Forum - View topic

Is anime/manga dependent on character designs?

Then I was reminded in Anime is Dying thread that ANN supports the idea that origin predominately defines what is anime. There have been lots of questions raised about things like Boondocks that some consider anime because of it's look, character design, and visual elements similar to anime.

My spin on this question is what about productions done entirely by Japanese animation team, writers, creators and the series or manga is aimed specifically at the Japanese, BUT it completely lacks the visual characteristics and style of anime?

Besides, since many shows we see that we would never question whether is anime, have animation teams predominately based in Korea, it makes you wonder if the Japanese really need any involvement in it at all for it to be anime. It's sad that there are so many, Japanese included, that believe it was somehow divinely ordained that only Japanese people are suited to make anime.

The idea of there being an 'anime style' has always somewhat irked me, since even within the 'animation from Japan' definition there exists no one specific set of visual traits.

EireformContinent wrote:

dtm42 wrote: Gatherum wrote: TitanXL wrote: To be anime, it has to be a Japanese production. No, it doesn't, and this is what I meant by the Boondocks debate. Putting aside Hollywood's aims, anime, at this point, is a medium and style, not a cultural specificity. As a general rule of thumb, unless the senior members of the production crew are Japanese, the producers are Japanese and the work is paid for with Yen as opposed to another currency, then it isn't Anime. Gatherum you have a strange definiton of "Hollywood Film" but the rest of the world takes it as a "film made in America by one of those big companies". Nobody would call "A Hollywood film" expensive production form Bollywood or anywhere else.

Okay, I'll admit that I didn't illustrate my point adequately. I am aware that a film made in India would not be a "Hollywood film," and that it would instead be a "Bollywood film," if anything, and that a "Hollywood film" is more or less a film made here in America with the backing of a large American studio (though I must note that "Hollywood" is a metonym, and doesn't necessarily suggest that a given film has any connection with the Los Angeles district of Hollywood). What I was attempting to illustrate was the fact that the concept of the "Hollywood film" does not refer to any genre or style, but rather who made it and who funded it: a horror "Bollywood film" is as much a horror film as a horror "Hollywood film." Categorically speaking, one does not refer to one distinctly as a "Hollywood" or "Bollywood" horror film as if they're two separate horror genres. You can do that, however, if you're just trying to illustrate where each came from or who funded them. Stylistically, though, it doesn't change anything unless the techniques that went into making those films are recognised as being distinctly "American" or "Indian," sort of like there's a styilstic distinction between "A-Pop," "J-Pop," and "K-Pop."

Anime is different because it can be considered a very distinct genre or style of animated work with very specifically recognisable characteristics, which even anime fans can identify in a show like The Boondocks. That is why I am saying that anime made outside Japan can still be anime as long as the work has those characteristics. If a differentiation is still necessary though, something like The Boondocks could more or less be one of the first entries into a distinct "American" or "Western" genre/style of Anime that has not be explicitly defined yet. Stylistically speaking though, I don't see much of a difference between the way The Boondocks is made compared to a Japanese property. It's a socio-political satire within the realm of Comedy. We have plenty of Japanese anime that could be considered to be in the same realm. The characters exhibit the characteristic attention to detail, right down to the eyes, which are obviously drawn large in order to more easily express emotion, a trait the majority of anime have (hell, some recognised anime, like Ergo Proxy, don't even have that trait to any meaningful degree). The background landscapes display the same attention to detail. The animated movements of the characters are most of the time reminiscent of your average medium-budgeted series below OVA quality (though, like many productions, it gets better with each season).

If it looks like an anime, moves like an anime, and feels like an anime...

