Industry Standards: What is Anime?
Mike Shogun Tatsugawa
entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?" If they
wanted a purely technical formula for a definition, what answer should
we give them? What standards are used?
Country of Origin?
Country that the cels were done in?
Country that the owner belongs to?
What if it is dubbed/subbed?
If the soundtrack is redone?
Where does Korean anime fit in?
What if the cels are drawn in Korea?
What if an American like Peter Chung goes to Japan to make animation
with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
We are wrangling with these definitions and exceptions to give them an
answer. We are also debating hosting a panel at AX to allow industry
members to come to a consensus on the definition.
Mike
David Crowe
: We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
Mine is "Anime is animation produced by Japanese companies for initial
consumption by the Japanese market."
Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind were all packaged for US
release, but that doesn't change their origin.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
"Fool! You have not the _strength_ to kill..."
-Slaymaster's last words, Captain Britain TPB
Jeff Williams
sho...@kamidake.apricot.com (Mike "Shogun" Tatsugawa) wrote:
> We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
> entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
> in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
> studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?" If they
> wanted a purely technical formula for a definition, what answer should
> we give them? What standards are used?
There was a big debate here a while back about this, which I abandoned pretty
quickly because it was pretty obvious that at least IMO some people cannot
see the forest for the trees. I am sure if this gets going again eventually
the discussion will turn to larger cultural issues, which I'm not going to
get into again, but I'll just say that I favor the obvious and narrow
definition of what anime is. It is animation from Japan, by the Japanese. I
think it can be *produced* in another country, but I think it needs to be
conceived of and created by Japanese in order for me to consider it "anime".
We use the word "anime" rather than just "animation" for a reason - *because*
it denotes country of origin, in this case Japan. The Japanese don't do
this; they just call everything anime, but we don't call Japanese animation
"animation" specifically in order to make this distinction. So I don't
really see how you could view it any other way - the only question is when a
piece of animation is diluted enough to be considered un-Japanese in origin.
That's the only real consideration in this debate, I think - not whether
"anime" specifically refers to a country or not, which as Americans use the
term, it clearly does.
>
> Country of Origin?
> Country that the cels were done in?
Most American animation is not actually produced in the United States, it is
produced in Korea or other Asian countries. But it's still American
animation. I think it's just the creative process - the writing, directing,
character designs, initial drawing, etc. that needs to be Japanese to qualify
it as "anime".
Toyotas are built in the United States, but we still consider them Japanese
cars. The mass production part of the process is mindless - it doesn't
matter who does it, as long as they're technically proficient enough (it
doesn't even take much technique to color inside the lines - most first
graders can do that).
> Country that the owner belongs to?
> What if it is dubbed/subbed?
> If the soundtrack is redone?
I'd still say it's anime, because of what it was originally created as. If
it's ripped apart and torn up it's just a travesty, but I don't think it
changes what something is. Voltron was still anime, as was Speed Racer, when
they were brought here.
>
> Where does Korean anime fit in?
I wouldn't call it anime. Call it the Korean word for animation if you want,
to denote the fact that it is Korean animation, in the same way "anime"
denotes Japanese animation to us.
> What if an American like Peter Chung goes to Japan to make animation
> with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
Then it's not anime, it's Peter Chung. An American making animation for the
American market with American designs is not making anime, he's making
American animation wherever he is.
> Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
Dunno about WoW as I know nothing about it. I would call Mononoke Hime anime
because it was directed by Miyazaki, and isn't the guy who supervised the
animation a famous Japanese guy also? I forget his name... Coulda sworn it
was written by a Japanese guy also. I don't know the full production story
of MH but even if some of the in-between cels were totally outlined and
colored by assistant animators that were Koreans in Korea, I'd still call it
anime. Just because it's being dubbed with American actors now doesn't
change its original nature either. Same goes for Robotech - that was a total
bastardization, but the original series remains, and even what turned into
Robotech was still not an American *creation*, it was just an American
adaptation.
In conversation I will often call things "anime" that aren't, just as a
short- hand rather than saying "anime-style" or something stupid-sounding -
people know what I mean if I say "did you see that new Lender's Bagel
commercial?? It's anime!" They know I'm just talking about the way it looks.
But if I'm going to have a serious conversation about the subject with
someone, I'm always careful to make the distinction between "anime-style" and
real anime.
I'm sure you'll get plenty of other viewpoints, that's just mine.
--
// Jeff Williams
// bassc...@my-dejanews.com
// http://www.geocities.com/soho/2024
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chika
Mike Shogun Tatsugawa <sho...@kamidake.apricot.com> wrote:
Country of Origin: Japan
Country that the cels were done in: Incomplete question. "Doing" cels is
a routine of many procedures, not
always completed in the same place
Country that the owner belongs to: Japan
What if it is dubbed/subbed: Irrelevant. The ownership remains in the
country of origin, with licenses issued to
distributors.
If the soundtrack is redone: Also irrelevant for the same reason.
Where does Korean anime fit in: It doesn't. Korean animation is a product
in its own right and, though it might share
occasional similarities with anime, cannot
be classified as anime, since that word is
specifically used to define the animation
of Japan.
What if the cels are drawn in Korea: Irrelevant. The production of the cels
does not define the origin of the
production. Anime houses often use
Korean subcontractors for donkey work
such as this, but this does not make
them Korean.
What if an American like Peter Chung goes to Japan to make animation
with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
The originator is American. He subcontracts
the Japanese into making an American
animation.
Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
Yes, yes and yes. Mononoke Hime is a
production of Studio Ghibli, licensed for
distribution in the US by Disney. Robotech is
an American adaptation (primarily) of the
Japanese television series Macross, and
Warriors of the Wind, another Ghibli work,
is also an adaptation.
The definition, as I see it is this -
anime (n): A Japanese loanword used in western cultures to describe the
animated output of Japan, by which is meant the original material
regardless of country of subcontractor, and regardless of alterations made
under license by a third party after the completion of said product.
IMHO of course! ^_^
--
------ ------- _____ | Chika (irc #anime) - madoka*argonet.co.uk
|--+-| --|-|-- | | | ---\ \ The Lurkers' Retreat / CrashnetUK / CAPOW
|\ | | | | | | |---| | | \ http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/madoka
| _| | ======= | | / |
------ / | \ | ./ / ZFC A / aICQ UIN 15258170 / (*=@)
... Happiness is finding special characters
M Arnold
>In article <92601852...@news.remarQ.com>,
> sho...@kamidake.apricot.com (Mike "Shogun" Tatsugawa) wrote:
>The Japanese don't do this; they just call everything anime
They don't always do that either. There are different words -- manga,
anime, animeeshon, manga eiga, etc.
