What qualifies as anime?
Daniel Rudy
Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he brought
up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation. But
he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series that has
the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we see coming
out of Japan? A series where the artwork has the big eyes, high level
of detail, and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from this
artform.
His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck." I'm not so sure if I agree with
that.
What do you guys think?
--
Daniel Rudy
Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
arnold kim
"Daniel Rudy" <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote in
message news:tsS5c.25002$8o1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Hello,
>
> Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he brought
> up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
>
> My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation. But
Pretty much the accepted definition of anime in America.
> he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series that has
> the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we see coming
> out of Japan? A series where the artwork has the big eyes, high level
> of detail, and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from this
> artform.
It wouldn't, because you can't define anime purely based on "style". There
are some conventions that are commonly used, but are far from universal in
anime. I dare you to find any similarities between Studio Ghibli works and
hentai, other than the fact that they're animated and from Japan.
If you use, for example, "big eyes" to define anime, then what does it say
about a title like Akira, which has normal sized eyes, for the most part,
yet is considered without a doubt to be anime? If you use, say, "adult
oriented animation" as a parameter, then that excludes titles like Pokemon,
Hamtaro, and even My Neighbor Totoro from being anime.
Anime is defined by country of origin, because you really can't define it
any further, despite the numerous conventions of the field. It means
"Japanese animation " (that is, at the very least, planned by the Japanese,
if not for a mainly Japanese audience) not "French animation" or "American
animation" or whatever.
> His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
> wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck." I'm not so sure if I agree with
> that.
Your friend is confusing anime with anime cliches that aren't universal.
There's a difference.
Arnold Kim
Fish Eye no Miko
> Hello,
> Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he
> brought up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as
> anime?
Depends who you ask. In Japan, any cartoon is "anime". Even stuff brought
over from the US.
For some American otaku, it's "animation made in Japan". That's the
definition I go with, so I'll discuss that. Others can reply using their
definition.
> My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation.
> But he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series
> that has the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we
> see coming out of Japan?
Not to the people in that second category.
Americans are making stuff that looks like anime, too. But I think most
people in my category wouldn't call it that.
> A series where the artwork has the big eyes,
Not all Japanese animation has that.
> high level of detail,
...or that.
> and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from
> this artform.
The problem is that not even all JP animation looks like what your friend
is calling "anime".
> His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
> and wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck."
Well, one of the problems is, not even all the "ducks" look like "ducks",
in this case.
Besides, if you describe anime as "animation made in Japan", the appearance
of that animation is irrelevant.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Ethan Hammond
message
>
Only cartoons from Japan and non others count as anime!!!!
*SHAKES FIST*
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Kyle Thomas Pope
<dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote:
>Hello,
>
> Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he brought
>up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
That question is no longer as easy to answer as it once was. At one
point anime was easily defined as any animation conceived by the
Japanese for the consumption of Japanese audiences. That is largely
the definition still in use today. However there are some large holes
being blown in that definition. Anime is big outside of Japan and has
reached the point of popularity in the US that the Japanese are now
starting to take foreign markets into consideration when planning out
new productions. Add to this the fact that a lot of new anime is
being financed by non-Japanese companies (i.e. ADV) with an eye to the
US and other markets. In addition anime studios in Japan are being
commissioned to produce works for foreign clients (i.e. Cartoon
Network's "IPX", "Big O II" and Production I.G.'s "Johnny Chase" spots
for T-Mobile.). The day is approaching where anime can be considered
a global product rather than one unique to Japan, if that day isn't
here already.
-----
Kyle Pope
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6
Keeper of the Edit List -
(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
arnold kim
"Kyle Thomas Pope" <kuro...@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote in message
news:fmuf50tqv619o3kc8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:43:37 GMT, Daniel Rudy
> <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> > Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he brought
> >up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
>
> That question is no longer as easy to answer as it once was. At one
> point anime was easily defined as any animation conceived by the
> Japanese for the consumption of Japanese audiences. That is largely
> the definition still in use today. However there are some large holes
> being blown in that definition. Anime is big outside of Japan and has
> reached the point of popularity in the US that the Japanese are now
> starting to take foreign markets into consideration when planning out
> new productions. Add to this the fact that a lot of new anime is
> being financed by non-Japanese companies (i.e. ADV) with an eye to the
> US and other markets. In addition anime studios in Japan are being
> commissioned to produce works for foreign clients (i.e. Cartoon
> Network's "IPX", "Big O II" and Production I.G.'s "Johnny Chase" spots
> for T-Mobile.). The day is approaching where anime can be considered
> a global product rather than one unique to Japan, if that day isn't
> here already.
