×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
Studio Mir Director Kang Hei Chul on The Little Mermaid Twist in The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep




Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mdo7



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 6836
Location: Katy, Texas, USA
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2025 10:26 am Reply with quote
ANN interview wrote:
KANG: The term "anime" refers to Japanese animation or styles inspired by it, but it carries a connotation that Japanese animation is a unique genre with distinct charms that set it apart from other forms of animation. Of course, interpretations of the term can vary based on cultural and regional contexts, and its definition is continuously expanding.

Japanese animation began under the influence of American animation, such as Disney, and developed its own style during the 1980s, when many notable titles emerged, including Katsuhiro Ōtomo's Akira. The anime industry introduced a new language of animation direction that has inspired producers and artists worldwide.


Well he's not wrong, Japanese animation was influenced by Disney, and even the earliest pre-Tezuka era anime I've watched recently when I borrowed Roots of Japanese anime on DVD from the library:



The animation in those pre-Tezuka anime do resemble a lot like the early American animation from the golden age era, including rubber hose animation also when I watched one of the animation in that DVD. So yeah, I might not like Netflix using "anime" label to applied it to non-Japanese animation that looked like anime, but then again, a lot of early anime that pre-date Tezuka do resemble American animation from that era. So I don't understand why there are anime fans complaining about it assuming they studied their history of animation particularly Japanese animation's history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
WikiSonic



Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Posts: 75
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:49 pm Reply with quote
mdo7 wrote:
The animation in those pre-Tezuka anime do resemble a lot like the early American animation from the golden age era, including rubber hose animation also when I watched one of the animation in that DVD. So yeah, I might not like Netflix using "anime" label to applied it to non-Japanese animation that looked like anime, but then again, a lot of early anime that pre-date Tezuka do resemble American animation from that era. So I don't understand why there are anime fans complaining about it assuming they studied their history of animation particularly Japanese animation's history.

Because "anime" isn't a style. It's a term borrowed from Japan that's been used outside of Japan to refer to animation originating from the country. Nowadays it's fairly simple to categorize anime as animated works produced by the animation industry in Japan, an industry which has always been evolving and was never restricted to certain styles or techniques.

I also resent the concept of "looking like anime," when it's pretty easy to tell that these shows weren't produced by Japanese studios. One of the most important aspects of the Japanese animation industry is that it didn't develop into an entirely for-hire industry that merely provides animation for third parties with little creative input of their own. Japanese studios, producers, and animators have been able to build up their image while primarily producing for the domestic market for decades now. Anime has always been whatever Japanese studios want it to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdo7



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 6836
Location: Katy, Texas, USA
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2025 6:03 pm Reply with quote
WikiSonic wrote:
mdo7 wrote:
The animation in those pre-Tezuka anime do resemble a lot like the early American animation from the golden age era, including rubber hose animation also when I watched one of the animation in that DVD. So yeah, I might not like Netflix using "anime" label to applied it to non-Japanese animation that looked like anime, but then again, a lot of early anime that pre-date Tezuka do resemble American animation from that era. So I don't understand why there are anime fans complaining about it assuming they studied their history of animation particularly Japanese animation's history.

Because "anime" isn't a style. It's a term borrowed from Japan that's been used outside of Japan to refer to animation originating from the country. Nowadays it's fairly simple to categorize anime as animated works produced by the animation industry in Japan, an industry which has always been evolving and was never restricted to certain styles or techniques.

I also resent the concept of "looking like anime," when it's pretty easy to tell that these shows weren't produced by Japanese studios. One of the most important aspects of the Japanese animation industry is that it didn't develop into an entirely for-hire industry that merely provides animation for third parties with little creative input of their own. Japanese studios, producers, and animators have been able to build up their image while primarily producing for the domestic market for decades now. Anime has always been whatever Japanese studios want it to be.


I don't want to spoil it for you but the definition of anime can get blurred because I'm going to give you this video, do you know are you familiar with Kenny Lauderdale? Because he explained in the video really well on how the definition of anime become blurred, and several titles has muddied the water when it comes to the definition of anime.

