Forum - View topicThe List - 6 Japan-International Co-Productions Revisited
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
jymmy
 Posts: 1244 |
|
|||
|
Key production staff are Japanese-based. It wouldn't matter if they outsourced literally the entire production, with a French director, some American guy writing the scripts (for any language) which were performed and recorded by non-Japanese outside of Japan – if it's organised by a Japanese production company, that would make it anime. The definition may well cease to be a meaningful one, but it would be correct.
There are doubtless further lines you can blur, but what "matters" (insofar as it does matter) is not target audience, style, or even who physically animates, writes, records or directs it, but whether the key production staff are Japanese-based. If that episode of Adventure Time were a co-production between its regular studio and Madhouse or something, then that would qualify. If they just brought Yuasa into their regular operation to guest direct, then that wouldn't count in my book. |
||||
|
||||
|
Selipse
Posts: 216 |
|
|||
I'm pretty sure it'll eventually get a Japanese release. Who knows, maybe it's already been dubbed and they're just looking for a way to release it. Probably after it's finished. But whether or not it's been voiced already, it's pretty obvious the script was done in Japanese and then translated into English to be dubbed. Even if the English voices are the "original" ones (as in they were released first), the original lines themselves are in Japanese. So what do you do in this situation? |
||||
|
||||
Mr. sickVisionz
 Posts: 2173 |
|
|||
|
Off rip I will say that anime = anime. Anime != good and Anime != bad. I find that sometimes if you say something isn't anime, that gets interpreted as it's bad. That's not my definition.
Anyways, my definition is Japanese creative staff/writers. If it's like Boondocks or those DC Cartoon movies and non-Japanese come up with all creative concepts and the only Japanese thing is that they farmed the grunt work of drawing the animation off to a Japanese studio, that's not anime imo. Anime style maybe. On the other end, if a Japanese creative team comes up with all the ideas and designs and then ships the grunt work of animating it to Korea or somewhere else, that's still anime imo. Japanese people have to be involved in coming up with it. No different than the French New Wave film movement. If you weren't French, then you weren't making French New Wave. Americans can't make French New Wave. French is right in the name of it. They could make an homage to it. They can make their own thing with super similarities to French New Wave... maybe American French New Wave or some new genre/style that's supposed to be people bringing back the French New Wave style but it wouldn't be French New Wave. At the end of the day, I don't really care as it's just a label. As long as it's looks like something I'd like, I'm willing to give it a shot regardless of where it's made. I wouldn't be against "anime looking stuff" being up on Crunchyroll. I'm not enraged when RWBY shows up on the simulcast page. |
||||
|
||||
|
DRosencraft
Posts: 665 |
|
|||
|
I feel like we keep getting on this merry-go-round...
I make the distinction between anime, and anime-style. Anime emerged from a style that includes art and story. It's not just the way characters look - such as large eyes, higher than average detail - but the sort of stories and approach to story telling. These productions are inspired by and predominantly driven by Japenese creative forces (directors, writers, editors, producers, artists) or are themselves based on a Japanese story (manga, folklore, etc). Avatar, even Bloodivores, I would classify as "anime-style". The creative impulses are non-Japanese, but the show is created to match many - though not necessarily all - of the same stylistic nuances of a traditional anime. |
||||
|
||||
|
FloozyGod
|
|
|||
|
Anime doesn't exist
|
||||
Hiroki not Takuya
 Posts: 2529 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
BadNewsBlues
Posts: 5980 |
|
|||
And finishes what a complete WTF was that ending. |
||||
|
||||
Jayhosh
 Posts: 972 Location: Millmont, Pennsylvania |
|
|||
|
This discussion coming up again on this board and with the recent "controversy" regarding the Shelter music video has reminded me of how truly numb I've become towards contrived labels like "anime." And the fact that so many of the users on here are having their own definitions successfully dismantled one after another is proof of just how much the lines have been blurred. Stuff like Space Dandy airing in the US a whole day before Japan, non-Japanese directing films like Tekkonkinkreet, Japanese studios creating US animation inspired shows like Panty and Stocking, etc. Attempting to form a solid definition is pointless. I'm simply an animation fan who happens to also like a lot of animation from Japan. If a work's place of origin or staff members' nationalities are blurred, whatever. It doesn't really matter to me in the end, as something not being "anime" is not a negative thing. If I like it, that's that. I have more respect for the creative minds that produce these works of art rather than some trite classification over whether or not the works themselves are "Japanese enough." So I'm sure that we'll be asking ourselves this question over and over again until the end of time. But as long as we continue to get enjoyment out of the works themselves, whatever they actually are, that's all that really matters in the end.
