Anime needs a new name

[A random person]

We already have a name for it: Cartoons.
Just because it's from Japan doesn't make it not a cartoon.

To play devil's advocate, the term "cartoon" has connotative meanings that, even if the proper definition works, would render it a problematic name for anime.

To elaborate, whenever you think the word "cartoon," you most likely think of Bugs Bunny, Micky Mouse, Felix the Cat, and other mascots of old-school animated shorts. You may also think of things like Spongebob. Basically, the term implies animated shorts of zany characters doing zany things (kid-friendly or no; several Adult Swim series would fit the connotative meaning). Even though "cartoon" may simply mean animated (though I'll address that in a bit), by calling anime cartoons, you're lumping things like Gundam, Darker than Black, Baccano, and other things like that with things like Loony Toons, whether you mean to or not (not that I have anything against Loony Toons, but you can see the problem, no?). Basically, even if cartoons and anime are the same by proper definition, steps must be taken to avoid connotative issues (extrapolating, of course, you'd need to do the same thing with a good bit of western and (former) Soviet Bloc animation).

If this logic is applied, then live action tv should have 2 names: 1 for shows intended for adults and 1 for shows intended for children. The anime and cartoons are both animated so should have an umbrella term describing them both. It would be tragic that Gundam and the like would be lumped in with Bugs Bunny but they are linked. I don't think it should be under the banner of cartoon though because of your reasoning.

Live-action doesn't have the same connotative issues as cartoon does. Of course, I was simply playing devil's advocate, so it's not like I ever thought my logic was watertight.

Now, you could take what I said and conclude that cartoons are a genre of animation focused on zany antics; considering that the term "cartoonish" is used to describe such antics, that might work.

And of course, dealing with the animation age ghetto behind the term "cartoon" would take far more than simply renaming things.

 

[Ritter315]

Here's the thing though, most Asian countries can muster some form of anime, hell Avatar was made in Canada and it had more Asian-ness? in the show than some animes AND having it actually FIT in their universe. For ex. Why is it that in most Space animes, everyone still speaks Japanese? I'm sure this would make sense to Japanese people but to others it just looks like Japan won the space race and now Japanese has become the dominant language by means of stopping out all the other cultures. So, many anime DOES need a re-branding, something more universal than what is essentially Japanese cartoons with LOOOOOONG series of fillers.

 

[Atmos Duality]

To be fair, when you think about it, that was gonna happen with animation in general when you realize that most vintage animation (i.e Loony Toons, Disney cartoons) was theatrical and in the form of shorts, meaning there was a bigger budget that had to be spread out less.

A good history lesson; Japan was indeed bankrupt for roughly 30 years following WW2.

But these aren't the 1940s anymore. They aren't the 1980s. It's a new millennium and Japan is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Seeing how anime only really took off in the last 20 years (especially the last 12), I would argue that anime has no excuse to do better.

That's doubly so now that anime has made ludicrous amounts of money (both in Japan and America to say nothing of the world). Would it kill the creators to try to spring for a better production rather than the same half-assed bullshit?

Then again, these anime creators know that they don't even have to try at this point.
Why sink money into making a product better when your current work succeeds? That's economical logic at work after all.

 

[olicon]

The true meaning of the word doesn't have anything to do with it. Like the OP suggested (even if he might've misunderstood), the word now contains a very different connotation than the original language.
For example, Americans actually consider Otaku to be a neutral, or even positive word. This is definitely not true in Japan, where the word contains very negative connotation.

Ultimately, I think that the community at large feels that the term anime is tied to childish cartoons, rather than just animations in general.

 

[suicide samurai]

How about getting simple again.

Cartoons? Or animation?

Just say you like "foreign animation." We don't call the animation projects out of Europe by any other name, so why is Japan the owner of it's own exclusive name?

It's almost elistist, which is why I refuse to use the proper pronounciation for the incorrectly spelled manga. To those who insist, I refer to it simply as "Japanamation."

I simply don't get it. In American culture, there are a ton of different animation and comic styles, yet we simply say what they are--unless sorting them by digital or hand-drawn.

As it is, Japan is not the only Asian country producing animation and comic art in that style--the western world is already doing it, and people have started using Anime for these other products.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

It's already got a new name as far as I'm concerned. I usually just call it 'crap'.

Okay, okay, that's mean and prejudiced, and I'm sorry. I do also tend to call it 'bollocks' when I'm in a vaguely British mood, or 'skitprat' when I'm feeling northern-European.

But I am sorry for responding, just ignore this post--it's late, I'm tired, I really shouldn't have said anything, but my 'shut up and ignore it' reflexes aren't engaged this evening, and thus I've been unable to prevent myself from snarkily commenting in this here thread. Groovy.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

I prefer Japanimation.

Dunno why, it just sounds a bit better.

..You stoled my word!

Mackheath stole my word

FargoDog stole my thought....

 

[A random person]

To be fair, when you think about it, that was gonna happen with animation in general when you realize that most vintage animation (i.e Loony Toons, Disney cartoons) was theatrical and in the form of shorts, meaning there was a bigger budget that had to be spread out less.

