Can Americans Make Anime?

[Gatx]

All this discussion about style and animation practices makes it more complicated than it needs to be. Anime as the term is commonly used by English speakers refers to animation that comes out of Japan, and please don't bring up "but anime is the term for all animation in Japan" as a counter because there are plenty of words that change meaning when they cross cultures.

As it is used now it is a simple regional distinction that works, and everyone knows who's talking about what. If you're going to get into stylistic elements like visuals or even storytelling conventions and character archetypes, then that would imply that while things like Korra, and I dunno, the Teen Titans, would be "anime," that would also imply that certain things from Japan AREN'T anime, because not everything animated and comes from Japan is artsy and high brow, or gratuitously violent, or whatever other kinds of things people think when they think of anime as being when talking about how different anime is from Western cartoons. They also have their simple episodic comedy shows that are more comparable to the Simpsons or Spongebob than Cowboy Bebop. Would you say that Crayon Shin-chan isn't anime? Nichijou? Daily Lives of High School Boys?

Captch: umbrella corporation... wtf?

Edit: Also,

-snip-

Chill out, man. While the forums are a place for discussion, it's also kind of attached to an article, so people are bound to just be commenting on the article, without contributing, or even meaning to contribute, to any discussion that may be going on.

 

[Chris OBrien]

All this discussion about style and animation practices makes it more complicated than it needs to be. Anime as the term is commonly used by English speakers refers to animation that comes out of Japan, and please don't bring up "but anime is the term for all animation in Japan" as a counter because there are plenty of words that change meaning when they cross cultures.

As it is used now it is a simple regional distinction that works, and everyone knows who's talking about what. If you're going to get into stylistic elements like visuals or even storytelling conventions and character archetypes, then that would imply that while things like Korra, and I dunno, the Teen Titans, would be "anime," that would also imply that certain things from Japan AREN'T anime, because not everything animated and comes from Japan is artsy and high brow, or gratuitously violent, or whatever other kinds of things people think when they think of anime as being when talking about how different anime is from Western cartoons. They also have their simple episodic comedy shows that are more comparable to the Simpsons or Spongebob than Cowboy Bebop. Would you say that Crayon Shin-chan isn't anime? Nichijou? Daily Lives of High School Boys?

Captch: umbrella corporation... wtf?

Edit: Also,

-snip-

Chill out, man. While the forums are a place for discussion, it's also kind of attached to an article, so people are bound to just be commenting on the article, without contributing, or even meaning to contribute, to any discussion that may be going on.

Actually a lot of us are overlooking all the content. Korra and Teen titans try to look like generic anime (of the sorts that I have never actually really seen come from japan), but don't actually look like them on a technical level. Not better or worse, just different and less defined. It DOESN'T look like anime. Personally I feel that in most Animes, no matter the genre or target audience, there is a defined personality and tone, which is the oposite of what I feel for western anime inspired series, which take some GENERIC components of anime and put them together in a less characteristic blend.
In this sense, to me shows like Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh are not anime, since they adopt the western production focus. However, many other more "unique" series, like Invader Sim, or even sponge-bob square pants, share more of the Anime spirit with less of the formal clichès.

 

[Disthron]

I agree with this article, to me if the word anime is a style. There are plenty of people on Deviant Art who live outside of Japan and make anime artwork but I don't believe I've ever seen someone leave a comment to the effect of "You are not Japanese, you can't make anime!" or saying there art is "fake".

On the flip side, who would go up to Iron Chef Italy and tell him that they are incapable of cooking Italian food because they are not Italian? If someone were to do such a thing, wouldn't they be accused of racism?

To me, the hole argument to keep some showes out is really just people being elitist. It doesn't matter how good or bad it is, that's just Sturgeon's Law. It doesn't matter that most studios/artist put there won spin on it, every good artist (from impressionist painters to jazz munitions) dose that.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

 

[Alterego-X]

Chill out, man. While the forums are a place for discussion, it's also kind of attached to an article, so people are bound to just be commenting on the article, without contributing, or even meaning to contribute, to any discussion that may be going on.