Mike A
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <92601852...@news.remarQ.com>,
sho...@kamidake.apricot.com (Mike "Shogun" Tatsugawa) wrote:
>We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
>entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
>in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
>studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?" If they
>wanted a purely technical formula for a definition, what answer should
>we give them? What standards are used?
>
>Country of Origin?
Yes, in a sense.
>Country that the cels were done in?
Nope.
>Country that the owner belongs to?
Yep.
>What if it is dubbed/subbed?
>If the soundtrack is redone?
Nope on both counts.
>Where does Korean anime fit in?
Don't think it does.
>What if the cels are drawn in Korea?
Nope.
>What if an American like Peter Chung goes to Japan to make animation
>with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
>Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
Okay, now that's blurring the lines a bit...
Baically, my personal definition of anime is animation produced(read
directed, written, designed, etc.) by the Japanese for a mostly
Japanese target audience. Dubbing or altering soundtrack won't keep
it from being anime, but changing the story will, as it is that that
is the real creative core to anime.
Arnold Kim
Got his Lego X-Wing fighter today!! SUGOI!!
Derek Janssen
>
> We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
> entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
> in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
> studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?"
If they really asked you that question verbatim, you KNOW the answer to
give them.
Hint: It's the one Charlie Parker gave to "what is jazz?".
> If they
> wanted a purely technical formula for a definition, what answer should
> we give them? What standards are used?
>
> Country of Origin?
> Country that the cels were done in?
> Country that the owner belongs to?
> What if it is dubbed/subbed?
> If the soundtrack is redone?
>
> Where does Korean anime fit in?
> What if the cels are drawn in Korea?
> What if an American like Peter Chung goes to Japan to make animation
> with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
> Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
Tell them (no, I'm not being sarcastic) to watch either one and ask
themselves "is it a 'cartoon' because it's animated?"
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
---------
(Hopefully THAT should stop the "Invasion America"/"Spawn"'ers trying to
use a term they thought was cool when they heard it...)
Derek Janssen
>
> >> We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
> >> entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
> >> in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
> >> studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?"
>
> >If they really asked you that question verbatim, you KNOW the answer to
> >give them.
> >Hint: It's the one Charlie Parker gave to "what is jazz?".
>
> applied throughout the industry. That's why we need to use rules to
> define it. We understand that there will be exceptions though.
Heh...Sorry, couldn't resist. ^_-
Actually, for a strict industry definition, I'd stick with the one
already given:
"Anime is animation produced by Japanese companies for initial
consumption by the Japanese market."
and add the one crucial otaku-defining codicil:
"...Imported with its distributor with NO OTHER unreasonable or
deceptively added changes to the film's original artistic vision
[ie. names, title, storyline], save only those required for
technical language translation [including nominal script-smooths
for dub lip-synch]."
...In other words, subtitling or dubbing a foreign film for a
foreign-film audience.
(In this case, an audience that likes them Japanese and animated.)
Therefore, to answer the earlier question:
> Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
Robotech and WotW *are* anime in the first definition, ie. produced by
Japanese for Japanese with US market not the primary goal--But, since
Macek's intent was to pass them off as glorified Western-style
action/sci-fi toons, they would *not* be considered anime as much as,
say, a subtitled "Nausicaa" or Coastal-dubbed "Macross" would be.
The US "Mononoke", OTOH, was required to make no changes in its script
or cut, and is being presented by Buena Vista for the benefit of those
Western filmgoers interested in the Japanese work of Hayao Miyazaki and
Studio Ghibli, animators.
Therefore, no hesitation in classifying it "Anime:Yes".
(...THAT should give them enough to work on for a while.) @_@
> There are other weird exceptions we will be looking at, but we are
> also putting in place an appeals process that will allow companies to
> contest the ruling.
Make the definition clear enough, and it should speak for itself--
Not much room for appeal there...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Mc
>
> We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
> entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
> in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
> studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?" If they
> we give them? What standards are used?
>
There is nothing special being described by this term other than that.
> Country of Origin?
You could say that. In the terms that the ideas and planning was
conceived by the Japanese and produced for their market primarily.
> Country that the cels were done in?
No, it would be a mistake to say that it was produced in Japan only,
because like their American counterparts, the Japanese are now farming
out the labor to other countries like Korea where the costs are lower.
Remember, when we(US) originally farmed out our animation production in
the 70's to Japan because they were cheaper or were willing to finish
the work, for those of you who can remember the strike for that one
particlar season where there was no animation produced in the US because
of this problem.
> Country that the owner belongs to?
I would say yes.
> What if it is dubbed/subbed?
It doesn't matter if it subbed or dubbed. Anime is anime so long as its
conception and rights holder's country of origin is Japan.
> If the soundtrack is redone?
If the soundtrack is redone, it still wouldn't alter the fact that the
original concepts came from Japan. It is still anime whether we like it
or not, because the look and feel is still there and alterations like
this are trivial.
So long as I am entertained by it, that is all that counts. If it peaks
my interest to listen to the original soundtracks, then the show has a
special charm that I would spend more of my time, money, and effort to
pursue.
> Where does Korean anime fit in?
The Koreans are at present, the laborers of the product. Again this
doesn't alter the fact that it was originally designed and conceived by
in Japan.
> What if the cels are drawn in Korea?
see above.
> What if an American like Peter Chung goes to Japan to make animation
> with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
Then it would be an American Animation(not animated) show because it was
specifically conceived, designed, and produced for the American Market.
> Are Mononoke Hime/Robotech/Warriors of the Wind anime?
Yes they are. PERIOD
mc
Code Name D.
sho...@kamidake.apricot.com (Mike "Shogun" Tatsugawa) wrote:
> We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
> entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
> in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
> studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?" If they
> wanted a purely technical formula for a definition, what answer should
> we give them? What standards are used?
>
> Country that the cels were done in?
>
> with a Japanese studio for the American market using American designs?
>
> answer. We are also debating hosting a panel at AX to allow industry
> members to come to a consensus on the definition.