A good history lesson; Japan was indeed bankrupt for roughly 30 years following WW2.

But these aren't the 1940s anymore. They aren't the 1980s. It's a new millennium and Japan is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Seeing how anime only really took off in the last 20 years (especially the last 12), I would argue that anime has no excuse to do better.

That's doubly so now that anime has made ludicrous amounts of money (both in Japan and America to say nothing of the world). Would it kill the creators to try to spring for a better production rather than the same half-assed bullshit?

Then again, these anime creators know that they don't even have to try at this point.
Why sink money into making a product better when your current work succeeds? That's economical logic at work after all.

I'll admit some of it probably goes by the late-night Adult Swim model; make a low-budget niche show that won't make you rich, but won't ruin you either. Supposedly this is a more recent phenomenon, though.

Otherwise, I think someone else mentioned that anime tended to focus on attention to detail while western animation got more fluid at its cost. There's a fundamental trade-off between image and animation quality (hell, a Spongebob episode shows that off; the detail is usually simplistic, but there'll be highly detailed stills), and on the whole, anime focuses more on the former, the results for the latter being obvious.

What I was overall trying to say with the history lesson was that animation was generally moving in that direction, and that there were logical reasons for expending less effort (aka money) on smaller details. If people like your art quality, story, and overall concepts and aesthetic, what's a little looping and panning? The kind of cheaping out that occurs in long-running series can be annoying, sure, but that's why I watch series with pre-defined lengths (that, and they don't go stale with ever-ballooning casts, filler, dragging out the plot, and any number of other problems with milking a series).

 

[theSovietConnection]

*SNIP*.

If you don't mind, I'm borrowing this quote (you will be credited, don't worry about that). I have a friend who is die-hard firm of the belief anime is behind all of the West's "good" cartoons.

Anyway, I maintain we should just call it animation. It's nothing more, and nothing less, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Kuroneko97]

Cartoons That Are Not From America.

 

[Drakmeire]

Anime= slightly engrish nickname for animation (nothing wrong with it)
If you want a new name maybe call it "Moving Art" in japanese which is "Āto o idō suru" maybe call it Aois
but it doesn't seem like your an authority for this since what you wrote made it seem like you think all anime is hentai.
It's not and most anime tells very clever and immersive stories with complex characters.
Also we are Americans, why should Japan/Korea (most animation is done in Korea) care if we don't like the name?

 

[MrNickster]

Japanimation. That's what i always call it.

 

[Tim_Buoy]

okay ill call it tiddleywinks grand moving hand drawn pictures now

 

[Drakmeire]

Cartoons That Are Not From America.

by that logic, THOSE KITTENS ARE SCREWED!!!
of if this is Elfen Lied rules, if something is a cute person they will be raped, maimed, or killed fairly quickly, if they are a cute animal they will be killed in a horrible, elongated, painful way.

 

[ckam]

Japanese Animation, I guess.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Otherwise, I think someone else mentioned that anime tended to focus on attention to detail while western animation got more fluid at its cost. There's a fundamental trade-off between image and animation quality (hell, a Spongebob episode shows that off; the detail is usually simplistic, but there'll be highly detailed stills), and on the whole, anime focuses more on the former, the results for the latter being obvious.

I've had that arguments for anime thrown at me before, and I still don't buy it.
That is, the "attention to detail/stylizing" bits.

Hate to say it, but by far, most anime that I've seen is in no way hyper-detailed, and this is coming from a detail-oriented person.
So when someone argues for the detail, I must assume they mean the setting or background, because some those actually do look quite detailed.

Perhaps then, the argument becomes that anime is trying to match the detail of the characters/objects with that of their backgrounds, to make them look less super-imposed (like cartoons do. It's very easy to see what is animated on a backdrop).
So from that perspective, I do understand the intention of inking a mobile character more directly into an environment in an attempt to make them fit in better with the picture (like inking a painting).

But most of the time, this just doesn't work for me. And when the illusion actually begins to work, they ALWAYS cut to some cheap frame repetition or alternate view where the character's mouth isn't moving even though they're monologue-ing (like we're stuck in a universe where everyone is at least a part-time ventriloquist) or yet another panning shot.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by the Warner Bros Swan-Song era (pretty much all of the 90s WB cartoons) or great cartoons like the very dark Batman cartoon, or even Gargoyles; but for every detailed "money shot" I've seen in anime, I can think of an equally compelling shot in those cartoons. Keep in mind, those are weekly shows; not feature-length cartoons.

Oh, and in those said cartoons, the animation is still better.

The best description I've been able to come up with anime's styling, at least its intent, is "Animating comic book frames" or "Semi-Animation", and thus I've come full circle.
This is based on my observations of the shows and their collaborative Manga.

I've tried to give anime a fair shake; really. Even going so far as to collaborating with my local "Japanese Culture Club" back in college; where I was exposed to an inhuman amount of anime.