I wouldn't have a problem with these type of comments if they would only be irrelevant, it's the condescending attitude implied by them, that we are all WRONG for wanting to discuss this issue, and we should all just mindlessly enjoy our cartoons instead of analyzing them and understanding their audiences.

 

[Gatx]

Actually a lot of us are overlooking all the content. Korra and Teen titans try to look like generic anime (of the sorts that I have never actually really seen come from japan), but don't actually look like them on a technical level. Not better or worse, just different and less defined. It DOESN'T look like anime. Personally I feel that in most Animes, no matter the genre or target audience, there is a defined personality and tone, which is the oposite of what I feel for western anime inspired series, which take some GENERIC components of anime and put them together in a less characteristic blend.
In this sense, to me shows like Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh are not anime, since they adopt the western production focus. However, many other more "unique" series, like Invader Sim, or even sponge-bob square pants, share more of the Anime spirit with less of the formal clichès.

At that level you're just dividing between "good" and "bad" shows, or rather shows that have a commercial focus vs. just as entertainment or maybe "art" in some cases. Certainly there are Western shows that attempt to capitalize on the popularity of anime, like that Winx Club show that's somehow successful, but that's not really a division between anime and cartoon anymore, it's more of a commercial vs. art sort of thing, which is a really universal divide that exists in Western and Japanese animation.

 

[Alterego-X]

I agree with this article, to me if the word anime is a style. There are plenty of people on Deviant Art who live outside of Japan and make anime artwork but I don't believe I've ever seen someone leave a comment to the effect of "You are not Japanese, you can't make anime!" or saying there art is "fake".

On the flip side, who would go up to Iron Chef Italy and tell him that they are incapable of cooking Italian food because they are not Italian? If someone were to do such a thing, wouldn't they be accused of racism?

To me, the hole argument to keep some showes out is really just people being elitist. It doesn't matter how good or bad it is, that's just Sturgeon's Law. It doesn't matter that most studios/artist put there won spin on it, every good artist (from impressionist painters to jazz munitions) dose that.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

Both of these analogies are flawed.

Deviant Art artwork isn't claimed to be anime too begin with, since it isn't animated. Of course no one denies that anyone can draw artwork in the style of any given anime, just as they can imitate any given cartoon, or painting, or whatever.

But these don't invoke the problem of inaccurately implying that anime is a single specific art style and genre, or that a Japanese animation that doesn't fit into that genre is not really anime either.

If a Japanese animation studio makes a show, it is automatically considered anime, but if a japanese person makes a drawing, it isn't automatically considered anime-style. Drawings are defined by their style, but animation categories are defined by their country of origin.

Referring to a western cartoon as "anime" has a lot more terminological problems than referring to a drawing as anime-style.

And cooking isn't directly analogous to art genres, because following the original Italian-made recipe isn't original creation, just making a copy of a thing. The food's italian-ness isn't defined by the hand that is makingit, but by the composition of ingredients as an italian would put them together. If a non-Italian person would write a cookbook with recipes that he made up, and call them Italian, then yes, he would be called out on it.

 

[Chris OBrien]

Actually a lot of us are overlooking all the content. Korra and Teen titans try to look like generic anime (of the sorts that I have never actually really seen come from japan), but don't actually look like them on a technical level. Not better or worse, just different and less defined. It DOESN'T look like anime. Personally I feel that in most Animes, no matter the genre or target audience, there is a defined personality and tone, which is the oposite of what I feel for western anime inspired series, which take some GENERIC components of anime and put them together in a less characteristic blend.
In this sense, to me shows like Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh are not anime, since they adopt the western production focus. However, many other more "unique" series, like Invader Sim, or even sponge-bob square pants, share more of the Anime spirit with less of the formal clichès.

At that level you're just dividing between "good" and "bad" shows, or rather shows that have a commercial focus vs. just as entertainment or maybe "art" in some cases. Certainly there are Western shows that attempt to capitalize on the popularity of anime, like that Winx Club show that's somehow successful, but that's not really a division between anime and cartoon anymore, it's more of a commercial vs. art sort of thing, which is a really universal divide that exists in Western and Japanese animation.