Oh, and you don't like it when "looking like anime" is being exploited. Well bad news, even Japanese companies are green-lighting the whole "looking like anime" animation to foreign studios and I'm not talking about South Korea, China, Taiwan, or even Vietnam. I assume you know who Acura is, if I told you they made an "anime" shorts to promote their brand, but they didn't get a Japanese studio to do these animated shorts, they were done by a studio in the UK. And before you asked: No, it's not anime but it's hard to believe Acura would get a UK animation studio to do this and called it "anime" to fool people. This is different compared to how Mercedes-Benz got Production I.G to create animation to promote their brand (and yes, that counts as anime). Now, what do you think's going to happen if more Japanese companies decided to outsource anime to foreign animation studio (which could the US, UK, or Europe), and the Japanese companies still called these "anime, how would you react to that?

Also, as I said, the definition of anime get blurred and messy when it comes to titles, and who get to be classified or come up with what is anime. I mean for example, there has been debate if any Rankin-Bass titles that had animation done by Topcraft (that also applies to titles animated by Toei Animation, Mushi Production) should be re-classified as anime because let say one of their title, The Stingiest Man in Town (a Rankin-Bass/Topcraft's work has been classified as anime by ANN, MAL/Myanimelist, Anilist, and AniDB). If the Stingiest Man in Town is the lone Rankin-Bass/Topcraft title to be classified as anime, then should other Rankin-Bass/Topcraft's work be re-classify as anime too, does that mean The Last Unicorn, or The Flight of Dragons should now be re-classified as anime because of The Stingiest Man In Town is now an anime. When you classified and acknowledge one Rankin-Bass/Topcraft's work as anime, then that's going to make people wonder if other works done by the same studios should now be given anime classification. In this logic, that means The Last Unicorn, and The Flight of Dragons should be re-classified as anime.

I can also make the same argument for Rankin-Bass's stop-motion animation work like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer because the studio that did the animation was also involved with Nutcracker Fantasy (which has also been classified as anime by ANN, MAL/Myanimelist, Anilist, and AniDB). Again, same situation like The Stingiest Man in Town, if one title done by that studio is classified as anime, does that applied to their other works because it uses the same stop-motion technique. If Nutcracker Fantasy is classified as anime by all respective anime database, does that mean that Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, The Life and Adventure of Santa Claus, Santa Claus is Comin to Town, or any Rankin-Bass's stop-motion work done by that same studio will now have to be re-classified as anime? You see how the definition of anime get blurred and the term get muddied?

Now do you understand why the debate get a bit confusing, and the term "anime" can get blurred?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
WikiSonic



Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Posts: 75
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2025 8:23 pm Reply with quote
mdo7 wrote:
Now do you understand why the debate get a bit confusing, and the term "anime" can get blurred?

You're correct in identifying that there's a pre-history to the modern anime industry where things aren't so clear. I do feel an argument can be made that what we've come to categorize as Japanese animation is a modern invention with some gray areas. However, I also think that because the brand image of the term "anime" as Japanese animation has garnered so much recognition there is some staying power to the label for the foreseeable future.
mdo7 wrote:
Now, what do you think's going to happen if more Japanese companies decided to outsource anime to foreign animation studio (which could the US, UK, or Europe), and the Japanese companies still called these "anime, how would you react to that?

You're not wrong that the increasing likelihood of collaborative production methods means what we know as anime could change. I do think there's less artistic integrity in commissioning an anime-style ad, however, and so that doesn't bother me too much, although I don't really care for anything that feels the need to advertise itself as "anime," considering the popular usage of the term occurred organically.

Of course, since "anime" referring to Japanese animation specifically was never an official stance, the specificity of its usage could very well change in the future, and even if I find that possibility unpleasant I am only one person with my own definition. When it comes to unequivocally non-Japanese productions being advertised as "anime," though, I can't help but feel that that's an inorganic hijacking of the term which should be discouraged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group