I think it's fair to say, though, that if the Japanese aren't significantly
involved in the creative process, it isn't anime. That's the one thing that
still ties everything together in spite of the globalization.
Arnold Kim
Daniel Rudy
listened as arnold kim contributed the following to humanity:
> "Daniel Rudy" <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote in
> message news:tsS5c.25002$8o1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he brought
>>up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
>>
>>My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation. But
>
>
> Pretty much the accepted definition of anime in America.
>
>
>>he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series that has
>>the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we see coming
>>out of Japan? A series where the artwork has the big eyes, high level
>>of detail, and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from this
>>artform.
>
>
> It wouldn't, because you can't define anime purely based on "style". There
> are some conventions that are commonly used, but are far from universal in
> anime. I dare you to find any similarities between Studio Ghibli works and
> hentai, other than the fact that they're animated and from Japan.
Yeah, the styles can be radically different.
> If you use, for example, "big eyes" to define anime, then what does it say
> about a title like Akira, which has normal sized eyes, for the most part,
> yet is considered without a doubt to be anime? If you use, say, "adult
> oriented animation" as a parameter, then that excludes titles like Pokemon,
> Hamtaro, and even My Neighbor Totoro from being anime.
Good point. But one thing that I want to point out though is that from
all the anime that I have seen, Akira is the exception to the big eyes
on females rule. Even most of the hentai follow the big eyes on females
rule. Granted, they are out there, but they are not the rule.
> Anime is defined by country of origin, because you really can't define it
> any further, despite the numerous conventions of the field. It means
> "Japanese animation " (that is, at the very least, planned by the Japanese,
> if not for a mainly Japanese audience) not "French animation" or "American
> animation" or whatever.
>
>
>>His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
>>wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck." I'm not so sure if I agree with
>>that.
>
>
> Your friend is confusing anime with anime cliches that aren't universal.
> There's a difference.
> Arnold Kim
>
>
Daniel Rudy
listened as Fish Eye no Miko contributed the following to humanity:
> Daniel Rudy wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he
>>brought up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as
>>anime?
>
>
> Depends who you ask. In Japan, any cartoon is "anime". Even stuff brought
> over from the US.
> For some American otaku, it's "animation made in Japan". That's the
> definition I go with, so I'll discuss that. Others can reply using their
> definition.
>
>
My personal definition is that Anime is made is Japan. Everything else
is not it.
>>My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation.
>>But he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series
>>that has the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we
>>see coming out of Japan?
>
>
> Not to the people in that second category.
> Americans are making stuff that looks like anime, too. But I think most
> people in my category wouldn't call it that.
>
>
Agreed.
>>A series where the artwork has the big eyes,
>
>
> Not all Japanese animation has that.
>
>
But most do. Akira is the exeption, not the rule, at least from all the
anime that I have seen.
>>high level of detail,
>
>
> ...or that.
>
>
>>and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from
>>this artform.
>
>
> The problem is that not even all JP animation looks like what your friend
> is calling "anime".
>
>
Granted, different studio's are going to have different styles, but
there are some things that I have found quite common. The way that
emotion is portrayed seems to be common to all japanese anime, as well
as the big eyes on the females...Although there are exceptions, like
Akira, and IIRC Big Wars.
>>His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
>>and wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck."
>
>
> Well, one of the problems is, not even all the "ducks" look like "ducks",
> in this case.
> Besides, if you describe anime as "animation made in Japan", the appearance
> of that animation is irrelevant.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
--
Daniel Rudy
listened as Ethan Hammond contributed the following to humanity:
I agree with this, as in my dictionary, Anime = Japanese Animation.
Daniel Rudy
listened as arnold kim contributed the following to humanity:
Ok, so reguardless who finances it, if it was not drawn in Japan, and if
the Japanese did not have a hand in the creative portion of it, then it
cannot be considered Anime?
