Forum - View topicMicrosoft Office: Anime = Violence & Sex.
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
daxomni
 Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||
|
I'm always seeing folks talk about how anime gets a bad rap because people naively associate it primarily with heavy violence and explicit sexual themes, but I was wondering if anyone ever tries to correct this supposedly flawed definition.
Do folks ever try to write Microsoft and get the definition changed or otherwise updated to focus on other aspects? I'm not saying anyone should; I'm just curious if anyone ever does. EDIT: Apparently a mod silently updated my topic so that it was more descriptive, fair enough, but they misspelled it as "Mircosoft" so I had to fix it a second time. LOL. Last edited by daxomni on Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
angel_lover
 Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||
|
In this case, it's not really Microsoft's fault. They just license the dictionary content from Bloomsbury Publishing, a UK company. A while back, if you looked at what little anime was available in the shops here and thought that was all the anime there was, you'd have agreed with the definition. You could probably expect better from a respected publisher such as Bloomsbury, but because English has so many damn words then if you want every single one to be defined correctly, you'll end up paying $100's for each dictionary license instead of the few cents that Bloomsbury probably get.
|
||||
|
||||
|
_Earthwyrm_
|
|
|||
I was wondering what part was wrong about the definition, and then I saw this bit of text in an ad at the top of the screen which said "Includes Sia's Panties", and I realised that you're right. 'Creepy' is missing from the definition. |
||||
Richard J.
 Posts: 3367 Location: Sic Semper Tyrannis. |
|
|||
What always strikes me as stupid is that anime is really no different from live-action series in terms of violence and sex. Try watching any series that isn't aimed at kids (and hell, even some of the ones that are aimed at kids) of just regular live TV and you'll start noticing a fair bit of skin and violence in a decent portion of the programming. Anime gets a bad rap about this sort of content only because people are so obsessed with the idea that all cartoons are for kids. @ Earth_Wyrm: Shuffle including panties isn't creepy. It's a pretty fanservicy show (though much less than some) and it was something of a humerously intended item. (Personally, I wanted a stuffed kitty like Primula's but unfortnately that suggestion wasn't latched on to.) Creepy kind of requires that there be less of an obvious connection to the series otherwise it just seems like a logical choice. There's nothing inherently creepy about panties. What some fans may chose to do with them could be creepy but most are just putting them aside as a rather unusual collectible if the thread on Anime on DVD can be believed. |
||||
|
||||
Showsni
 Posts: 641 |
|
|||
|
It might be meant to be humorous, but I wouldn't want to explain to my Mum why I was ordering girl's underwear off the internet if she happened to open the parcel...
The Oxford English Dictionary describes anime as "A Japanese animated film or television programme, drawn in a meticulously detailed style, usually featuring characters with distinctive large, staring eyes, and typically having a science-fiction or fantasy theme, sometimes including violent or sexually explicit material; this genre of entertainment." So the sex and vioence is now only sometimes present, rather than often. It also describes anime as "A cuirass or breastplate, of Italian origin, constructed of plates overlapping in such a way as to allow comparatively flexible movement." so it's important to get the right kind. |
||||
|
||||
|
JacobC
ANN Contributor
 Posts: 3728 Location: SoCal |
|
|||
|
Yeah, that definition doesn't bother me because it's kinda true.
I mean, to distinguish anime from the American understanding of animation, you have to note that the subject matter is often more dire. Even piddly stuff like Naruto has more violent and sexual content than a tweeners show over here of the same caliber. However, the Oxford English Dictionary definition is a far more perfect one, I think. Style-wise, one of the distinguishing characteristics of most anime is realism/attention to detail over frames per second or consistent motion. |
||||
|
||||
|
angel_lover
Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||
|
Like I was saying, if you want an accurate definition it will cost you (unless you attend an academic institution with an OED site license). The Bloomsbury definition could be corrected simply by changing "often" to "sometimes", but it's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Panties? My ex dressed her teddy bear in her Najica panties. |
||||
|
||||
Boomerang Flash
 Posts: 1021 |
|
|||
|
I see no problem. The definition states "violent or sexually explicit." No degree of violence is specified. Given that something as mild as an obviously exaggerated hammer being used to mash someone who suffers no visible harm is an example of violence, the definition is accurate with respect to content.
|
||||
|
||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||
|
Yah, everybody knows sex and violence in animated form is pretty much a Japanese monopoly, and Hollywood would never.... umm... oh, forget it.