No, thats not quite accurate, I'm not saying one is good or bad, or saying that more commercial endeavours are worse than pure art endeavours. I'm saying that the origin, size and budget of anime explains its more independent / intimate storytelling aspects. It permeates the whole production system. Almost 100% of anime's budget wquld be considered Independent in the west, and the confined size of teams creates a noticeable perspective difference.

As a basic example, Most anime series are pre-planned as having a number of episodes and ENDING. The stories told don't depend on the rating and are determined for a set number of episodes, as its common that a series has nearly finished production by the time of airing. In the west however, most shows have the plan of running for years, and often extend the story observing how the ratings are going. Making them much harder to pace, and generally less cinematic.

But for this reasons the differences go even further: I'm saying that to an informed observer, in a visual level, this american japanese inspired animations DON'T LOOK or FEEL at all like a Japanese animation. Other western animations have a much closer absolute feel to the subtleties that compose the concept of anime, but they generally don't try to look like anime.
On the other side, Anime shows like Kenmonozume or Gankutsuou or Monster, fall far from the expected anime stereotypes graphically, but they definitely FEEL like anime in their complete structure. Anime's like Super milk chan, definitely try and approach a more neutral western graphic style. But I would say that they CAN'T avoid being anime either. More from the creation philosophy than the Look or the story (Given that actual theme isn't a defining aspect of anime).

 

[Alterego-X]

First, anime literally means animation and thats it. It does not mean from Japan or from any certain country. It is simply a short form for animation. Nothing more nothing less.

Second, anybody who disagrees is deluding themselves.

Anime has a different meaning in the west than it does in it's country of origin. It's not the only Japanese word the fandom uses to mean something different, Otaku means something completely different to western fans.

Otaku in Japan means obsessive to the point of being a shut-in. Otaku here means a person who likes anime. Similarly anime means Japanese animation here, while in it's country of origin it simply means animation.

A better example would have been how in english "sake" means a type of Japanese drink, while in Japanese, it means alcoholic drinks in general, or how "shogun" only means "commander" in Japanese, (Japanese people they often translate english military titles like "general" as "shogun"), but to us, it specifically means "a military leader in historical Japan".


The supposed alternate meaning of otaku is mostly a myth. Japanese for shut-in is "hikkikomori". Otaku means something like "fan" or "geek", as in gun-otaku, train-otaku, or anime-otaku.

It USED TO have a heavy negative association, in the same way as "fan(atic)" or "geek" used to have in english, and it still has with some older folks, but the people who like to point that out are behind the times, in modern slang it mostly neutralized, nowadays Japanese people identifying as otaku is about as common as americans identifying as geek, about 25.5% population, and anime studios are openly talking about being in the "otaku industry".

 

[Gatx]

No, thats not quite accurate, I'm not saying one is good or bad, or saying that more commercial endeavours are worse than pure art endeavours. I'm saying that the origin, size and budget of anime explains its more independent / intimate storytelling aspects. It permeates the whole production system. Almost 100% of anime's budget wquld be considered Independent in the west, and the confined size of teams creates a noticeable perspective difference.

As a basic example, Most anime series are pre-planned as having a number of episodes and ENDING. The stories told don't depend on the rating and are determined for a set number of episodes, as its common that a series has nearly finished production by the time of airing. In the west however, most shows have the plan of running for years, and often extend the story observing how the ratings are going. Making them much harder to pace, and generally less cinematic.

But for this reasons the differences go even further: I'm saying that to an informed observer, in a visual level, this american japanese inspired animations DON'T LOOK or FEEL at all like a Japanese animation. Other western animations have a much closer absolute feel to the subtleties that compose the concept of anime, but they generally don't try to look like anime.
On the other side, Anime shows like Kenmonozume or Gankutsuou or Monster, fall far from the expected anime stereotypes graphically, but they definitely FEEL like anime in their complete structure. Anime's like Super milk chan, definitely try and approach a more neutral western graphic style. But I would say that they CAN'T avoid being anime either. More from the creation philosophy than the Look or the story (Given that actual theme isn't a defining aspect of anime).