Fish Eye no Miko
> And somewhere around the time of 03/16/2004 23:07, the world
> stopped and listened as Fish Eye no Miko contributed the following
> to humanity:
>> Daniel Rudy wrote:
>>
>>> Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he
>>> brought up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as
>>> anime?
>>
>> Depends who you ask. In Japan, any cartoon is "anime". Even
>> stuff brought over from the US.
>> For some American otaku, it's "animation made in Japan". That's
>> the definition I go with, so I'll discuss that. Others can reply
>> using their definition.
>
> My personal definition is that Anime is made is Japan. Everything
> else is not it.
Ok.
>>> My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese
>>> animation. But he was wondering what if someone, say the
>>> French did a series that has the same look and feel just like
>>> the regular anime that we see coming out of Japan?
>>
>> Not to the people in that second category.
>> Americans are making stuff that looks like anime, too. But I
>> think most people in my category wouldn't call it that.
>>
> Agreed.
Ok.
>>> A series where the artwork has the big eyes,
>>
>> Not all Japanese animation has that.
>
> But most do. Akira is the exeption, not the rule, at least from
> all the anime that I have seen.
_Witch Hunter Robin_, the _Rurouni Kenshin_ OVAs... I don't think _Lain_
has that,... A lot of more recent anime don't seem to follow that rule.
>> The problem is that not even all JP animation looks like what your
>> friend is calling "anime".
>>
> Granted, different studio's are going to have different styles, but
> there are some things that I have found quite common.
I'm not disputing that. I said. "not... all". I realize that there are
things that anime have in common. But not everything. So if you're using
certain artistic qualities to define anime, not everything from Japan would
qualify.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I mean, how can you feel apprehensive about going to New Zealand? They
have penguins there, for Christ's sake."
-Brad Dourif, about filming _Lord of the Rings_.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Depends who you ask. In Japan, any cartoon is "anime". Even stuff
brought
> over from the US.
> For some American otaku, it's "animation made in Japan". That's the
> definition I go with, so I'll discuss that. Others can reply using their
> definition.
Even for some of us who hate the term otaku use that definition
for anime.
Ethan Hammond
message
>
> > *SHAKES FIST*
>
Yay for the dictionary being in concurrence with me!!!!
Unforgiven
animation. This is also the definition I use.
However, I have some troubles with defining the boundaries of what is
'Japanese animation'. Does this mean animated in Japan? Or does it need to
be produced/planned/written/whatever in Japan as well.
The reason I ask is because of two Dutch cartoons.
One is titled "Als je begrijpt wat ik bedoel", internationally released
under the title "The dragon that wasn't (or was he?)". It is the only
feature-length cartoon ever produced in the Netherlands. It is based on the
"Tom Poes" comic strips by Marten Toonder, and uses Toonder's distinctive
art style. But about 70% of it was animated in Japan, because we didn't have
the know-how to complete it. Is this anime?
The other is called "Alfred J. Kwak". This story was written by Herman van
Veen (and some others), with the goal being to create a "symphonic
fairytale", and was initially released as a vinyl record. The story was
later released in comic book form, and this comic book ended up in Japan,
resulting in "Alfred J. Kwak" becoming 52 episodes animated by TV Tokyo. The
art style is based on the Dutch-produced comic books. So is this anime? (as
a sidenote, I noticed that the Dutch website for Alfred J. Kwak
http://www.jodokus.nl/ uses a Japanese sketch for the background, having
ARUFUREDDO written in katakana ^_^)
Just looking for opinions.
--
Unforgiven
Jack Bohn
>My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation. But
>he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series that has
>the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we see coming
>out of Japan? A series where the artwork has the big eyes, high level
>of detail, and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from this
>artform.
If I did a painting in the style of the French Impressionists,
would it be a French Impressionist painting?
--
-Jack
Jack Bohn
>However, I have some troubles with defining the boundaries of what is
>'Japanese animation'. Does this mean animated in Japan? Or does it need to
>be produced/planned/written/whatever in Japan as well.
>
>The reason I ask is because of two Dutch cartoons.
