| >using "it's the year x" in the year 2020 |
 |
| According to the western definition of what's considered an anime, Avatar is about as much of one as Spongebob is. Sorry, but that's just how it is and how it will continue to broaden the definition of what anime actually is. Hell, I'd love to add Castlevania to my list, but as it stands now that isn't considered an anime either. |
| Your answer to the question probably also depends on your answer to questions like "Is the Japanese animated short film 'A House of Small Cubes' anime?" Whatever difficulties there are in identifying how purely Japanese in origin a work is is multiplied with the far more subjective notion of what constitutes an "anime style." So I lean in the direction of using origin as the defining trait. |
shadowarrior2000 said: those retarded snobs, who are saying, it's not, show me a frickin official statement about the definition of anime. and no, not some arbitrary statement on internet from a retarded weeb, like you guys The "It's an anime" side showed up with all of its brainpower being put to use today, it seems. |
 |
Manaban said: I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but I've been using "anime" as an adjective. Something like Crayon Shin-chan can be quite conveniently described as "anime that doesn't look very anime", and people would understand what one means when saying that. (I'm not familiar with The Tatami Galaxy's art style but based on your using it as an example my guess is that a similar thing could perhaps be said of it.) And guess what? Such a statement basically uses both definitions near-simultaneously. And it's because they differ that a statement like that can be meaningful.And given that this is a definition that invalidates something like The Tatami Galaxy as an anime because it doesn't look like a modern CGDCT, I'm going to meet that definition with resistence because it's superficial and reductive and treats anime less like a cultural product and more like that it's a question of "Does it have big, cutesy eyes?" If you mean to say that the way I prefer to use the term "anime" is based on the art style and ignores the culture of origin, then yes, you're right. If I really wanted to specify the nationality (and thus culture) of origin, I could say "Japanese anime". I should note that people do now talk about "Korean anime". And no, it's not just cute girls doing cute things. If you're going to go crusading over this, then whatever, go waste your time. Manaban said: How is "you're not Japanese so you can never make anime" less limiting than "the anime style family is generally represented by such-and-such common features"?It's incredibly reductive and stupid. And shallow. And, ironically, more limiting to creativity within the concept of anime than listing it as a cultural product could ever hope to entail. If anything, they're not even meaningfully comparable. Meanwhile, the latter definition is actually directly relevant to the art, and how people perceive it, whereas the former definition literally ignores cultural influence except as binary trivia (whether the creator happened to be from Japan). |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| What does the year have to do with anything ? Avatar will never be classified as "anime". |
Freshell said: The geographic origin definition is a lot more useful for deciding things on a binary basis, while people argue over corner cases like this.Your answer to the question probably also depends on your answer to questions like "Is the Japanese animated short film 'A House of Small Cubes' anime?" Whatever difficulties there are in identifying how purely Japanese in origin a work is is multiplied with the far more subjective notion of what constitutes an "anime style." So I lean in the direction of using origin as the defining trait. But, regardless of what we label this, it's still a very beautiful work, and that's what really matters. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
GlennMagusHarvey said: I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but I've been using "anime" as an adjective. Something like Crayon Shin-chan can be quite conveniently described as "anime that doesn't look very anime", and people would understand what one means when saying that. (I'm not familiar with The Tatami Galaxy's art style but based on your using it as an example my guess is that a similar thing could perhaps be said of it.) And guess what? Such a statement basically uses both definitions near-simultaneously. And it's because they differ that a statement like that can be meaningful. And now we're backtracking to try to present your definition as if it's capable of upholding both, whenever the idea of removing independent national and cultural identity from the equation to focus primarily on adhering to a commonly defined aesthetic was your argument from the beginning. Yawn. If you mean to say that the way I prefer to use the term "anime" is based on the art style and ignores the culture of origin, then yes, you're right. If I really wanted to specify the nationality (and thus culture) of origin, I could say "Japanese anime". I should note that people do now talk about "Korean anime". So your adjective bit was bullshit and it's about how much you think they look a certain