desire for it to be unique? To take it further, how does one account for the fact that only 10% domestic Japanese anime is actually made in Japan? That 90% (give or take) of the process of making anime released in Japan is outsourced to other countries? So not even Japan, the biggest domestic distributor of a certain type anime, is not its biggest producer (i.e. they are not the country that makes the majority of animation). I mean, unless you are saying that, after an appraisal of the last 100 years (give or take) of animation history, that one can, without irony, say that it is only Japan that is the sole developer of the animation style dubbed anime? Well that requires a big omission of numerous works of animation. For myself I feel media does not exist in a vacuum and that it is only diminished if one tries to create arbitrary categories to define it. History, technology, production, all these things are fascinating an integral part for understanding media -- cultural impact is just a fun little side-effect. Now if you argument is about the narrative or themes found in Japanese anime…well, now it does not matter if it is anime, because narratives and themes are not forms of animation (i.e. you can look to theatre, film or literature for those things as well – they do not require animation). |
| @Jaarin The term "anime" doesn't just refer to the art style or even animation style, though, it refers to the product as a whole. If someone complained about how discriminatory it is that notebooks can't be called basketballs even when they're designed to look like them you'd think their argument was ill guided. Anime is the Japanese word for animation and while in Japan it's used to refer to all animation in the West it's only used to refer to animation that was produced and/or directed in Japan. Where the actual animation was being done was never as much of a concern as where the bulk of the creative input was coming from. This is why something made entirely in Japan with the animation being done in the US is anime while the other way around it isn't. Ping Pong the Animation doesn't have the typical art style often associated with anime, but it's still directed in a way that you can tell it's distinctly Japanese. It's not big eyes, small noses, spiky hair, or giant robots that make something an anime, it's the very core that you can tell it was created by a Japanese production team. |
|
| No. They should consider making more "passable" cartoons instead of Teen Titans Go and the abomination that's called Uncle Grandpa. |
| Yeah right there is no way a doujin about vomit exists. Good song https://soundcloud.com/yeungkakit33/op4-hekireki-last-alliance Tsumino account is BigMaraIppo Another Good Song Listen to テスト by mukami #np on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/mukami/77a Ashita no Joe and Megalo box are disappointing anime. My reviews:https://myanimelist.net/profile/Botan-Chan45/reviews Best Naruto Op: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByCNZxOBVWM&list=RDByCNZxOBVWM&index=1 discord name: Chitoge Kirisaki#9564 https://discord.gg/nGKu6zx my discord server for plebs |
zombie_pegasus said: @Jaarin The term "anime" doesn't just refer to the art style or even animation style, though, it refers to the product as a whole. If someone complained about how discriminatory it is that notebooks can't be called basketballs even when they're designed to look like them you'd think their argument was ill guided. Anime is the Japanese word for animation and while in Japan it's used to refer to all animation in the West it's only used to refer to animation that was produced and/or directed in Japan. Where the actual animation was being done was never as much of a concern as where the bulk of the creative input was coming from. This is why something made entirely in Japan with the animation being done in the US is anime while the other way around it isn't. Ping Pong the Animation doesn't have the typical art style often associated with anime, but it's still directed in a way that you can tell it's distinctly Japanese. It's not big eyes, small noses, spiky hair, or giant robots that make something an anime, it's the very core that you can tell it was created by a Japanese production team. Though that is true, one would, by your argument, not be able to use the word 'cinema' outside of France. The word attached to a 'product' (to use your term), only becomes uniquitous when that product is established stylistically. At which point it becomes, over time, less useful to say, 'this product is defined by it's country of origin', but rather ontologically (i.e by it is objectively, not culturally described). |