>
>One is titled "Als je begrijpt wat ik bedoel", internationally released
>under the title "The dragon that wasn't (or was he?)". It is the only
>feature-length cartoon ever produced in the Netherlands. It is based on the
>"Tom Poes" comic strips by Marten Toonder, and uses Toonder's distinctive
>art style. But about 70% of it was animated in Japan, because we didn't have
>the know-how to complete it. Is this anime?
Sounds like a Dutch production. Was the Japanese work just
in-betweening, or planning out sequences?
>The other is called "Alfred J. Kwak". This story was written by Herman van
>Veen (and some others), with the goal being to create a "symphonic
>fairytale", and was initially released as a vinyl record. The story was
>later released in comic book form, and this comic book ended up in Japan,
>resulting in "Alfred J. Kwak" becoming 52 episodes animated by TV Tokyo. The
>art style is based on the Dutch-produced comic books. So is this anime?
This one sounds like anime. Anime has been influenced by foreign
sources from Chinese legends to Heidi to Spider-Man. But, in
producing for their own audience, they emphasize different things
than the source culture would. Like how the Beatles rock and
roll sounds so much different from the Elvis and Chuck Berry
records they listened to.
--
-Jack
D-Chance.
> His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
> wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck." I'm not so sure if I agree with
> that.
> What do you guys think?
/troll mode on
Ducks don't wobble... they waddle.
WEEBLES wobble... but they never fall down.
^_^
/runs off
D-Chance.
Aya the Vampire Slayer
>Daniel Rudy wrote:
>>>> A series where the artwork has the big eyes,
>>>
>>> Not all Japanese animation has that.
>>
>> But most do. Akira is the exeption, not the rule, at least from
>> all the anime that I have seen.
>
>_Witch Hunter Robin_, the _Rurouni Kenshin_ OVAs... I don't think _Lain_
>has that,... A lot of more recent anime don't seem to follow that rule.
I'll just go ahead and name a few more (IMO, of course!)
-----------------------------------
Perfect Blue
Millenium Actress
Magnetic Rose
Wings of Honneamise (sp? heh)
Haibane Renmei (like Lain...)
Niea_7 (like Lain...)
Wolf's Rain
Infinite Ryvius
Boogiepop Phantom
.hack//sign
Cowboy Bebop
Ping Pong Club
Project Arms
Iria
Macross Plus
Hellsing (? maybe?)
Ninja Scroll
Evangelion
Kai Doh Maru
Master Keaton (? maybe)
Wolf Brigade/Jin Roh
Last Exile
Hakkenden
GTO
Now and Then, Here and There
Virtually anything by Studio Ghibli
... etc ...
I think it's more a rule among sub-genres than anime in general.
Guy/shounen stuff is less likely to have big eyes.
Girl/shoujo stuff is more likely to have big eyes.
Kid's stuff is more likely to have big eyes.
General/non-gender-specific/oriented stuff [IMO] is less likely to have
big eyes.
--
"Care must be exorcised when handring Opiticar System as it is apts to
be sticked by dusts and hand-fat." --Japanese Translators
"Keep your fingers off the lens." --Elton Byington, English Translator
Edwin Petree
> Hello,
>
> Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he
> brought
> up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
>
> My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation.
How do you define "Japanese Animation"? A lot of the animation I'm
watching has lots of work by Koreans done on it.
Chika
Edwin Petree <edwin...@example.invalid> wrote:
> How do you define "Japanese Animation"? A lot of the animation I'm
> watching has lots of work by Koreans done on it.
With the current state of play in animation generally, you will see a lot
of shows produced by a whole raft of different countries, from Japan or
Korea to Eastern Europe to South America and all points between.
The defining point in the country of origin, however, tends to be taken as
the country of issue, or at least the origin of the creative element. This
would mean that, while a movie such as Mulan has a lot of Japanese names
at the end of it that contributed to the production, it wouldn't qualify
as anime in the accepted use of the word in the west (this, of course,
does not affect the use of the word in its original setting. The Japanese
use the word as a blanket term for any animation).
The word "anime" was adopted in the form used by the Japanese because,
especially in the early days, because it was felt that it was necessary to
differentiate between the Japanese product and other animation. It wasn't
the only term to be invented, but it seems to be the one term that has
survived where terms such as "Japanimation" seem to have fallen from
favour somewhat.