way. Gotcha. And no, it's not just cute girls doing cute things. If you need help, that wasn't meant literally, it was what I was drawing to as the base idea for the standard anime aesthetic you seem to be talking about here. That's what I tend to think of when I think in terms like this. If you're going to go crusading over this, then whatever, go waste your time. I'm already doing that. If I was spending my time doing something of merit, I would most definitely not be talking to you of all people, Glenn. How is "you're not Japanese so you can never make anime" less limiting than "the anime style family is generally represented by such-and-such common features"? ELM exists. Hell, one of the biggest ecchi manga publishers in the west, Seven Seas, had its origins publishing ELM. Stuff like RWBY exists. Nobody's actively preventing people from making series in that style and series that are inspired by that style, like Teen Titans and ATLA and whatever the fuck. Still, Ping Pong is an anime and ATLA and RWBY still aren't anime. Not because ATLA and RWBY don't have the right to exist, they most certainly do, they're just not being assigned a fucking measely geographical/cultural label validating them as a type of imported entertainment to western society coming from a specific nation of origin. Because that's still an identity they're not at all capable of upholding. Shit like that matters more in distinction than how their fucking faces look, Glenn. Your definition limits and railroads the entire aesthetic into one homogeneous entity in a medium that relies on visual communication to a pretty significant degree still. My definition simply demands it come from a specific nation, and from there it can do whatever the fuck it wants. |
ManabanNov 14, 2019 2:49 PM
|
GlennMagusHarvey said: But, regardless of what we label this, it's still a very beautiful work, and that's what really matters. Whether or not it's anime isn't defined by its quality, by the way. I saw someone else make an argument to quality earlier, and interpreted quality is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the work in question is defined as an anime. Cheap, pandering appeal. Much like that other guy on page 1. |
|
Manaban said: My preferred definition has always been about how they look. I've said that repeatedly in various threads on this topic on this forum.If you mean to say that the way I prefer to use the term "anime" is based on the art style and ignores the culture of origin, then yes, you're right. If I really wanted to specify the nationality (and thus culture) of origin, I could say "Japanese anime". I should note that people do now talk about "Korean anime". So your adjective bit was bullshit and it's about how much you think they look a certain way. The adjective bit was just a clue you could have picked up on to notice this. Not to mention the much more conspicuous use of adverbs to describe how "anime" something looks. Manaban said: Then that's your own limitation.And no, it's not just cute girls doing cute things. If you need help, that wasn't meant literally, it was what I was drawing to as the base idea for the standard anime aesthetic you seem to be talking about here. That's what I tend to think of when I think in terms like this. Manaban said: Good to know I'm successfully wasting your time.If you're going to go crusading over this, then whatever, go waste your time. I'm already doing that. If I was spending my time doing something of merit, I would most definitely not be talking to you of all people, Glenn. Manaban said: And so the art is not getting limited by these definitions anyway.How is "you're not Japanese so you can never make anime" less limiting than "the anime style family is generally represented by such-and-such common features"? ELM exists. Hell, one of the biggest ecchi manga publishers in the west, Seven Seas, had its origins publishing ELM. Stuff like RWBY exists. Nobody's actively preventing people from making series in that style and series that are inspired by that style, like TT and ATLA and whatever the fuck. Manaban said: In a nutshell:Still, Ping Pong is an anime and ATLA and RWBY still aren't anime. Not because ATLA and RWBY don't have the right to exist, they most certainly do, they're just not being assigned a fucking measely geographical/cultural label validating them as a type of imported entertainment to our society. Because they're not. Manaban: ATLA and RWBY are not anime because they are not imported entertainment to our society and the term anime which is a geographical/cultural label would improperly validate them. And I am pissed at people who say otherwise. Me: ATLA looks kinda anime and RWBY looks very anime. The rest of the world: *keeps turning* Manaban said: Your definition turns "anime" into a mere point of geographic trivia, while my definition acknowledges that it has to do with a general family of styles that is not inexplicably tied to a single country.Shit like that matters more in distinction than how their fucking faces look, Glenn. Your definition limits and railroads the entire aesthetic into one homogeneous entity in a medium that relies on visual communication to a pretty significant degree still. My definition simply demands it come from a specific nation, and from there it can do whatever the fuck it wants. |