TitanXL wrote:

Gatherum wrote: Anime is different because it can be considered a very distinct genre or style of animated work with very specifically recognisable characteristics, which even anime fans can identify in a show like The Boondocks. That is why I am saying that anime made outside Japan can still be anime as long as the work has those characteristics. Ignoring whatever 'characteristics' we're talking about for second, the problem with this mentality is it's essentially going to lead in a result where an actual anime isn't considered an anime. And if we really get into the position where a huge Japanese cultural icon like Doraemon, Sazae-san or One Piece isn't considered anime, then the whole thing just gets silly and is basically saying some random American on the internet knows more about anime than the big shots in Japan. You can see how this would be problematic.

I can, but I am not sure I am understanding your rationale for this process. As far as I know, no-one is putting forth the idea that Doraemon, Sazae-san, or One Piece are not anime, and I don't see that idea being rationally put forth in the future. Admittedly, I have only seen the latter, and I would call it an anime in every sense despite the crazy-ass character designs.

By a similar measure, though, if we are basing the definition on origin only, then what is to separate Japanese anime from other Japanese animated works (assuming, of course, that there are any)?

Further, if anime is strictly Japanese, why is the Korean film, My Beautiful Girl Mari listed on this site? None of its production staff were Japanese--the only involvement by a Japanese company was in that of Toei for distribution. I don't see any Japanese involvement in Faeries' Landing either... And that's just a manwha.

EDIT: to clarify, I am not pointing those out in order to be spiteful or to suggest that they shouldn't be there whilst The Boondocks should or vice-versa; I am merely remarking at this point on the site's definitive consistency.

By a similar measure, though, if we are basing the definition on origin only, then what is to separate Japanese anime from other Japanese animated works (assuming, of course, that there are any)?

I would just like to point out that even if a category of 'western produced anime' does come into existence, then its anime in name only. It still dosent become rolled into the existing 'Japanese anime' category, but exists separately as a branch of western animation.

In the end, nothing changes, and the works in question are still not what we currently acknowledge as being 'anime'.

I would just like to point out that even if a category of 'western produced anime' does come into existence, then its anime in name only. It still dosent become rolled into the existing 'Japanese anime' category, but exists separately as a branch of western animation.

In the end, nothing changes, and the works in question are still not what we currently acknowledge as being 'anime'.

Quote:

By a similar measure, though, if we are basing the definition on origin only, then what is to separate Japanese anime from other Japanese animated works (assuming, of course, that there are any)?

Given that the accepted western definition of anime is 'animated work from Japan', what manner of Japanese animation would not be considered an anime?

Ringking wrote:

I would just like to point out that even if a category of 'western produced anime' does come into existence, then its anime in name only. It still dosent become rolled into the existing 'Japanese anime' category, but exists separately as a branch of western animation. In the end, nothing changes, and the works in question are still not what we currently acknowledge as being 'anime'. Quote: By a similar measure, though, if we are basing the definition on origin only, then what is to separate Japanese anime from other Japanese animated works (assuming, of course, that there are any)? Given that the accepted western definition of anime is 'animated work from Japan', what manner of Japanese animation would not be considered an anime?

A Japanese animated property that lacks any of the stylistic characteristic inherent in what we tend to consider anime.

For example, something the Japanese produced akin to an MGM American cartoon.

I know of none, honestly, which is why I haven't been coming out with some example(s).

There is a common design among SOME titles certainly, but that can be reflective of many things such as the present market, target audience, the individual character designer and how they developed their individual style etc. Because this can fluctuate as time goes on and varies between titles, that in and off itself isn't sufficient to define what is anime and what is not.

By that logic, anime made 20 years ago is no longer anime becasue it no longer reflects the current perception of 'anime style', and also excludes any artistically adventurous titles.

Quote:

Besides, since many shows we see that we would never question whether is anime, have animation teams predominately based in Korea, it makes you wonder if the Japanese really need any involvement in it at all for it to be anime. It's sad that there are so many, Japanese included, that believe it was somehow divinely ordained that only Japanese people are suited to make anime.

Anime is stuff made in Japan. I seriously don't get why this is so hard for some people to grasp.