The fact that Japanese animation houses sub-contract work to Korean
companies doesn't really change that.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... "Bother", said Pooh, as he scrambled his partition table
Malik
"Chika" <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote in message
news:4c913d69...@no.spam.here...
<snip>
> The word "anime" was adopted in the form used by the Japanese because,
> especially in the early days, because it was felt that it was necessary to
> differentiate between the Japanese product and other animation. It wasn't
> the only term to be invented, but it seems to be the one term that has
> survived where terms such as "Japanimation" seem to have fallen from
> favour somewhat.
>
<snip>
Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
-Malik
Ethan Hammond
>
> Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
Yep terebi manga.
Rose Prescott
<dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> writes:
>His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
>wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck." I'm not so sure if I agree with
>that.
It could be a Mousse.
Rose
Bach to Bach, ballet to ballet - Too Much Culture Girl
Malik
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:pA76c.42561$H44.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Malik" <ma...@nosmapm.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
>
> Yep terebi manga.
>
Thanks Ethan for the confirmation. According to the same logic, then
"cartoons" are "TV comics."
Now, one had to wonder why the Japanese stopped using "TV manga" and now use
"anime."
-Malik
Ethan Hammond
> "cartoons" are "TV comics."
>
> Now, one had to wonder why the Japanese stopped using "TV manga" and now
use
> "anime."
In the early 90's when Anime V magazine came out? Or maybe when
the word because more popular in the US.
Chika
wrote:
> <snip>
It may well have been, but I don't recall it. It is more a question of
what survived than what came first and, strictly speaking, "TV manga" is a
bit misleading given that not all anime derives from the TV, and the term
"manga" has other given meanings anyway.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.
Rob Kelk
<esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Malik" <ma...@nosmapm.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
>
>Yep terebi manga.
Hmmmmm... Could that be why the early releases of various Carl
Macek-dubbed anime were called "video comics" on the VHS boxes?
Just wondering...
--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Daniel Rudy
listened as Aya the Vampire Slayer contributed the following to humanity:
>>_Witch Hunter Robin_, the _Rurouni Kenshin_ OVAs... I don't think _Lain_
>>has that,... A lot of more recent anime don't seem to follow that rule.
Which I have not seen, but some of the following do have the big eyes on
the girls:
>
>
> I'll just go ahead and name a few more (IMO, of course!)
> -----------------------------------
> Perfect Blue
> Millenium Actress
> Magnetic Rose
> Wings of Honneamise (sp? heh)
This one does.
> Haibane Renmei (like Lain...)
> Niea_7 (like Lain...)
> Wolf's Rain
> Infinite Ryvius
> Boogiepop Phantom
I don't remember too much about this one...Didn't like it.
> .hack//sign
This one most definately.
> Cowboy Bebop
And this one.
> Ping Pong Club
> Project Arms
> Iria
This one too.
> Macross Plus
And this.
> Hellsing (? maybe?)
> Ninja Scroll
Yes.
> Evangelion
Absolutely has the big eyes.
> Kai Doh Maru
> Master Keaton (? maybe)
> Wolf Brigade/Jin Roh
> Last Exile
> Hakkenden
> GTO
> Now and Then, Here and There
> Virtually anything by Studio Ghibli
>
> ... etc ...
>
> I think it's more a rule among sub-genres than anime in general.
I think what constitues big eyes needs to be defined because it seems
that what you call big eyes and what I call big eyes seems to be two
different things. Of the series that you say don't have big eyes, which
I have seen, I find that they do, at least in my definition of the big
eyes, and they are usually on the females of the series.
> Guy/shounen stuff is less likely to have big eyes.
> Girl/shoujo stuff is more likely to have big eyes.
> Kid's stuff is more likely to have big eyes.
> General/non-gender-specific/oriented stuff [IMO] is less likely to have
> big eyes.
>
--
Daniel Rudy
listened as Jack Bohn contributed the following to humanity:
That's kinda what his argument was. But he was comparing it to jazz.
You have jazz here in America, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, but it is
all refered to as Jazz. His question is why it this isn't so with the
anime artform.