>
>
I too would like to add M.M.H.O. to this debate. And I will do so from a
writers standpoint, sence that is what I do as a hobby.
A simple definition would clearly be this: Anime is animated entertainment
designed and written for Japanese audience.
To elaborate, Anime usually starts with Japanese scripts (thus the mouth
movements are linked to Japanese dialog). Drawn characters physical
expressions are also Japanese (bowing, gestures such as the sweet drop, face
vaulting [the character "slipping" or suddenly turning upside down] and other
gestures.). As well as stile (the over sized eye's, super deformed, and
extra). Any export of Anime to the US is secondary.
But that is a simplistic explanation. It is also a definition that wouldn't
be vary use full for domestic (USA) CEO. In truth, anime is not as much a
definition, but has more to do with the discipline and art or animation and
story telling.
But in M.H.O. there is more to anime that just "cartoons from Japan". There
are three observations that separate anime from domestic cartoons.
1) Designed and written for a wider age range. As well as being geared for
both boys and girls.
2) A grater level of artistic freedom and experimentation on the part of the
writers and animators.
3) Freedom from sensors and the stigma of cartoons being only for kids.
In troth, anime is simply the application of skilled artistes of US animators,
in a Japanese environment. The word anime itself is a borrowed word from the
English word Animation. Japanese artists, when interviewed, repeatedly sight
American artists as a sources of inspiration in their youth (Walt Disney being
a major influence.) Over the years, throw experience and inspiration, and
operating in a culture that was (and is still to some extent) more free for
experimentation. (Including pornographic anime, often called hentia (Japanese
for perverted.) As a result, anime has produced these "advancements" (if you
would) to the field of animation (and story telling in general).
1) Exaggeration of facile expression. Amplifying emotions. IE, the enlarged
eyes, and mouth that can range from non-extant, to literally from ear to ear.
Super deformation, sweet droops, face vaulting are a few other example of
exaggerated expressions that can employed, even to realistically drawn
characters. Vary similar when painting left realism to abstract art.
2) Multiple view points. By using cut away, windows, or split screens, they
can show more than one POV (the faces of dulling combatants at the same time
for example.)
3) Complex back grounds, color, and lighting. Many anime si-fi anime use
truly elaborate backgrounds, ship designs, and other eliminates that simply
can not be produced in live action. (Especially when on a budget.) Also,
anime tends to use primary colors (making them visual attractive) but quickly
changing pallets to different seines and environments. Lighting and color
shades are flexible, allowing brightly colored charters to move into dark and
shadowy rooms.
4) Pure artistic exploration. Japanese animators are always looking for
visual challenges to present. Challenges that can demand unusual drawing
techniques, or even require special technology. Some examples might be with
handling sun light, looking directly at the sun, moving shadows (from
clouds), weather (such as fog, rain, wind, heat, cold, etc ), gravity, under
water, just to name a few. In short, to present something never before see
in the world of animation, as well as something that would stun and wow the
audience.
5) The kawii (cuteness) factor. Mixing in just raw cuteness (usually in the
form of furry animals, or cute little girls or boys) in with even the most
"masculine" of themes. (I have speculated if this is not an effort to draw
in girls and women to the audience. But I have yet been able to confirm this
throw observation.) The fact that most anime characters seem to be girls has
as much to do with the cuteness as it dues with sex appeal. But this may
also be done to increase marketing potential. Not only can "manly" action
figures be sold to boys, but cute stuffed toys can to sold to toddlers and
young girls.
6) Story complexity. All anime sires make use of vary large casts (several
dozen) as well as extremely complex plot interactions between all the
charters. Usually, a complexity on such a scale to make it impossible to
introduce all the elements in one or two episodes, and adding more of a "soap
quality" to the sires.
7) Relying heavily on human characters instead of animal characters.
8) Using more girl and woman characters in lead rolls, and not just as back
ground characters, or to "token" diversity. If fact, it would seem anime
relays heavily on female characters. Why this is still hotly debated. At
best, it's because female characters are more "flashy" (as oppose to male
charters being plane and simple and boring.) At worst, it's for the sex
appeal and to draw in adolescent boys.
9) Wider target audience. In general, US cartoons target only a small slice
of the US TV market. Usually, ages 6 to 12, and mostly to boys. Girls are
usually targeted by accident, and are rarely catered to. Depending on the
anima used for example, target audience can range from 4 to 20 both boys and
girls (all though they usually do target a more narrow audience on average
for practicality). Or even target pure adult with PG17 to XXX rated
materials. The advantage to this should be obvious to even the most
Dilbertized of CEO's. Higher ratings and grater advertising draw.
Of course, these are only my observations and opinions of what make anime,
anime. (Take them accordingly.) At the same time however, the Japanese to not
have copyrights on these elements, and thus can be easily implanted here.
Would it be anime? Probably not. But I don't think domestic CEOs of the
entertainment industry should care about that. Would it would be, is able to
compete. Not just with Japanese anime on TV, the big screen, or direct to
video markets, but with live action as well. Especially in science fiction
and fantasy themes.
Animation in general has other advantages and allows things to be done that
can't even be done on generous movie scale budgets, and to be done cheaply
and even routinely. Imagine the possibilities if Paramount decided to use
animation for the next generation of Star Trek TV sires. True alien beings
that would be impossible to be made with a live actor, could be made part of
a regular cast. It would be as cheep to use alien charters as fully human
characters because eliminates such as make up (including such elements as
extra make up time, medical problems that accrue with sophisticated face
applications, actor discomfort from hot heavy hot costumes, make up
applications, or over sized eye contacts.) Allow for far more daring
actions seines. without stunt doubles or the elaborate precautions for the
doubles safety as well as liability concern. Grater flexibility with sets,
and eliminating the need for a sound stage and remote shootings.
Many of these advantages have already been realized by US animators. They
have just never been used to there full potential. Especially when you
consider how narrow US cartoons are targeted (boys 6 to 12). Japanese
animators not only realize animations full potential, but push the envelope
when ever possible. That is why anime has become the market force it has
become.
Clearly, the US entertainment company that realizes this, will become an
entertainment force to be reckoned with. Just as Disney and Dream Works
production usually do well at the box office, even with average efforts and
less than stellar budgets.