GlennMagusHarveyNov 14, 2019 2:53 PM
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| Honestly, I'm not really sure what would change if you called Avatar or any Western cartoon an anime. I guess I'd feel bad for the database admins on this site, but that's really about it. I mean, anime fans allegedly can't even get their isekai definitions right, so why should we place the onus on them to even define the medium of which they are watching lol |
| It doesn't matter if Avatar or Sansha Sanyou can be called anime or not. This is MAL, and mal makes arbitrary entries to the data base, the name "anime" is not official, it's not like saying roses are flowers, bugs are insects or germans are angry. |
    |
GlennMagusHarvey said: Manaban said: My preferred definition has always been about how they look. I've said that repeatedly in various threads on this topic on this forum.So your adjective bit was bullshit and it's about how much you think they look a certain way. The adjective bit was just a clue you could have picked up on to notice this. Not to mention the much more conspicuous use of adverbs to describe how "anime" something looks. And none of this changes your assertion that the way it looks matters more, nor does it affect my assertion that society/nation or origin matters more. Nothing here is being explained, nothing new is being added, nothing of value is being stated. So it's all padding, filler and drivel, I guess. Then that's your own limitation. That is literally me giving an idea that I best associate with a standard aesthetic for anime. It doesn't affect the base issue I'm taking with defining anime along the lines of a standardized aesthetic whatsoever and trying to make an argument that I'm self-limiting by drawing my idea of a general anime aesthetic along those lines, when my idea of a general aesthetic isn't the topic of discussion - nor is yours, it's the root idea of defining it along the lines of aesthetic - is sophism. Good to know I'm successfully wasting your time. In a sense, I'm comfortable with this. I don't think you're generally able to make a convincing argument and I feel like, to people willing to actually read our conversation here, that things are rather lopsided in my favor right now at illustrating our points. And I do want to convince people of the validity and superiority of my stance, so by punching above your weight you're helping me further that endgoal as well. That's the more optimistic way I could look at it, at least. And so the art is not getting limited by these definitions anyway. Your entire definition of anime completely hinges on how much it conforms to a specific type of aesthetic. There is literally an inherent limitation going on here. In a nutshell: Manaban: ATLA and RWBY are not anime because they are not imported entertainment to our society and the term anime which is a geographical/cultural label would improperly validate them. And I am pissed at people who say otherwise. Me: ATLA looks kinda anime and RWBY looks very anime. The rest of the world: *keeps turning* I've already explicitly put my stake in this conversation out there. You're the one continuing to respond and defend your stance to me, while simultaneously trying to make this discussion all sound pointless and moot. If you're not concerned with gaining validation from me, like you said earlier, and you think that this isn't going to matter whatsoever, what's even the point of continuing to try to defend your stance against mine? Your definition turns "anime" into a mere point of geographic trivia, while my definition acknowledges that it has to do with a general family of styles that is not inexplicably tied to a single country. Please, there's going to be a difference between a narrative forged in Japan and one forged in Germany and that's entirely inherent to the societal circumstances that are going to alter the perspectives and stances of the creators. Doing a reductionist take on that isn't quite as possible as it is to do with conforming to a specific way of drawing the character's faces or how the show is using motion backgrounds. |
ManabanNov 14, 2019 3:07 PM
|
| Nothing has really come out to change anything about the debate. The Netflix mention is irrelevant since they're still either made outside of Japan or inside despite the fact that Netflix is involved, Devilman isn't suddenly a Western made anime just because Netflix slapped it's name on it, Netflix doesn't even really do anything besides maybe finance. The style is irrelevant, the general consensus is if it's an animation made in Japan it's an anime, if it's made elsewhere then it's not. You can disagree with that, but people aren't going to suddenly change their minds just because time has passed, it's not some hot take we all made with no logical explanation. |
 |