Jaarin said: Though that is true, one would, by your argument, not be able to use the word 'cinema' outside of France. The word attached to a 'product' (to use your term), only becomes uniquitous when that product is established stylistically. At which point it becomes, over time, less useful to say, 'this product is defined by it's country of origin', but rather ontologically (i.e by it is objectively, not culturally described). We are in need of a history lesson. When animation reached Japan from USA after the 2nd world war,due to the different writing between english and japanese, while written "Animation" in english it was written in romaji "Animetion"(Is the same thing in portugal, a letters as always the same sound, not like in english where you have two "As" in animation but they sound different). Yep, "Animetion" is a english word "translated" to japanese. Japan uses 3 alphabets, Katakana, hiragana and Kanji. Just the word "Animetion" is normally written in 2 at the same time with "anime" in hiragana(or was it katakana, I don't remember) and "tion" in Kanji. And so many times people used a shortcut and only wrote or said the first part of the word. And in that way we got "anime", the diminutive of "Animetion" that in fact is "Animation". Then during the middle 80s America was trying to bring some Animation from Japan and marketing as something different from their Animation. So they tried to simple say "Japan's Animation" but that was a mouthfull(even though I don't think so) so they tried to shorting it to "Japanimation", and it was higly used for around a decade. But what really catched on was the english diminutive used by Japanese people "anime"(that in fact is just "anima" in english). So, in that way it was possible to differentiate something coming from Japan from something coming from elsewhere with the simple word "anime". And so that is the meaning of "anime" and its origins. It makes no sense to add stuff to the meaning of the word, or change the meaning. If it makes sense, please first give the reason why that is important and how it does make sense. The thing about Japanese style, that doesn't buy it. Because Japan's animation has a ton of styles, a ton of styles used in the past(a lot of them direct imitation of American styles) and new modern styles, and there are new styles being born even right now. Just take a look at Toei Animation story and you will see the difference in style throughout the 70 years the Japan's Animation has been predominant. So if you say that a and b style are anime, if you look 30 years in the past, a and b didn't exist, and 30 years in the future is likely that a and b will also not exist. In no way you should define something with things that will change. A definition is made to be always right, and also to be simple. Style doesn't in any way is static nor simple. Also note that saying that Avatar the last airbender is an anime. Is wrong. And is only acceptable if is a shortcut to saying, Anime influenced cartoon. That is only acceptable because that is also a shortcut to saying, Ones of Japan's Animation Style(s) influenced cartoon. Instead of saying such a huge sentence it makes sense to just short it to "anime"(though this bring a lot of misunderstandings, so "Anime influenced" is better). |
Snow White reached Japan in 1938 and plenty of other Disney works before it. Heck, just go back to 1890s-1900s where all the cross pollination was getting exciting (just love those French and German influences). History is a useful tool, however it is not relevant for a discussion of contemporary style, especially when used superficially; otherwise, like I said, we cannot talk about anything (film will be stuck in France, poetry in Ireland etc.) Furthermore, it is no aboutt adding additional meaning, it is about creating a more concise ontology. Saying anime is just Japanese cartoons if far from encapsulating or even illuminating. Heck it does not even tell you whether it is cel-based or rotoscoped. The conflation people seem to be making here is that certain stylistic practice will have a place (or even places) or origin and that this somehow equates to the origin being the same as how the practice is currently being executed. Basically: just because anime might find it's popularisation as a style primarily in Japan (to begin with, though tbh there are other countries that can share this claim), does not mean it is limited to it. This goes double for anime which, tbh, has a far greater complexity and plurality than people seem to wish to give it credit for (i.e by saying is just Japanese cartoons). To suggest otherwise is to grossly oversimply how forms and styles of animation a) work and b) were developed) I mean, the test for what I am saying is simple: if in ten, twenty, fifty, or one-hundred years’ time one can assert, without irony, that anime is just from Japan -- then I am wrong. Though such an experiment would suppose people seriously believe this is true now… |