PS: As you might have guessed, I am something of an advocate of a more
diversified entertainment industry (IE Anima in America) I am not just for
importing more anime, but I am also for domestic production (production of
anime, specifically for US consumption).
--
[ ___/\/\___ ]Code Name D.
[ _(_@ @)_ ]code_...@my-dejanews.com
[____\__\/__/____]Read Curse of the Ghost Dance at:
http://www.tass.org/fanfic/ranma.curse-of-the-ghost-dance
Disruptor
>
> Ok, I got one for you.
>
> What if it's based on an American work, but is written by Japanese for
> Japanese, done in the Japanese style, and entirely produced in Japan?
Ugh.
The Lensman anime & The Starship Troopers anime right?
Still anime.
Mike Shogun Tatsugawa
Derek Janssen <dja...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Mike Shogun Tatsugawa wrote:
>> We have been asked an interesting question by some members of the
>> entertainment industry. Anime has increasingly become a large force
>> in the home video market and has drawn the attention of the major
>> studios. However, their question to us was, "What is anime?"
>If they really asked you that question verbatim, you KNOW the answer to
>give them.
>Hint: It's the one Charlie Parker gave to "what is jazz?".
>Tell them (no, I'm not being sarcastic) to watch either one and ask
>themselves "is it a 'cartoon' because it's animated?"
What we are actually looking for is a legal definition that will be
applied throughout the industry. That's why we need to use rules to
define it. We understand that there will be exceptions though.
Some precedents that concern me are:
Canadaian Films - % content becomes very important with imports, tariffs
and most importantly, tax subsidies.
Oscars - If a film is dubbed, it becomes an American film. If it is
subbed, it is still considered a foreign film. (e.g. Das Boot)
There are other weird exceptions we will be looking at, but we are
also putting in place an appeals process that will allow companies to
contest the ruling.
Mike
Code Name D.
> What we are actually looking for is a legal definition that will be
> applied throughout the industry. That's why we need to use rules to
> define it. We understand that there will be exceptions though.
Hmm. You might be looking in the wrong place for an answer to that question.
"What is anime" is a question that confounds all who view or read it. Just as
said, you might as well ask, what is Jass, to define it from Swing, or to
define Swing from the Blues. As near as I might say leagaly, Anime is a style
of animation that is populer in Japan.
>
> Some precedents that concern me are:
>
> Canadaian Films - % content becomes very important with imports, tariffs
> and most importantly, tax subsidies.
This is surly law. And thus a question for law makers (not for inthusist).
Is the nashinality to be judged by ownership, target audeance, where the film
was made, first showen, the lanquage the film was originaly made in? There
would surly be pros and cons to each lable. And one defention my not work
for certain mesures.
>
> Oscars - If a film is dubbed, it becomes an American film. If it is
> subbed, it is still considered a foreign film. (e.g. Das Boot)
Tipical corprate lojic. If a film is dubbed, surly it would became an
English (language) film (asuming that it was dubben into English). Just
becase it is dubbed in English no more makes it American (why not Alstrailan
or Irish then), than dubbing in Spanish makes it Mexican. In this case, the
nastionality of the film would be defined by the auther/directer/producer,
sence these would be the primary persons who deserve the credit. Pherhaps
part of your problem is that you are working with a confuing precedent to
begine with. One that asumes two states, American films, and non-American
films.
raul / Les
Japan. "Manga" refers to comics from Japan.
If it resembles the art style of animation or comics from Japan, but
it's not actually from Japan, then it is "anime/manga inspired."
Les
http://www.wendy-project.com/
---
remove "qwerty" to reply by email
Haneto
>form of furry animals, or cute little girls or boys) in with even the most
>"masculine" of themes. (I have speculated if this is not an effort to
draw
>in girls and women to the audience. But I have yet been able to confirm this
>throw observation.) The fact that most anime characters seem to be girls has
>as much to do with the cuteness as it dues with sex appeal. But this may
>also be done to increase marketing potential. Not only can "manly" action
>figures be sold to boys, but cute stuffed toys can to sold to toddlers and
>young girls.
>
>8) Using more girl and woman characters in lead rolls, and not just as back
On these 2 above points, I noticed a strange preponderance of sexy-girl-as-
main-character anime in America. I think it mainly reflects the taste of
American anime fans who are mostly young men. If you look at most of what's
really selling in Japan, they're usually boy main characters, and child
oriented. I may be wrong, but the most popular anime right now seems to be
Pokemon and Kindaichi Shonen no Jikenbo (can't remember the exact title).
Shoujo anime with cute little girls have limited appeal as only girls will
watch it. (so I was told). For a sampling of what is really being shown in
Japan right now, check the program listing in a magazine like Animage - you'll
be surprised. Majority of the shows are purely for kids.
Mirai
Haneto
>Japan. "Manga" refers to comics from Japan.
Actually, the word anime didn't come into usage until the 70's. Prior to that,
animation was called "manga" also. Usually "telebi manga" or "manga eiga" for
movies. I have a Miyazaki movie "Taiyo no Ouji Horusu" from 1969, and in the
opening TITLE, it says in bold print, "Manga Eiga". Many older Japanese still
refer to anime as manga.
Mirai (If anyone is interested in buying this title from me, EMail me! Just
remove nospam)
Enrique Conty
Laura Gjovaag <real...@excite.com> wrote:
>What if it's based on an American work, but is written by Japanese for
>Japanese, done in the Japanese style, and entirely produced in Japan?
Oh, you mean like "Future Boy Conan", which is based on Alexander Key's
"The Incredible Tide"?
Anime, of course. ^_^
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
co...@enteract.com
Prepare for trouble! And make it double!
http://www.enteract.com/~conty/
Chris Byler
wrote:
>Ok, I got one for you.
>What if it's based on an American work, but is written by Japanese for
>Japanese, done in the Japanese style, and entirely produced in Japan?
Alternatively, what about a Korean produced and directed show closely
based on a Japanese manga (and using the manga's character designs,
plot, and artistic style)?
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
Haneto
> I may be wrong, but the most popular anime right now seems to be
>Pokemon and Kindaichi Shonen no Jikenbo (can't remember the exact title).