Breadwinnerr said: TolkienFan365 said: This makes sense but for anime like ‘7 Seeds’ it doesn’t really hold up - 7 Seeds was a manga of Japanese origin, fine, but Netflix handles the bulk of the production of anime - hence they even have a right to call it a “Netflix Original Anime” go to your search bar and the anime still shows up in MAL. We still qualify it as an anime. Why?No it's not ATLA was made by an American production team therefore not anime. It's that simple art style (there is no definite anime/manga art style so arguing how it looks is irrelevent), writer, origin of animators working on it, it doesn't matter. What defines anime as anime is it is a Japanese production. That's the point of the term anime. Sure in Japan anime can mean anything but we use that term to talk specifically about the Japanese run animation industry. If I am on an anime board I want to talk about the daily goings on in this industry which is run differently not what Powerhouse Animation is doing. That isn't me standing on top with some superiority complex over Western animation I just feel talking about ATLA or RWBY is unrelated to the actual discussion around the anime industry. People need to stop getting hanged up assuming style means anything about if something is anime or not or what the themes of the story are. Anime is just a term to refer where the animated production is from same as manga that's all it indicates. ATLA is not from Japan and therefore not anime. It's an American animated production inspired by some Japanese animation and other various Asian cultures. That simple. RWBY is a Western animation production inspired by Japanese magical girl titles (at least from what I can tell) but it still is a Western production. If it was made by a Japanese production group though sure it would be anime. That's why the manga for RWBY is here because the manga was produced by a Japanese creator and published by Japanese publishers. That's also a pretty common misconception, a vast majority of the time "Netflix Original Series" just means they have exclusive streaming rights to the work. Basically even if they had no hand in creating it (or they just invested money into the production) they're the only service in the US who can air the program. To use an example listed on this site the first one that comes to mind is Nanatsu no Taizai. If you check the background information it notes how Netflix owns exclusive streaming rights to the show but they didn't even make the cut to be listed as a producer. Yet it's still probably listed on the service as a Netflix Original. It would be more appropriate if they listed it as a "Netflix Exclusive Series" but it doesn't serve quite as well as a catch all search and in cases like this it implies Netflix has more importance in the production and distribution than they actually do (basically it's good marketing). |
GamerDLMNov 14, 2019 3:14 PM
| It is an animation and has quite Animu-ish art-style but, i separate between western and eastern animation to avoid confusion, so no it is not, try again later.. |
shirohaNov 14, 2019 3:24 PM
  |
Manaban said: EcchiGodMamster said: i see people haven't stopped shitposting here lol This entire board is just kms honestly I think I know that better than most here lol |
   |
| This will be long, I apologise if I veer of topic. Anime is animation aimed at both young and old audience, made in Japan. Basically its mature content that appeals to all ages and nationalities. Anything not made in Japan is called either animation, or if it has poor quality/poor 3d/is childish is called cartoons. Avatar is not an anime its just an animation inspired by anime. Castlevania made by Netflix is also just an animation. I am tempted to call all 3d and chinese and korean animations cartoons, however because of works like "Fate Zero" (CGI) and "Mo Dao Zu Shi" (Chinese). I can't, so instead I refer to them as animations not anime. |
 |
Yudina said: Not much would change, aside from people blowing gaskets on the internet over this.Honestly, I'm not really sure what would change if you called Avatar or any Western cartoon an anime. Yudina said: Yeah, I can entirely understand them drawing the line using geography. And frankly I don't really mind it anyway.I guess I'd feel bad for the database admins on this site, but that's really about it. FWIW, kitsu.io has entries for stuff like RWBY, IIRC. I haven't used them in years though. Yudina said: Anime-Planet has an amusing approach to "isekai" -- they just call it "person in a strange world" and then they can set their own definition.I mean, anime fans allegedly can't even get their isekai definitions right, so why should we place the onus on them to even define the medium of which they are watching lol |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| dunno if it is an anime or not but if it is it will be the no 1 shounen series on this site |
zieek said: This will be long, I apologise if I veer of topic. Anime is animation aimed at both young and old audience, made in Japan. Basically its mature content that appeals to all ages and nationalities. Anything not made in Japan is called either animation, or if it has poor quality/poor 3d/is childish is called cartoons. Avatar is not an anime its just an animation inspired by anime. Castlevania made by Netflix is also just an animation. I am tempted to call all 3d and chinese and korean animations cartoons, however because of works like "Fate Zero" (CGI) and "Mo Dao Zu Shi" (Chinese). I can't, so instead I refer to them as animations not anime. I'd have to disagree. Just because something isn't " poor quality/poor 3d/ childish" that doesn't make it exempt from being called a cartoon. The whole notion that cartoons are only for children is completely ridiculous in the first place. |