Jaarin said: Snow White reached Japan in 1938 and plenty of other Disney works before it. Heck, just go back to 1890s-1900s where all the cross pollination was getting exciting (just love those French and German influences). History is a useful tool, however it is not relevant for a discussion of contemporary style, especially when used superficially; otherwise, like I said, we cannot talk about anything (film will be stuck in France, poetry in Ireland etc.) Furthermore, it is no aboutt adding additional meaning, it is about creating a more concise ontology. Saying anime is just Japanese cartoons if far from encapsulating or even illuminating. Heck it does not even tell you whether it is cel-based or rotoscoped. The conflation people seem to be making here is that certain stylistic practice will have a place (or even places) or origin and that this somehow equates to the origin being the same as how the practice is currently being executed. Basically: just because anime might find it's popularisation as a style primarily in Japan (to begin with, though tbh there are other countries that can share this claim), does not mean it is limited to it. This goes double for anime which, tbh, has a far greater complexity and plurality than people seem to wish to give it credit for (i.e by saying is just Japanese cartoons). To suggest otherwise is to grossly oversimply how forms and styles of animation a) work and b) were developed) I mean, the test for what I am saying is simple: if in ten, twenty, fifty, or one-hundred years’ time one can assert, without irony, that anime is just from Japan -- then I am wrong. Though such an experiment would suppose people seriously believe this is true now… What has Snow White reaching Japan in 1938 has to do with anything. I said "When Animation reached Japan from USA after the 2nd world war", not that animation had never reached Japan before, nor that it was USA first animation reaching Japan. How is adding a ton of styles that came, went, come, and go a more concise ontology? You're basically removing meaning from the word. What is not illuminating is saying that Anime is X style and Y style, and then seeing a A and B style from the past, and C and D style in the future, that are completely different from X and Y and still being anime. Note how if you just say coming from Japan, you know that X and Y are anime, but also that A, B, C and D are too. In fact you even know that if A is being used now in another place, like Italy, that those in the past using A are anime, but those in the present by Italy aren't. With your more concise ontology, you say X and Y, and then later you have to say A and B, and then years later, you have to say that sentence was only right in the time it was said, and a lot more complicated stuff. It really doesn't work as a definition. And isn't concise at all. Tell me how saying anime is a group of styles(note that you never specified what styles you're talking, you just say it has something to do with styles), tell you if it is cel-based or rotoscoped? And why should anime definition have indication about those? You're using the circular fallacy. Cel-based or rotoscoped are techniques used for styles, you're saying that anime is about styles, because otherwise it misses something about styles. Again circular fallacy. People are saying it has nothing to do with styles, and that using styles is not useful. You're arguing that in fact styles are important. Don't use what other people possible definitions of anime misses in describing style, when in fact they are not defending style in it. Again, you place style before anything. People are saying that it has nothing to do with style. Note how when the definition of the word has to do with location you can easily and objectively say that the location is "Japan", but when you talk about style you can't even tell the name of one Style used. And you think that is a better definition to use something vague. A definition has to be static, concrete, and simple. Yours isn't static, styles always changing with time and even between works. Isn't concrete, you can't specify the styles easily, and isn't simple. You can't just say in one simple sentence what is anime(and without need of exceptions). Anime word has 70 years now, and it was popularised in USA since the 80s, so almost 40 years. It is still "animation from Japan". Also you're confusing a lot or you don't understand definitions. Because what makes anime being "animation from Japan" and any definition is not if it can endure the test of time. People, like you, can come from wherever and whenever and try to change things, and sometimes be able to do that, but even that doesn't change that before the change that was the definition. So basically you are in the group that like to modify the meaning of things. And you're in a cruzade to change the definition of anime. OK, I really don't care. What I care is that anime right now, and when it was made, and from that time to now, mean "animation from Japan", and that that definition is a useful one. And way more useful than yours. |