Oops, my mistake. The face of the kid in glasses plastered on every kid's
magazine in Japan right now is "Meitantei Conan"
I also forgot to add that girls (women?) tend to prefer good looking male
characters, at least in Japan since most of the fans are adolescents. Look at
the huge appeal of Gundam W with girls. It was purposefully created with 5
bishounen just for that reason. The manga and aniparo (anime parody based on
the series) basically look like shoujo manga. Hard core male Gundam fans,
usually drawn to mecha were not really satisfied with this one. Even in a
series like Fushigi Yuugi which has a girl as the main character, the
popularity among girls lies in the bishounen that surround her. I'm just
talking from personal experience and observation of Japanese adolescent girls.
I may be wrong with American female fans. Any female anime fans out there?
I want to add a question of my own, too. Would a series like Battle of the
Planets still count as anime? According to some of the definitions, it still
does. However, about half the cuts were added by Americans accompanied with
severe editing and changing of story, retaining very little of the original
storyline. I think if the original creator saw it (was it Tatsuo Yoshida?) he
would have disowned it.
Mirai
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <8DBEA9FBDte...@news.halcyon.com>, Laura Gjovaag
<real...@excite.com> wrote:
>Ok, I got one for you.
>
>What if it's based on an American work, but is written by Japanese for
>Japanese, done in the Japanese style, and entirely produced in Japan?
Still an anime, if you're referring to that particular version of the
work.
For example, the Starship Troopers book/movie isn't anime, but the
Starship Troopers anime is.
Arnold Kim
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <7gtd7p$7r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Code Name D.
<code_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>But in M.H.O. there is more to anime that just "cartoons from Japan". There
>are three observations that separate anime from domestic cartoons.
>
>1) Designed and written for a wider age range. As well as being geared for
>both boys and girls.
Not true. Anime can perhaps have across-the-board appeal, but they do
create them with target audiences in mind.
>2) A grater level of artistic freedom and experimentation on the part of the
>writers and animators.
Not always the case.
>3) Freedom from sensors and the stigma of cartoons being only for kids.
Again, not always the case. From what I've heard, many Japanese still
do not find the latter to be true.
>In troth, anime is simply the application of skilled artistes of US
>animators,
>in a Japanese environment. The word anime itself is a borrowed word from
_US_ animators? Also, anime isn't always necessarily that skilled.
>the
>English word Animation. Japanese artists, when interviewed, repeatedly sight
>American artists as a sources of inspiration in their youth (Walt Disney
>being
>a major influence.) Over the years, throw experience and inspiration, and
I think that was more way back when... nowadays it seems to be
american filmmakers.
>operating in a culture that was (and is still to some extent) more free for
>experimentation. (Including pornographic anime, often called hentia (Japanese
>for perverted.) As a result, anime has produced these "advancements" (if you
>would) to the field of animation (and story telling in general).
Actually, from what I hear, Japan is far more conservative than the
ideas they express in anime usually show.
>1) Exaggeration of facile expression. Amplifying emotions. IE, the enlarged
>eyes, and mouth that can range from non-extant, to literally from ear to ear.
>Super deformation, sweet droops, face vaulting are a few other example of
>exaggerated expressions that can employed, even to realistically drawn
>characters. Vary similar when painting left realism to abstract art.
I don't see this as an advancement as it doesn't seem to have a
measurable impact on animation or art in the rest of theworld. Modern
american comics included; I see the "manga-ization" as more of a fad
or replacement for actual talent than anything else.
>2) Multiple view points. By using cut away, windows, or split screens, they
>can show more than one POV (the faces of dulling combatants at the same time
>for example.)
That's true, but I don't see how this is a major advancement.
>3) Complex back grounds, color, and lighting. Many anime si-fi anime use
>truly elaborate backgrounds, ship designs, and other eliminates that simply
>can not be produced in live action. (Especially when on a budget.) Also,
>anime tends to use primary colors (making them visual attractive) but quickly
>changing pallets to different seines and environments. Lighting and color
>shades are flexible, allowing brightly colored charters to move into dark and
>shadowy rooms.
I think this is a generalization- there's quite a few anime out there
that actually look pretty washed out, usually on purpose- Grave of the
FIreflies, for example.
>4) Pure artistic exploration. Japanese animators are always looking for
>visual challenges to present. Challenges that can demand unusual drawing
>techniques, or even require special technology. Some examples might be with
>handling sun light, looking directly at the sun, moving shadows (from
>clouds), weather (such as fog, rain, wind, heat, cold, etc ), gravity, under
>water, just to name a few. In short, to present something never before see
>in the world of animation, as well as something that would stun and wow the
>audience.
True, while there are many who innovative and create artistic
challenges for the audience (Hideaki Anno, Mamoru Oshii, Hayao
Miyazaki to name a few) but I also think there are many others who
don't try to challenge viewers much, and settle into an artistic
formula.
>5) The kawii (cuteness) factor. Mixing in just raw cuteness (usually in the
>form of furry animals, or cute little girls or boys) in with even the most
>"masculine" of themes. (I have speculated if this is not an effort to draw
>in girls and women to the audience. But I have yet been able to confirm this
>throw observation.) The fact that most anime characters seem to be girls has
>as much to do with the cuteness as it dues with sex appeal. But this may
>also be done to increase marketing potential. Not only can "manly" action
>figures be sold to boys, but cute stuffed toys can to sold to toddlers and
>young girls.
I do admit I like the Kawaii factor.^_^
>6) Story complexity. All anime sires make use of vary large casts (several
>dozen) as well as extremely complex plot interactions between all the
>charters. Usually, a complexity on such a scale to make it impossible to
>introduce all the elements in one or two episodes, and adding more of a "soap
>quality" to the sires.
I'll grant that anime does seem to be better at this than other
mediums. Whereas in a sitcom, there's an idea or concept about that
sitcom, and each episode is somehow sprung off from that idea, whereas
there tends to be more of a real plot in most series. Granted, the
former does happen in anime as well, but with less frequency.
>7) Relying heavily on human characters instead of animal characters.
Well, most western animated characters are human as well.^_^
>8) Using more girl and woman characters in lead rolls, and not just as back
>ground characters, or to "token" diversity. If fact, it would seem anime
>relays heavily on female characters. Why this is still hotly debated. At
>best, it's because female characters are more "flashy" (as oppose to male
>charters being plane and simple and boring.) At worst, it's for the sex
>appeal and to draw in adolescent boys.
But does that make it a good thing or a bad thing? Putting them in as
lead roles for the sake of feminism, or because they have sex appeal?