Daniel Rudy
listened as Chika contributed the following to humanity:
> In article <Xns94AFB812635E0e...@news-60.giganews.com>,
> Edwin Petree <edwin...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>How do you define "Japanese Animation"? A lot of the animation I'm
>>watching has lots of work by Koreans done on it.
>
>
> With the current state of play in animation generally, you will see a lot
> of shows produced by a whole raft of different countries, from Japan or
> Korea to Eastern Europe to South America and all points between.
>
> The defining point in the country of origin, however, tends to be taken as
> the country of issue, or at least the origin of the creative element. This
> would mean that, while a movie such as Mulan has a lot of Japanese names
> at the end of it that contributed to the production, it wouldn't qualify
> as anime in the accepted use of the word in the west (this, of course,
> does not affect the use of the word in its original setting. The Japanese
> use the word as a blanket term for any animation).
>
> The word "anime" was adopted in the form used by the Japanese because,
> especially in the early days, because it was felt that it was necessary to
> differentiate between the Japanese product and other animation. It wasn't
> the only term to be invented, but it seems to be the one term that has
> survived where terms such as "Japanimation" seem to have fallen from
> favour somewhat.
>
> The fact that Japanese animation houses sub-contract work to Korean
> companies doesn't really change that.
>
Well, that's interesting, because on the animenetwork comercials on ADV
dvds, they say, and I quote the following: "Anime is from Japan."
Julian Fong
>Date: Wed, Mar 17, 2004 2:15 PM
>It may well have been, but I don't recall it. It is more a question of
>what survived than what came first and, strictly speaking, "TV manga" is
>a
>bit misleading given that not all anime derives from the TV, and the term
>"manga" has other given meanings anyway.
Some of the early anime studios in the '60s called their product
"douga" (moving art), but this may have been used mainly to refer
to theatrical animation.
--
Julian Fong
jhf...@aol.comXYZZY
http://www.evilnet.net/~jhfong/
- Per ardua ad astra -
arnold kim
"Daniel Rudy" <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote in
I think it basically boils down to "because that's the word that English
speaking audiences have picked on which to apply the definition, 'Animation
from Japan'."
Country of origin is inherent in the definition.
Arnold Kim
Ethan Hammond
>
> Hmmmmm... Could that be why the early releases of various Carl
> Macek-dubbed anime were called "video comics" on the VHS boxes?
>
> Just wondering...
Probably not.
Jim diGriz
> "Malik" <ma...@nosmapm.com> wrote in message
>>Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
> Yep terebi manga.
Why do my cousins from the UK keep refering to "Manga Cartoons" even
though I keep correcting them?
jdG
Jim diGriz
> "Malik" <ma...@nosmapm.com> wrote in message
>>Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
> Yep terebi manga.
Why do my cousins from the UK keep refering to "Manga Cartoons" even
Chika
Jim diGriz <jimd...@myjaring.net> wrote:
> Why do my cousins from the UK keep refering to "Manga Cartoons" even
> though I keep correcting them?
Probably because of "Manga Video". The company did dominate anime
distribution in the UK for a long time, and often avoided the word "anime"
until later on. Even to current times, there are those here in the UK that
use the term, though it is usually only because they are either ignorant
of what they are doing or they are trying to wind you up... ^_^
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// The second ZFC coming <crashnet.org.uk/zedeffcee>
... Beam me up, Scotty, but leave the others here.
Ethan Hammond
>
> >>Is it true that the term "TV manga" was used before wide use of "anime."
>
> > Yep terebi manga.
>
> Why do my cousins from the UK keep refering to "Manga Cartoons" even
> though I keep correcting them?
Because they are old skool.
Matthew W. Miller
<dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote:
> But one thing that I want to point out though is that from all the
> anime that I have seen, Akira is the exception to the big eyes on
> females rule.
Get this man some Miyazaki films, stat.
--
Matthew W. Miller <mwmi...@columbus.rr.com> MPlayer does not suck.
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>In article <c3et8t$8mm$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> Jim diGriz <jimd...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>Why do my cousins from the UK keep refering to
>>"Manga Cartoons" even though I keep correcting
>>them?