Well, I'm mostly taking issue with you saying that Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh aren't anime. I know that most anime series don't last more than one or two seasons, and that that would affect the way the finished product is handled, but I don't think that that quality is really important in defining "anime." Western shows are ordered by the season, and it's true that if they're popular enough then more will be made. The same thing happens in anime too, Dragonball is probably the biggest example of a series that kept getting extended.

Many anime also tend to be adaptions of existing products like manga or novels that have been out for a while, and whose stories likely extend beyond what can be adapted in a single season, leaving you with a fairly open ending or maybe just adapting one story arc, and more will be made in later season if it's popular. That could also be the reason why most anime seem more "planned" out, it's because the story and everything has existed for a while.

 

[The_Shinigamer]

Well I could try and wax poetic on an issue of semantics but the fact is Avatar and Korra are called "anime" in Japan where the term originates. It is obviously inspired by the art and direction. But anyone who has ever watched anime can tell it isn't because as awful a stereotype as it is, most anime have certain tropes across all fields. Last night I tried watching some anime on Netflix (Sgt. Frog, Negima, and got my wife to try Trigun and she got me to try Fruits Basket out of curiosity) across all four shows there were intentional wipes involving moving color meshes in the background while the character posed and over-dramatic Japanese instruments making a loud TWANG when someone got all kinds of Extreme!!!!!

The thing is even with some of the manga I've read that has no cliches of the genre (Death Note outside something random like a "god of death") when put into animation falls into the same tropes. So are Avatar and Korra anime? Yep. Americanime. Same artstyle but because it was made for an English-speaking audience it has a natural cadence and flow of dialogue and plot that you can't get in a dub.

PS-"We don't generalize all of British TV or Canadian webcomics. We don't lump together all of French music or Latin American food." Don't know about Canadian Webcomics but most people I've ever known can pick out a few exceptions, but otherwise do generalize these things entirely.

 

[Sotanaht]

Same argument as this applies to JRPGs.

The definition of Genre is rather specific. It specifically defines a set of works that share common stylistic criteria. Country of origin is NOT a stylistic criteria and therefor has NO BEARING on what can or cannot be included in a genre. If you want to refer to Anime or JRPGs as genres, you cannot limit them to only works made in Japan. If you would rather claim that those two terms are NOT genre titles, then you leave the associated works without such necessary categorization. What I consider an Anime or a JRPG is very clearly different then other animated works or RPGs, so the terms or ones like them seem useful and necessary as genre names.

What is in a name though? It does not matter that we call the genre "anime" which the original meaning literally just meant "animation", nor does it matter that we call it "Japanese role-playing game" even when it doesn't come from japan (or vice versa for a role-playing game from Japan that is not a JRPG). By any other name, we still have the same definition when we are referring to those genres. The arguments are only based on the words we choose for these names which, once defined as names, have no bearing on their definitions as used here.

 

[awdrifter]

I really don't agree with the argument in the article. Yes, Korra can be influenced by anime, it can have similar styles and storyline, but that doesn't make it anime. It's still a cartoon, or animated TV series. Even though the word anime originates from animation, its reverse imported into English and it's mostly used to describe Japanese made animation. Just because your whiskey taste similar to Jack Daniels, doesn't mean you can call it Jack Daniels.

 

[Icehearted]

There is a lot of discussion here.. but NO...

Many people have said it, Avatar clearly tries to emulate Japanese Animation in many ways, but it doesn't quite succeed in my books.

Japanese animators use different techniques, framing and style when animating. I'm by no means a complete expert, but I can tell from a mile away that Avatar, Ben 10, or things like Boondocks are NOT japanese productions. A lot of the animation is done in Korea, and other non japanese studios, and their output lacks the precision and is evidently different for the keen eye, even when we talk about the lowest quality anime. I personally have not seen the production feel of anime in american produced shows, ever.

Show me 5 seconds of animation from either production and I will be able to tell you instantly if it is Japanese animation or not. I suppose like some people say that diet-coke has the same taste as coke, and actual coke drinkers can tell the difference immediately.