>9) Wider target audience. In general, US cartoons target only a small slice
>of the US TV market. Usually, ages 6 to 12, and mostly to boys. Girls are
>usually targeted by accident, and are rarely catered to. Depending on the
>anima used for example, target audience can range from 4 to 20 both boys and
>girls (all though they usually do target a more narrow audience on average
>for practicality). Or even target pure adult with PG17 to XXX rated
>materials. The advantage to this should be obvious to even the most
>Dilbertized of CEO's. Higher ratings and grater advertising draw.
Animation does seem to be _more_ accepted in Japan as a viable
medium,but in terms of public perception, ther still are limits.
>Of course, these are only my observations and opinions of what make anime,
>anime. (Take them accordingly.) At the same time however, the Japanese to
>not
>have copyrights on these elements, and thus can be easily implanted here.
I think it would be a good idea if they did. Whether or not America
is ready to accept them is something else.
>Would it be anime? Probably not. But I don't think domestic CEOs of the
>entertainment industry should care about that. Would it would be, is able to
>compete. Not just with Japanese anime on TV, the big screen, or direct to
>video markets, but with live action as well. Especially in science fiction
>and fantasy themes.
Once again, I don't know if the public is _ready_ to accept animation
as a serious and viable medium for adults quite yet. They may be;
they may not be.
I personally hope they will, but one can't be so sure...
Arnold Kim
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <37327f0d...@news.vt.edu>,
cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu (Chris Byler) wrote:
>On 6 May 1999 23:42:36 GMT, Laura Gjovaag <real...@excite.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Ok, I got one for you.
>
>>What if it's based on an American work, but is written by Japanese for
>>Japanese, done in the Japanese style, and entirely produced in Japan?
>
>Alternatively, what about a Korean produced and directed show closely
>based on a Japanese manga (and using the manga's character designs,
>plot, and artistic style)?
Just wondering, did you have a particular title in mind when saying
that, or is it purely hypothetical?
Arnold Kim
raul / Les
knowlingly...
$>Pretty much like everyone else says. "Anime" refers to animation
from
$>Japan. "Manga" refers to comics from Japan.
$
$Actually, the word anime didn't come into usage until the 70's.
Prior to that,
$animation was called "manga" also. Usually "telebi manga" or "manga
eiga" for
$movies. I have a Miyazaki movie "Taiyo no Ouji Horusu" from 1969,
and in the
$opening TITLE, it says in bold print, "Manga Eiga". Many older
Japanese still
$refer to anime as manga.
$
$Mirai (If anyone is interested in buying this title from me, EMail
me! Just
$remove nospam)
Oh, I know that's the case in Japan. This thread is about the
definitions for us English speakers, though. People who call animated
stuff "manga" usually get corrected around here.
M Arnold
>What we are actually looking for is a legal definition that will be
>applied throughout the industry. That's why we need to use rules to
>define it. We understand that there will be exceptions though.
I was reading part of an old Okada Toshio article on the web the other
day, where he tried to describe the differences between "Japanimation" and
"anime" in American terms. Japanimation are the old-time Japanese
cartoons that were dubbed, edited, and changed for American mass
consumption. Character names are changed, story is simplified... Star
Blazers, Robotech, etc.
Anime are Japanese cartoons that are translated to English as-is.
("'Anime' to wa nihonsei anime wo sono mama eigoka shita mono da.")
Subtitled, character names kept the same, story kept the same.
I wish I had time to translate the article...
Mike A
M Arnold
>If it resembles the art style of animation or comics from Japan, but
>it's not actually from Japan, then it is "anime/manga inspired."
What about cartoons made in Japan in styles that resemble the art style of
animation or comics from America? Those are probably still "anime," huh.
Mike A
Joe Monson
>
>$I have a Miyazaki movie "Taiyo no Ouji Horusu" from 1969,
>and in the
>$opening TITLE, it says in bold print, "Manga Eiga". Many older
>Japanese still
>$refer to anime as manga.
"Taiyo no Ouji Horusu" is actually a Takahata Isao film (he directed it).
Miyazaki was the scene designer and did key animation. It was done while
they were both at Toei Doga.
Joe
>> PSX CompSched -+- Nippon Resources FAQ http://www.enol.com/~nihon/psx/ <<
>> Hard-to-Find Anime items: http://www.enol.com/~nihon/lp-list.html <<
>Never fight with a dragon for thou art crunchy and goest well with cheese.<
>> Miyazaki Web at Nausicaa.net: http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/ <<
Joe Monson
>
>In this case, I'm referring to this:
>http://www.tbs.co.jp/ProgramGuide/AN/an008.html
>
>As I posted about it earlier and got no response, and began wondering if it
>really fit the mold of Anime. I was wondering if I need to go somewhere
>else to find out more about it (I'm trying to get a copy of the series for
>my husband).
Yes, it is anime. By both definitions of the word:
Japanese definition: animation (no matter where it is produced)
American definition: animation produced in Japan
Looks like a fun little show. ^_^
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <7gvmu1$7ae$1...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>, n934...@cc.wwu.edu (M
Arnold) wrote:
By the conventional US definition, yes. Anime in the US= animation,
generally, for the Japanese by the Japanese. In this case, source of
inspiration doesn't matter.
Thus, "anime inspired" means inspired from animation that was made by
the Japanese for the Japanese.
Arnold Kim
Chris Sobieniak
<<Tipical corprate lojic. If a film is dubbed, surly it would became an
English (language) film (asuming that it was dubben into English). Just
becase it is dubbed in English no more makes it American (why not
Alstrailan or Irish then), than dubbing in Spanish makes it Mexican. In
this case, the nastionality of the film would be defined by the
auther/directer/producer, sence these would be the primary persons who
deserve the credit. Pherhaps part of your problem is that you are
working with a confuing precedent to begine with. One that asumes two
states, American films, and non-American films.>>
Funny how that kind of logic was played out though. Too bad the Academy
can overlook these kinds of scenarios. Tell you the truth, in the past,
animation in the Oscars used to acted quite different in contrast to
what has became today.
Over a half a century ago, most animation that did get in the Oscar
nomations were the major studio cartoons like Disney, Warner Bros. MGM,
etc. back then, the title for their nomiation was "Best Cartoon,"
because most animation produced then was termed as a cartoon (know
nowadays as "traditional cel" animation) and not for another genre (i.e.
clay, puppet, pixilation, etc.).