>Probably because of "Manga Video". The company
>did dominate anime distribution in the UK for a
>long time, and often avoided the word "anime"
>until later on. Even to current times, there are
>those here in the UK that use the term, though it is
>usually only because they are either ignorant of
>what they are doing or they are trying to wind you
>up... ^_^
>--
> //\ // Chika
I feel the same way when a few ignorant Americans would be like "are
these Chinese cartoons?" Just seems so clueless!
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
John C. Watson
<jimd...@myjaring.net> wrote:
Because M/a/n/g/l/e/ Manga Video was the first, and for its time, the
largest, localizer of anime.
<http://www.honneamise.u-net.com/anime/ccourse.html>
<http://www.lysator.liu.se/amiga/al/guide/al104/akira.HTML>
(I'm just catching up on this thread.)
--
Ciao,
John
John C. Watson
World Otakunization Project, Happy Valley Division
Disruptor
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> Daniel Rudy wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he
> > brought up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as
> > anime?
>
> Depends who you ask. In Japan, any cartoon is "anime". Even stuff brought
> over from the US.
> For some American otaku, it's "animation made in Japan". That's the
> definition I go with, so I'll discuss that. Others can reply using their
> definition.
Then you run straight into the collaborative efforts. The Last Unicorn being
the best example I can think of. Britian, West Germany, United States, and
Japan creators all had a hand in its creation
And there also the cartoons made in Japan with Japanese characters that are
shown first in the United States.
MegaMan(yes, the one with 'Attack of the Lion Men'), Street Fighter(based on
the Live Action movie), Darkstalkers(the one with Harry Grimorie). Capcom
officialy recognizes them
The Legend of Zelda(Well excuse me, Princess)
Along with the one show that doesn't fit neatly inot any category:
The first three seasons of Transformers
>
> > My answer would be Japanese animation, and only Japanese animation.
> > But he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series
> > that has the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we
> > see coming out of Japan?
>
> Not to the people in that second category.
> Americans are making stuff that looks like anime, too. But I think most
> people in my category wouldn't call it that.
They are copying the surface not the substance. That is the main reason Jayce
and the Wheeled Warriors keeps getting mixed up with anime. It has a definite
substance along with an ending. If Jem and the Holograms wasn't so well
known, it would have also been mixed up with anime. The people who worked on
Jem also produced Jayce, and it shows in the quality storytelling. Galaxy
Rangers is another one that gets mixed up with anime, even though it is the
future of the series Bionic 6.
>
> > A series where the artwork has the big eyes,
>
> Not all Japanese animation has that.
Too true.
>
> > high level of detail,
>
> ...or that.
>
> > and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from
> > this artform.
The clices isn't what I enjoy, it is the storyline.
>
> The problem is that not even all JP animation looks like what your friend
> is calling "anime".
>
> > His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
> > and wobbles like a duck, then it's a duck."
>
> Well, one of the problems is, not even all the "ducks" look like "ducks",
> in this case.
> Besides, if you describe anime as "animation made in Japan", the appearance
> of that animation is irrelevant.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
>
arnold kim
"Disruptor" <dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40729A74...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
> > Daniel Rudy wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he
> > > brought up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as
> > > anime?
> >
> > Depends who you ask. In Japan, any cartoon is "anime". Even stuff
brought
> > over from the US.
> > For some American otaku, it's "animation made in Japan". That's the
> > definition I go with, so I'll discuss that. Others can reply using
their
> > definition.
>
> Then you run straight into the collaborative efforts. The Last Unicorn
being
> the best example I can think of. Britian, West Germany, United States,
and
> Japan creators all had a hand in its creation
>
> And there also the cartoons made in Japan with Japanese characters that
are
> shown first in the United States.
Define "Made in Japan". If the writers, directors, etc. are in Japan, then
it's anime. If they're not, and just the animation is done in Japan, then
it's not anime.
The problem with defining "anime" as "animation where the actual animation
is done in Japan" is that A) it would include a lot of series that are
clearly not anime under the "anime" banner (Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, etc.)
and B) many real anime would be excluded, because the work is often farmed
out to Korea. Macross Plus, for instance, would no longer be anime.