 Damn...we’re still debating this shit? |
 |
Manaban said: How is it sophism?It doesn't affect the base issue I'm taking with defining anime along the lines of a standardized aesthetic whatsoever and trying to make an argument that I'm self-limiting by drawing my idea of a general anime aesthetic along those lines, when my idea of a general aesthetic isn't the topic of discussion - nor is yours, it's the root idea of defining it along the lines of aesthetic - is sophism. Manaban said: Frankly speaking, I don't think anyone has ever been convinced either way by this sort of arguing anyway.Good to know I'm successfully wasting your time. In a sense, I'm comfortable with this. I don't think you're generally able to make a convincing argument and I feel like, to people willing to actually read our conversation here, that things are rather lopsided in my favor right now at illustrating our points. And I do want to convince people of the validity and superiority of my stance, so by punching above your weight you're helping me further that endgoal as well. That's the more optimistic way I could look at it, at least. Manaban said: Your entire definition of anime completely hinges on whether someone is from a certain country.And so the art is not getting limited by these definitions anyway. Your entire definition of anime completely hinges on how much it conforms to a specific type of aesthetic. There is literally an inherent limitation going on here. There is literally an inherent limitation going on here. Manaban said: Because what I post demonstrates that you do not have the superior definition.If you're not concerned with gaining validation from me, like you said earlier, and you think that this isn't going to matter whatsoever, what's even the point of continuing to try to defend your stance against mine? Manaban said: And "anime" isn't the best term to describe that difference, in my opinion, though it certainly is commonly used for this purpose, and works well enough in most circumstances.Your definition turns "anime" into a mere point of geographic trivia, while my definition acknowledges that it has to do with a general family of styles that is not inexplicably tied to a single country. Please, there's going to be a difference between a narrative forged in Japan and one forged in Germany and that's entirely inherent to the societal circumstances that are going to alter the perspectives and stances of the creators. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| Yeah, I should probably stop feeding this trainwreck. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
Jese23 said: actuallyaadhi said: dunno if it is an anime or not but if it is it will be the no 1 shounen series on this site dunno about shounen, but it's currently 25th on kitsu it also has a 9.2 on imdb which I think is the highest for any kids cartoon |
Setsuei said: I'd have to disagree. Just because something isn't " poor quality/poor 3d/ childish" that doesn't make it exempt from being called a cartoon. The whole notion that cartoons are only for children is completely ridiculous in the first place. I know that there are adults who like to watch cartoons. However here is my limited view point: Cartoons - fun, entertainment, to unwind and relax. Animation - exiting, entertainment, take advantage in your free time. Anime - mature entertainment, includes all things mentioned above. |
| |
zieek said: Setsuei said: I'd have to disagree. Just because something isn't " poor quality/poor 3d/ childish" that doesn't make it exempt from being called a cartoon. The whole notion that cartoons are only for children is completely ridiculous in the first place. I know that there are adults who like to watch cartoons. However here is my limited view point: Cartoons - fun, entertainment, to unwind and relax. Animation - exiting, entertainment, take advantage in your free time. Anime - mature entertainment, includes all things mentioned above. Ok, I kind of get where you're coming from, I just personally don't see the need to separate animation and cartoons into 2 categories. Ideally all forms of animation should fall under one category in my opinion, but that's not going to happen seeing as so many people hate anime being compared to western animation/cartoons. |
| If Mo Dao Zu Shi is on MAL then Avatar should be too |
 |
Setsuei said: Ok, I kind of get where you're coming from, I just personally don't see the need to separate animation and cartoons into 2 categories. Ideally all forms of animation should fall under one category in my opinion, but that's not going to happen seeing as so many people hate anime being compared to western animation/cartoons. Well I just can't look at "Cow and chicken", "The Incredible Hulk" and "Toaru Majutsu no Index" as the same thing. So I separate them in the three categories. |
| |