When the 1950's came around, new techniques in animation and the
increasing number of independent animators have pushed the envelope for
the "best cartoon" slot. Such that it really wasn't the right
definition for the animated genre. One such film that seemed rightfully
for the prestigue is Norman McLaren's 1953 Academy Award Winning short
Neighbours, which was classified as a live-action short, even though the
use of pixilation (animated people in stop-motion) really garner the
other (I may be wrong though).
Sometime in the late sixties to early seventies, the title was initially
changed to the better suited "Best/or Outstanding Animated Short
Subject." By that time, much of the animation that were nominated,
didn't come from the major studios anymore, but from independents as
well as international animators. The trend still continues today,
although much of the academy (as I heard) is composed of Disney execs,
who handles much of the precedure.
M Arnold
>n934...@cc.wwu.edu (M Arnold) wrote:
>>What about cartoons made in Japan in styles that resemble the art style of
>>animation or comics from America? Those are probably still "anime," huh.
>By the conventional US definition, yes. Anime in the US= animation,
>generally, for the Japanese by the Japanese. In this case, source of
>inspiration doesn't matter.
But it does when there's anime inspiration for western cartoons... Why?
>Thus, "anime inspired" means inspired from animation that was made by
>the Japanese for the Japanese.
OK, but why does this 'inspiration' only work one-way in our definition?
Tezuka was inspired by American animation, for example... are we trying to
ignore that?
Or if not, why bother to label "anime-inspired" American cartoons? If
it's made for Americans by the Americans, it's just plain American
animation; not anime, not "anime-inspired"... right? Which one is it?
Does source of inspiration matter?
Mike A
James King
M Arnold <n934...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote in message
news:7h5jnr$h0v$1...@ra.cc.wwu.edu...
> "Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> writes:
<Snip>
> >By the conventional US definition, yes. Anime in the US= animation,
> >generally, for the Japanese by the Japanese. In this case, source of
> >inspiration doesn't matter.
>
> But it does when there's anime inspiration for western cartoons... Why?
Mike, you're losing it, man. An anime inspired western 'toon is an anime
inspired western 'toon. A western 'toon inspired anime is a western 'toon
inspired anime. What (other than the direction of the inspiration) is the
difference here?
--
James 'Tengu' King -The Magpie of Millennial Madness
"Hello, Mr. Postmodern"
-Lyabibrave referring to me on r.a.a.m.
Visit the Anime Tangents Page:
http://westwood.fortunecity.com/smith/467/tangents_index.htm
---------------
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law --
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed --
- In Memoriam A. H. H., by Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1850
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <7h5jnr$h0v$1...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>, n934...@cc.wwu.edu (M
Arnold) wrote:
>"Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> writes:
>>n934...@cc.wwu.edu (M Arnold) wrote:
>
>>>What about cartoons made in Japan in styles that resemble the art style of
>>>animation or comics from America? Those are probably still "anime," huh.
>
>>By the conventional US definition, yes. Anime in the US= animation,
>>generally, for the Japanese by the Japanese. In this case, source of
>>inspiration doesn't matter.
>
>But it does when there's anime inspiration for western cartoons... Why?
Well, we could say western-inspired anime, or US inspired anime, but
that doesn't change the fact that it's still anime.
>>Thus, "anime inspired" means inspired from animation that was made by
>>the Japanese for the Japanese.
>
>OK, but why does this 'inspiration' only work one-way in our definition?
>Tezuka was inspired by American animation, for example... are we trying to
>ignore that?
Well, in _that_ case... I think it has a lot to do with our
perceptions of anime and US works here as well. Anime, in terms of
style, is seen as a work of originality, and I don't think the sources
of its "look" are given much credit or thought here. Somehow, I
guess, it matters to people less in part because the derivation
happened so long ago. Whereas with homegrown works, we're more easily
able to recognize when a work is derivative of something else.
>Or if not, why bother to label "anime-inspired" American cartoons? If
>it's made for Americans by the Americans, it's just plain American
>animation; not anime, not "anime-inspired"... right? Which one is it?
>Does source of inspiration matter?
Now I think it sort of does, but I don't think people notice or care
as much when it comes to anime's own sources.
Arnold Kim
M Arnold
>Mike, you're losing it, man. An anime inspired western 'toon is an anime
>inspired western 'toon. A western 'toon inspired anime is a western 'toon
>inspired anime. What (other than the direction of the inspiration) is the
>difference here?
I think you've got it figured out fine. For the sake of this discussion,
I don't think there are any other differences in the way we should
describe foreign "inspiration" in cartoons (or any cultural product, for
that matter). If we're going to recognize "inspiration" as a significant
influence in work, we recognize it in all cases, not just the ones
influenced by products of Japanese culture.
Mike A
M Arnold
>Well, we could say western-inspired anime, or US inspired anime, but
>that doesn't change the fact that it's still anime.
We could say, "anime-inspired American cartoon" too, but that doesn't
change the fact that it's an American cartoon, not anime.
>perceptions of anime and US works here as well. Anime, in terms of
>style, is seen as a work of originality, and I don't think the sources
I think you've inadvertently pointed out what I was hinting at. Anime
isn't a style, and if we label "anime-inspired American cartoon" but not
"Western-inspired Japanese cartoon" we're contradicting ourselves.
>of its "look" are given much credit or thought here.
You're right, and if we're going to spend time pointing out that so-and-so
American cartoon is inspired by anime, we need to point out also how
so-and-so Japanese cartoon was inspired by Disney, for example. Miyazaki
was even inspired by early Disney work.
>Now I think it sort of does, but I don't think people notice or care
>as much when it comes to anime's own sources.
I think you're exactly right. I wonder why not...
Mike A
Code Name D.
these are just leagel defnitions. Say an American duse produce an
anime (with an e) stile. Technical, it's Animation. But that would
not keep the distributer from billing the peice as anime.
--
[ ___/\/\___ ]Code Name D.
[ _(_@ @)_ ]code_...@my-dejanews.com
[____\__\/__/____]Read Curse of the Ghost Dance at:
http://www.tass.org/fanfic/ranma.curse-of-the-ghost-dance
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Arnold Kim
----------
>>Now I think it sort of does, but I don't think people notice or care
>>as much when it comes to anime's own sources.