And you know what? The same problems kept plaguing me over and over again as I tried to enjoy it. If you like anime or you like its style, then good. Enjoy it. I however, cannot and not for a lack of trying.

 

[halkun]

I just call them "Cartoons" or "Japanese Cartoons" I've always found the name "Anime" pretentious.

 

[A random person]

Otherwise, I think someone else mentioned that anime tended to focus on attention to detail while western animation got more fluid at its cost. There's a fundamental trade-off between image and animation quality (hell, a Spongebob episode shows that off; the detail is usually simplistic, but there'll be highly detailed stills), and on the whole, anime focuses more on the former, the results for the latter being obvious.

I've had that arguments for anime thrown at me before, and I still don't buy it.
That is, the "attention to detail/stylizing" bits.

Hate to say it, but by far, most anime that I've seen is in no way hyper-detailed, and this is coming from a detail-oriented person.
So when someone argues for the detail, I must assume they mean the setting or background, because some those actually do look quite detailed.

Perhaps then, the argument becomes that anime is trying to match the detail of the characters/objects with that of their backgrounds, to make them look less super-imposed (like cartoons do. It's very easy to see what is animated on a backdrop).
So from that perspective, I do understand the intention of inking a mobile character more directly into an environment in an attempt to make them fit in better with the picture (like inking a painting).

But most of the time, this just doesn't work for me. And when the illusion actually begins to work, they ALWAYS cut to some cheap frame repetition or alternate view where the character's mouth isn't moving even though they're monologue-ing (like we're stuck in a universe where everyone is at least a part-time ventriloquist) or yet another panning shot.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by the Warner Bros Swan-Song era (pretty much all of the 90s WB cartoons) or great cartoons like the very dark Batman cartoon, or even Gargoyles; but for every detailed "money shot" I've seen in anime, I can think of an equally compelling shot in those cartoons. Keep in mind, those are weekly shows; not feature-length cartoons.

Oh, and in those said cartoons, the animation is still better.

The best description I've been able to come up with anime's styling, at least its intent, is "Animating comic book frames" or "Semi-Animation", and thus I've come full circle.
This is based on my observations of the shows and their collaborative Manga.

I've tried to give anime a fair shake; really. Even going so far as to collaborating with my local "Japanese Culture Club" back in college; where I was exposed to an inhuman amount of anime.

And you know what? The same problems kept plaguing me over and over again as I tried to enjoy it. If you like anime or you like its style, then good. Enjoy it. I however, cannot and not for a lack of trying.

My understanding is that WB (and Disney, since you mentioned Gargoyles) is best-of-the-best when it comes to animation quality; of course they're gonna best the majority of anime (at least series), just as Ghibli (and possibly Bones) is gonna best the majority of western animation. A fairer comparison would be comparing a typical Nicktoon to an average anime; in that case, the Nicktoon would have smoother animation, but the anime will have more image detail (hell, John K's animation philosophy is entirely based around making good drawings, but a large chunk of anime still outdoes non-stills in Ren & Stimpy. I won't give my opinions on John K himself). I'm referring to foreground detail, of course, since backgrounds are obviously much easier to make.

The principle of image vs. animation quality still applies to WB and Disney cartoons, they just had more to work with (i.e budget), thus allowing for "money shots" while retaining higher animation quality. Most animated shows aren't so lucky, however, resulting in shows with fairly smooth animation and simply-drawn characters (your average series is closer to Spongebob than Batman: TAS, Sturgeon's law and all). Of course, there are also western animated shows with higher image detail/quality, and largely, they're still not exempt (see: a large chunk of GI Joe-esque 80's cartoons, where the characters were more detailed and shaded, but they moved stiffly and spent plenty of time standing around). So, given an anime and a western cartoon with about the same budget, and assuming they retain the tendencies we've outlined earlier, the western animated series will have smoother, more fully-moving characters with relatively simple drawing and design, and the anime is going to have more detailed drawing but take shortcuts like simplified motion and looking away from the character while they're speaking (hell, I love Evangelion, but it gets terrible about the latter).

Of course, it ultimately comes down to which side of the image-animation dichotomy you prefer. I prefer the former (and I do like how it merges with backgrounds better), and don't mind some less fully featured animation as long as it doesn't get ridiculous, and it's understandable if you prefer the latter. It's also worth noting that many people prefer manga, often for reasons well beyond animation quality (i.e the fact that pretty much every shonen series is better in its original manga form, and that there's more unique, bizarre ideas in a medium that requires less expenditure).

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Well, we can stop abbreviating and call it animation or we can call it what we call everything else like it, cartoons. But I don?t think it?s gathered such a repulsive name for itself that it mustn?t be called anime. It doesn?t bring images to me of cartoon porn but rather the cartoons I watched when I was younger. Far more people know about Pokémon as opposed to tentacle porn. Besides a new name doesn?t take away the actual porn that exists so it will still be associated with it.

 

[Premonition]

You know, there's people that think pervy things when they hear the word: "Goat". We need a new word for that too?