> MegaMan(yes, the one with 'Attack of the Lion Men'), Street Fighter(based
on
> the Live Action movie), Darkstalkers(the one with Harry Grimorie). Capcom
> officialy recognizes them
>
> The Legend of Zelda(Well excuse me, Princess)
>
> Along with the one show that doesn't fit neatly inot any category:
> The first three seasons of Transformers
American animated show. Yes, it's based on Japanese toys, and the actual
animation is farmed out to Japan, but actual ownership of the show is
American, as are the writers, producers, directors, etc. I mean, it's by
the same people who did GI Joe.
What could be confusing, though, is Transformers: The Movie, since the
Japanese were actually involved in the creative process aside from just
doing animation.
Arnold Kim
Ethan Hammond
>
> > Along with the one show that doesn't fit neatly inot any category:
> > The first three seasons of Transformers
The first four seasons of TF would not be anime under the definition
we use. Scramble City, Headmasters, Masterforce, Victory,
and Zone would be anime under the definition we use.
> American animated show. Yes, it's based on Japanese toys, and the actual
> animation is farmed out to Japan, but actual ownership of the show is
> American, as are the writers, producers, directors, etc. I mean, it's by
> the same people who did GI Joe.
>
> What could be confusing, though, is Transformers: The Movie, since the
> Japanese were actually involved in the creative process aside from just
> doing animation.
But it came out here in 1986 and didn't come out in Japan until like 1990.
5parrow
> And there also the cartoons made in Japan with Japanese characters that are
> shown first in the United States.
>
> MegaMan(yes, the one with 'Attack of the Lion Men'), Street Fighter(based on
> the Live Action movie), Darkstalkers(the one with Harry Grimorie). Capcom
> officialy recognizes them
>
> The Legend of Zelda(Well excuse me, Princess)
>
And more recently, the new version of SD Gundam.
--
- 5parrowhawk (to email, please rearrange for the mail server at
Georgia Institute of Technology).
() ascii ribbon campaign | what "yaoi" really
/\ - against html e-mail | stands for:
- against M$ attachments | "yamete, oshiri itai".
Rick
"Daniel Rudy" <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote in
> And somewhere around the time of 03/16/2004 23:01, the world stopped and
> listened as arnold kim contributed the following to humanity:
>
> > "Daniel Rudy" <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> wrote in
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Myself and a friend was discussing anime at work tonight and he brought
> >>up an interesting question. What exactly does qualify as anime?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>he was wondering what if someone, say the French did a series that has
> >>the same look and feel just like the regular anime that we see coming
> >>of detail, and other qualities that we all have come to enjoy from this
> >>artform.
> >
> >
> > It wouldn't, because you can't define anime purely based on "style".
There
> > are some conventions that are commonly used, but are far from universal
in
> > anime. I dare you to find any similarities between Studio Ghibli works
and
> > hentai, other than the fact that they're animated and from Japan.
>
> Yeah, the styles can be radically different.
>
> > If you use, for example, "big eyes" to define anime, then what does it
say
> > about a title like Akira, which has normal sized eyes, for the most
part,
> > yet is considered without a doubt to be anime? If you use, say, "adult
> > oriented animation" as a parameter, then that excludes titles like
Pokemon,
> > Hamtaro, and even My Neighbor Totoro from being anime.
>
> Good point. But one thing that I want to point out though is that from
> all the anime that I have seen, Akira is the exception to the big eyes
> rule. Granted, they are out there, but they are not the rule.
>
> > Anime is defined by country of origin, because you really can't define
it
> > any further, despite the numerous conventions of the field. It means
> > "Japanese animation " (that is, at the very least, planned by the
Japanese,
> > if not for a mainly Japanese audience) not "French animation" or
"American
> > animation" or whatever.
> >
> >
> >>His argument is "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
> >>that.
> >
> >
> > There's a difference.
>
>
Rick
Big O is another anime that has normal sized eyes
Richard Hudson
wrote:
>
>They are copying the surface not the substance. That is the main reason Jayce
>and the Wheeled Warriors keeps getting mixed up with anime. It has a definite
>substance along with an ending. If Jem and the Holograms wasn't so well
>known, it would have also been mixed up with anime. The people who worked on
>Jem also produced Jayce, and it shows in the quality storytelling. Galaxy
>Rangers is another one that gets mixed up with anime, even though it is the
>future of the series Bionic 6.
How do Jayce & TWW, Jem, Bionic 6 and Galaxy Rangers all end?
Richard Hudson