I feel you are not quite getting my point and using rather shaky historical dating (I recommend being a tad more rigorous in your research). Anyways, to address your criticisms (in no particular order). 1) I bring up Snow White because it contradicts your statement that ‘[US animation reached Japan after WW2]’. 1938 kind of comes before 'after 1945'. The reason I bring it up is because anime was not born in isolation, it is heavily influenced by US-style animation, you can see a distinct shift in production practices in the late 1920s-early 30s that testifies to this. Heck, Tezuka (the father of modern anime) even states that his inspiration was Disney when coming up with designs. Other animators from the 1930-1950s also cite Disney as an inspiration (even working for them to gain experience). However, even before this period it was French approach to animation that was what inspired the Japanese i.e. it was photographed and spliced, then re-photographed etc., then it shifted to a type of painted frames (oversimplification, I know). However, it seems kind of strange to suggest the US are adopting anime, when really, they are just re-appropriating borrowed techniques. 2) All forms of media are remediations -- all media are remakes and remake other media. There is nothing intrinsically unique to any one media that has not been adapted from another media. There are specific flashpoints in history where a type of media finds distinction in one area of the world. This, for example, is a flashpoint for anime. However, as remediation kind of proves time and again, what was unique becomes universal - i.e. as time goes on, it becomes less and less valid to link to a single nation(s) to its native style of storytelling (media), but instead say the style is part of the greater global media form that one can easily associate it with. Basically, it might be simpler to call anime 'Japanese' now, but over time it will just become unnecessary...because everyone will have their own remediated form of anime and the style will have evolved as it becomes more globally diffused. 3) The value of having something ontologically concise is that simply saying the word triggers an understanding of what that thing is without needing to experience it. The problem with using 'Japanese animation' as the definition of anime is that a) it does not conjure up an idea of what anime is to one who has not seen any anime before or has no familiarity with Japan and b) as 'Japanese style' animation (i.e anime) becomes more associated with being a type of animation in general, there is little value in saying it was from Japan originally. Or, to put it another way, one can watch 100 anime without knowing it was from Japan (and yes there are people like that, shocking!) and still tell them apart from other styles of animation. 4) I did not say anime is a group of styles, I am saying anime is a style of animation. Style is the patterned use of techniques (in this instance). To break it down more: Animation is a form of media; anime is a style of animation; rotoscoping and cels are animation techniques. Apologies if that part was not clear. There is, therefore, a pattern of techniques found specifically in all anime that distinguishes it from, say, the Disney style. So, seeing as style is a pattern of techniques: you can have an anime that uses rotoscoping, claymation or 3d modelling, for instance, but it’s patterned in such a way that we know it is still an anime. The fact you can have a diverse range of animation (and sometimes live action) techniques with anime, yet still be able to recognise it as an anime, is how you know the style is distinctive. Perhaps anime is even a new form of animation entirely? That’s what is so exciting about studying anime, it has not technical limitations. My use of language is not made up, it is the same language used in media studies, film studies, philosophy and the scholarly literature on anime. I apologise if my explanations were still opaque and incompete. I also recognise I have not actually defined anime, my point is that we should not be so quick to describe anime as 'just for and from Japan and therefore cannot be found elsewhere’, without at least considering some of what I have suggested here. |
JaarinApr 24, 2018 10:10 AM
| It's call a ''Cartoon'' |
| 吃屁股 |
I know that only japan makes anim but in the future will US start making anime like RWBY? Good job contradicting yourself OP |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| Then it wouldn't be anime to begin with XD |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
More topics from this board
» What is your opinion on anime becoming mainstream? ( 1 2 )BroDa2545 - Apr 16 |
60 |
by Scyfher
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Is watching a show for the cute girl weird?fallout45 - Apr 25 |
35 |
by ToastWithNutella
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» What anime brought you to watch more anime? :)Rinrinka - Yesterday |
47 |
by ryzxgum
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» Is there any specific setting or theme you’re biased tonishant0 - 12 hours ago |
13 |
by ToastWithNutella
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Visual Novels — General ThreadShizuna - Today |
37 |
by -YaoiBoy-
»»
10 minutes ago |