- abunai |
||||
|
||||
|
JacobC
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3728 Location: SoCal |
|
|||
Hee hee. I love the Warner Bros. Early on in the development of animation, they were the only production company not trying (and failing) to replicate the charm of Disney. Don't get me wrong, I think Walt's contributions to animation were HUGE, but Warner Bros. did their own thing by making entertainment that everyone could enjoy, no more "kid-aimed" than any other entertainment in the 40s/50s era. And Tex Avery is the shizz. I guess Hanna Barbera tried to do their own thing too, but to me they're a big ugly bruise in the legacy of animation. Taking the dynamic of a radio show and slapping minimalist and inconsistent animation on top of it, using the same generic backgrounds and walk cycles for every one of their dozens of awful shows. I mean, the Flintstones were kind of fun, and Yogi and Huckleberry stood out, but they put out so much crap to jump on the bandwagon. -.-' Wow, that was off-topic. Anyway, if we have one thing to blame for the perception of animation in America, it's the success of Disney...but without the success of Disney, we might not be the leaders in animation, either. (Might.) Ah, dilemma. |
||||
|
||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||
|
It kind of encourages a negative stereotype of anime but it doesn't seem altogether inaccurate so I can't complain too much. Relative to American cartoons, I would say anime does often contain violent or sexual content although calling it sexually explicit is a little strong. I suppose this is becoming less true though with the increasing prevalence of cartoons like the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
|
hyogacisne
Posts: 29 |
|
|||
Is like we define Movie Movie: A film with actors often with violent or sexually explicit content. |
||||
|
||||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 7580 Location: Wales |
|
|||
"What? Harmless? Is that all it's got to say? Harmless! One word!" Ford shrugged. "Well, there are a hundred billion stars in the Galaxy, and only a limited amount of space in the book's microprocessors," he said, "and no one knew much about the Earth of course." "Well for God's sake I hope you managed to rectify that a bit." "Oh yes, well I managed to transmit a new entry off to the editor. He had to trim it a bit, but it's still an improvement." "And what does it say now?" asked Arthur. "Mostly harmless," admitted Ford with a slightly embarrassed cough. -- from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams |
||||
|
||||
|
ishmael
Posts: 128 |
|
|||
|
The problem is that some people (parents, teachers, people who have too much free time on their hands and who try to "protect the children") will use that definition to show that no kids, ever, should watch things like Pokémon. OK, there's "violence" in it, but not more than superhero american cartoons...
I mean, Charizzar has horns. He's the devil, right? It's the "explicit" term I've come to fear. Technically, sexually explicit is porn - hardcore porn, i.e. Hentai. Fanservice heavy shows are not sexually explicit. They have sexual themes, nudity and such, but to call them explicit is to exaggerate the truth. For instance, video game hater Jack Thomson used the expression to describe a scene in the Killer7 video game. In the scene, you don't even know what is happening (altough you get an idea), it can be many things. Yet he used the same term as for porn. So a parent reading this could be lead to think that Negima! is a sexually explicit show... And I think it's wrong to include it as part of the definition. You don't define "movie" or "cartoon" by using terms like violence. Still, quite a lot of Hollywood movie include some form of violence. |
||||
|
||||
Top Gun
 Posts: 4737 |
|
|||
Ha...I'm playing the game for the first time, and I just came across that particular scene. I didn't realize that it had shown up on ol' Jack's radar, too. 
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group