>
>I think you're exactly right. I wonder why not...
Well, I think the perception of anime here to some degree is how
original and innovative the medium is, and how more western comics and
animation should aspire to be like it. We recognize it as something
original to be derived from, not a derivative work itself.
Arnold Kim
David Johnston
>
> >>What about cartoons made in Japan in styles that resemble the art style of
> >>animation or comics from America? Those are probably still "anime," huh.
>
> >By the conventional US definition, yes. Anime in the US= animation,
> >generally, for the Japanese by the Japanese. In this case, source of
> >inspiration doesn't matter.
>
> But it does when there's anime inspiration for western cartoons... Why?
Just about all anime has western influence. Look at those pasty-white
skins and big disney eyes.
>
> >Thus, "anime inspired" means inspired from animation that was made by
> >the Japanese for the Japanese.
>
> OK, but why does this 'inspiration' only work one-way in our definition?
> Tezuka was inspired by American animation, for example... are we trying to
> ignore that?
Why shouldn't we?
>
> Or if not, why bother to label "anime-inspired" American cartoons? If
> it's made for Americans by the Americans, it's just plain American
> animation; not anime, not "anime-inspired"... right? Which one is it?
> Does source of inspiration matter?
Yes. But it matters more one way than the other.
David Johnston
Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it means
little.
Chika
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Just about all anime has western influence. Look at those pasty-white
> skins and big disney eyes.
Here we go again. *YAWN*
Chika
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it means
> little.
Hurray for the red white annnnn..... *SNORE*
M Arnold
>Just about all anime has western influence. Look at those pasty-white
>skins and big disney eyes.
That's right.
>> OK, but why does this 'inspiration' only work one-way in our definition?
>> Tezuka was inspired by American animation, for example... are we trying to
>> ignore that?
>Why shouldn't we?
Because we're paying strict attention to those shows we think are
"anime-inspired." If one doesn't matter, the other shouldn't either.
>Yes. But it matters more one way than the other.
You've spelled out what I'm getting at -- I totally disagree. Why do you
think so?
Mike A
M Arnold
>M Arnold wrote:
>Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it means
>little.
It looks more to me like people are trying to ignore it...
Mike A
David Johnston
You don't have to "try to ignore" the things you don't care about.
David Johnston
Dog bites man is not much of a news story. Man bites dog is another
matter.
Apart from that we care when local stuff has Japanese influences because
we (those of us who do care) like that particular artistic style (since
it isn't Japanese influence in general, but a particular style that
happens to be recently popular in Japan). We're consumers, not art and
literature critics.
Charles M. Hagmaier
>
> >Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it
> >means little.
>
> It looks more to me like people are trying to ignore it...
>
Well, the situation is, most "american influences" cited date back
some thirty-forty years ago. I'd see your point more if there were
some more recent serious, stylistic influences you could quote.
Most of them seem to be from american film, not animation - the
whole Blade Runner/Alien thing, ferinstance.
Constantly harping on american influences in Japanese animation
is rather like some pud going on about the influence of Shakespeare on
contemporary american theatre. The usual response being "Yeah, so?"
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs
Disruptor
>
> M Arnold wrote:
> >
> > David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> writes:
> > >M Arnold wrote:
> >
> > >Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it
> > >means little.
> >
> > It looks more to me like people are trying to ignore it...
> >
>
> Well, the situation is, most "american influences" cited date back
> some thirty-forty years ago. I'd see your point more if there were
> some more recent serious, stylistic influences you could quote.
> Most of them seem to be from american film, not animation - the
> whole Blade Runner/Alien thing, ferinstance.
of the Lodoss Wars? Not a movie, something else.
> Constantly harping on american influences in Japanese animation
> is rather like some pud going on about the influence of Shakespeare on
> contemporary american theatre. The usual response being "Yeah, so?"
David Johnston
>
> Charles M. Hagmaier wrote:
> >
> > M Arnold wrote:
> > >
> > > David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> writes:
> > > >M Arnold wrote:
> > >
> > > >Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it
> > > >means little.
> > >
> > > It looks more to me like people are trying to ignore it...
> > >
> >
> > Well, the situation is, most "american influences" cited date back
> > some thirty-forty years ago. I'd see your point more if there were
> > some more recent serious, stylistic influences you could quote.
> > Most of them seem to be from american film, not animation - the
> > whole Blade Runner/Alien thing, ferinstance.
> Okay what about the American influence for the shows Slayers and Record
> of the Lodoss Wars? Not a movie, something else.
What about it? It hasn't been ignored, but it simply isn't a factor
in whether one chooses to buy them or not. Whereas if one likes the
dominant Japanese artistic style, with cute big eyed people, one might
be inclined to pick up a domestic copy of it.
Charles M. Hagmaier
>
> Charles M. Hagmaier wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, the situation is, most "american influences" cited date back
> > some thirty-forty years ago. I'd see your point more if there were
> > some more recent serious, stylistic influences you could quote.
> > Most of them seem to be from american film, not animation - the
> > whole Blade Runner/Alien thing, ferinstance.
>
> Okay what about the American influence for the shows Slayers and
> Record of the Lodoss Wars? Not a movie, something else.
Yes. A British author, ie, JRR Tolkien. Or are you going to claim
that the hodgepodge bastard Tolkienism that TSR laughingly copyrighted
was an original style?
> > Constantly harping on american influences in Japanese animation
> > is rather like some pud going on about the influence of Shakespeare
> > on contemporary american theatre. The usual response being "Yeah,
> > so?"
>
> The old stuff? yes.
Care to offer an example of contemporary american theatre that
isn't heavily informed by Shakespearan/Elizabethan stylism? Taking
into account that the whole Arnaud idiocy has pretty well run its
course and gone away, and that Mamet & Wilson etc. still hold to the
five-act structure.
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs
Arnold Kim
----------
In article <7hibit$hi$1...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>, n934...@cc.wwu.edu (M Arnold)
wrote:
>David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> writes:
>>M Arnold wrote:
>
>>Except that American influence is so ubiquitous that to mention it means
>>little.
>
>It looks more to me like people are trying to ignore it...
I don't think they're _trying_ to ignore it- I just think they don't
notice it or it doesn't come to mind as often. I think a lot of
people consider anime to be a great source of originality, and they
tend not to notice that some of it is, to some degree, derivative.
Arnold Kim