| I had a discussion about this recently. In my opinion, language's #1 goal should be to effectively summarize whatever people are trying to convey. Avatar clearly uses an artstyle and some tropes that are much more connected to what people think of when they hear "anime" than "cartoon". Soon, what the average person considers "anime-style" won't stay as exclusive to Japan anymore as it used to be when the word anime emerged in the West. There will be a lot more series like Castlevania etc... And I think it'd be entirely fair for us to just go with the flow and accept that the term "anime" is simply a short, on-point description of the series' style people are talking about when it comes to things like Avatar, whether it's from Japan or not. I don't understand why people act like the origin of the work is such an important aspect that it should determine the terminology people are allowed to use. Just because that's how a word has worked so far doesn't mean it can't change. Language is fluid and words change their meaning all the time, or expand it. |
BeautifulDirtNov 15, 2019 1:47 AM
| The anime industry is the only one who can judge in my opinion! :p Also I don't give a damn about what Netflix has to say on anything, especially anime. |
 Life is a despicable endurance race |
zieek said: Setsuei said: Ok, I kind of get where you're coming from, I just personally don't see the need to separate animation and cartoons into 2 categories. Ideally all forms of animation should fall under one category in my opinion, but that's not going to happen seeing as so many people hate anime being compared to western animation/cartoons. Well I just can't look at "Cow and chicken", "The Incredible Hulk" and "Toaru Majutsu no Index" as the same thing. So I separate them in the three categories. Fair enough. I can see how someone could have difficulty comparing shows that are significantly different from each other. I find it easier to just say I'm a fan of animation in general. |
FanofActionNov 15, 2019 1:42 AM
| Well yes, but so are Shrek and Toy Story. |
 |
| the big three discussions of anime dub vs. sub/what is anime?/waifu wars this needs to be sent to the rest of these threads in the abyss |
| @BeautifulDirt You lost me at the tropes. BeautfilDirt said: I don't understand why people act like the origin of the work is such an important aspect that it should determine the terminology people are allowed to use. Just because that's how a word has worked so far doesn't mean it can't change. My reasoning is that restricting the term to artstyle excludes many works. Anime isn't uniform, neither in its aesthetics, nor in its way of storytelling. Any artistic limitation on the word anime is tantamount to cutting away part of the culture which many people associate with themselves. But there needs to be a limitation on the term, so if it can't be an artistic limitation it has to be a factual one aka. origin. |
 |
| My God, we need to stop by now, making a poll could help, also, some users have done their service at trying to explain it, I think there's no more to talk about. |
 |
alshu said: I wanna ask you about movies like west animated movies as they had a high budget. So, how is their animation? How different are they? Or even tv series."It’s 2020. Avatar is an anime." - Is this one of those "In the future everybody will dumber."? - Lets say that ATLA (or Cameron's movie?) is anime, how is this changing anything? Well only if you want though. |
| "I think I wanted to attack something. Like betraying people or hurting people. And, well, it's not exactly nice, but hurting the readers too... In all honestly, I feel that's what I really wanted to do. For me, as a reader, when I think, "this manga will remain in my heart," it means, for example, it phenomenally hurt me: It's those kinds of experiences I'm after." - Pajime Hisayama (My favourite hurting author). |
| It's not, and neither is RWBY, though the latter has a better argument for possibly being an anime, imo. |
| Still 2019..and Avatar is NOT AN ANIME |
 |
| Avatar is a good show but it will never be an anime. |
Jyoshiro said: So if anime only applies to Japanese made then what is Castlevania classified as? Just curious. Castlevania is animation. Anime is Japanese animation. |
GlennMagusHarvey said: 1. It's still 2019 2. Avatar is kinda anime. Because the art style kinda fits. It's more anime than Teen Titans, but less anime than RWBY. RWBY is definitely anime. You've listed animation. The line between anime and western animation is being blurred with westerners working on anime in Japan and via the internet. Western companies are more often part of production committees, and anime is increasingly made to appeal to an international audience. Let's just call it all animation and end this circular debate. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » has the majority of people (here) seen the big 3 ? ( 1 2 3 )ame - Yesterday |
125 |
by Marloges
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » From what side of the neck do you enjoy being bitten by your vampire master?Catalano - 8 hours ago |
9 |
by traed
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you tend to watch newer seasonal shows, or older shows?Akuya - 3 hours ago |
10 |
by iThink
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» I made a fake anime seasonal chart using AI. Which of these sounds interesting to you? ( 1 2 )FFandMMfan - Apr 13 |
89 |
by MyFriendIbis
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
Sticky: » AWC 2024 Anime Watching Challenge - Sign-Up (Open Until December 10th) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )AWC_mod - Jan 1 |
971 |
by wedsa5
»»
24 minutes ago |