In retrospect, this spiel came off extremely schlocky. Meh. |
||||
|
||||
relyat08
 Posts: 4125 Location: Northern Virginia |
|
|||
When I said, I know it when I see it, I think I expanded on that pretty well in the latter part of my comment. I was not referring to the visual style of a show, but something much harder to quantify and express. Back to the "anime style", like Selipse said, in the quote below here, those shows I mentioned are not the rare exception, they are incredibly common. We have visually unique shows every flipping season. I've watched nearly 800 anime, covering a multitude of incredibly unique visual styles, and there is no one style that carries through even a majority of them. Anime is not a style, it is an amalgamation of dozens, or hundreds, of styles. They are all anime, but calling anime one style is incredibly simplistic, and insulting to hundreds of creators who are making things that look like nothing else we've ever seen.
I agree with this. In the end, what I have a problem with, are statements like: "If it looks like anime, it is anime" Or "that's not anime because it doesn't have the anime style". |
||||
|
||||
|
belvadeer
|
|
|||
I was amused by how many people thought the 2011 ThunderCats was anime just because of the way it looked and moved (some geniuses even wondered if it had Japanese voices, oi), but these were mostly comments from younger folks who had never seen or did any research on the original 1985 production. The original was animated by Pacific Animation Corporation, also a Japanese studio, but that still didn't make it an anime either. I think where we draw the line regarding what qualifies as anime has gotten so skewed, it's really hard to even give it a proper definition any longer. I mean, back when I was growing up, "anime" was whatever came out of Japan and mesmerized North American TV-watching little kids in the early days, like Dragon Ball, Lil' Bits and Grimm Masterpiece Theater (that was before I knew the term though). As long as the characters had big shiny expressive eyes and crazy facial reactions, and the show had more detail than the average U.S. cartoon, it was "anime style" to us twerps of the early 90s. Of course, that was a long time ago and I do agree that calling it "anime style" now is outdated and redundant. Thinking back, I imagine a lot of people could have mistaken the 1986 Dennis the Menace cartoon for anime considering it was a collaboration project that included TMS Entertainment, though it didn't exactly have big eyes on Dennis and the cast. Just goes to show how easily something was pegged as a "style" back then. Last edited by belvadeer on Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
robertbaldie
 Posts: 154 |
|
|||
how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? |
||||
|
||||
|
ANN_Lynzee
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 2948 Location: Email for assistance only |
|
|||
Ah but then, what about Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust? |
||||
|
||||
Woomy
 Posts: 110 |
|
|||
|
Well, anime is, at the end of the day, just also cartoons. Anime was just an abbreviated term for animation in Japan that wasn't even coined until decades after animation already came on to the scene if I remember correctly. The main difference with anime is just the country of origin, and a rather distinct art style, but all in all they're cartoons.
You know, on a related note, I see a lot of anime fans trying to claim Avatar:The Last Airbender is anime (even though it was developed in the west) by citing the art style as "proof" to classify it as such. Am I the only one thinking Avatar's animation style is more in the vein of older Disney animation than Japanese? I'm a longtime avid anime consumer myself, and I never saw the "anime" style in Avatar's designs. |
||||
|
||||
Topgunguy
 Posts: 258 |
|
|||
|
How is The Transformers (G1) not on the list? Hell even the Unicron Trilogy.
|
||||
|
||||
Koda89
 Posts: 278 |
|
|||
Those Reddit mods had some seriously draconian definitions for anime, like it had to be a series, meaning by their definition anime films aren't anime either. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group