That said, Anime is a generic term of production. Themes, styles and topics are hugely varied, even when the public eye focuses mostly on stereotypes. To me, the plot of Avatar, and TLOK, are very generic eastern inspired action fantasy stories. Not necessarily anime, but closer to 80's european narratives. Most western animation seems to consider fantasy a necessity, while the japanese animation I like, often follows absolutely realistic narratives. It has the faculty to tackle themes that may not be oriented to children.

A distinction would be Afro samurai. Or the new Thundercats or xmen anime, I'm not a big fan of any of them but you can clearly see that the production style (often linked to the framerate of the original animation) is different.

I have distanced myself a lot from anime lately, but I have to disagree with most commenters and the article: yes, you can tell the difference. And no, at least this is not anime.

This is exactly right. The idea that anime is exclusive to Japan has less to do with the region and more to do with the style. There is a feel, a quality, coloring, scale and fluidity that comes from Japanese work that cannot (so far) be emulated outside of their studios. I've seen some quality work by people influenced by anime, but those are rare exceptions. For the most part, if it's not anime, it shouldn't try to be.

The image used for the article is a perfect example of what I mean.

For better reference, when I was a kid (lo those decades ago) Some shows actually had anime intros and credit rolls (animated by Japanese artists) but the shows themselves were clearly not anime. These were released by a studio called DIC, where people from the US, France, Canada, and Japan worked together.

See the animation in this example. The opening, the mini skit, and then ending, all evidently of varying quality (where the intro is more fluid and detailed and has more consistent scale and overall quality, the skit looks choppier and inconsistent, then the credit roll resumes the higher quality more or less).

Other examples (look up episodes where you can to see the animation quality change noticeably during the show itself):

Spoiler: The Thundercats

Spoiler: The Mighty Orbots

Spoiler: Silverhawks

Spoiler: Bionic Six

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Well, because of this article I've started watching Legend of Korra.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised. It's quite good. Well animated, VO's pretty good, interesting world...thank you article writer person. I probably would have skipped this.

 

[Alterego-X]

The discussion is ludicrous at best. Setting written-in-stone labels on art is just silly. Art is subjective, and we will use words to describe what it looks like to us. If I see teen titans, its anime to me since it got chibi, exaggerated movement segments and googly eyes. For one whos much more into japanese animation than me, something else (that I dont bother about) might make him deem it cartoony. Both are correct, just subjective opinions.

If I see a whale, it's a fish to me, since it got fins and it's swimming in water. For one who is more into biology than me, some inner body parts (that I don't bother about) might make him call it a mammal. Both are correct, just subjective opinions.

Does that make sense?

Actually it does. Taxonomy is a subjective science, biological groups exists because we invented them. There is no tangible law of nature that says we MUST categorize animals based on their integumentary systems, breathing methods, and reproduction methods, instead of their habitat, or their body shape.

When a scientist says that you shouldn't call a whale a fish they don't say that because it's "objectively wrong", but because it goes against those established definitions that are more practical for people who do care about biological systems.

Likewise, whether or not Teen Titans is an anime might be "subjective" in a physical-philosophical sense, but that doesn't mean that your personal terminology that is admittedly based on ignorant generalizations, is on the same level as established definitions by people who know more about it.

 

[grumpymooselion]

I lived in Japan for most of my young life. You want to know what they called their animation over there? Cartoons. Animation. All the things we call our cartoons and animation, albeit with an accent. That would be the actual creators of the time, as well as the viewers. Cartoons. Animation.

I never heard the term Anime until I came to the west, and its definition was always, "What we call Eastern Cartoons/Animation" . . . so unless you're creation is wholly made in the east, I have no idea why anyone would want to call their animation or cartoons anime, other that to designate where it was made. This article seems incredibly like it is reaching for something that is not there.

 

[Kakistos153]

objectively true answer:

no because there are too many nuances and eccentricities of the japanese culture that without deep immersion in the culture and language (for example by being from there) would be absent. perhaps a decent approximation, but i don't think anything would be (nor has been) deserving of the title. japanese coporate hack anime will always be of a greater quality than honest american artists interpretation and approximations of anime.