Talk:Anime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Anime was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 5, 2006
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Contents

[edit] Animation Technique section lacking

In terms of ways to improve this entry, one of the things which I think would make the most sense would be dramatically improving the section discussing technique for anime films. Anime is unique from, say, Disney films in that no single 'supervising character animator' or team of 'character animators' draws exclusively a single character or group of characters in the film. A typical Disney film has a small group of supervising animators, each of whom takes on a character who they will primarily animate through the picture (someone like Andreas Deja, for example, who animated King Triton in The Little Mermaid). There is no equivilent in the vast majority (99%) of all Japanese animation, and no production has been organized along these lines in over 10 years. Instead, the breaking up of animation work is organized along the 'cut system,' or in other words, shot by shot. No single animator (or team of animators) draws a single character exclusively. Instead, they draw everything on their layer of animation (each layer will have the character/characters, mechanical devices, special effects, and so on) for the entire cut (versus a Disney-style production, where the animator will only draw the effects, the character assigned to them, or some other element of the shot).

The end result of all this is that, while American Disney-style animation is thought of as being character-driven, Japanese animation is thought of as being something else. Some say it is a lesser form of animation (these are usually the people who mention its limitted frame rates and lack of personality), while others contend that having less of a strong individual stamp on each character's movements creates greater emphasis on the story. Still others say that the emphasis is placed on particular shots and scenes. However, the one thing that is certain is that some, if not all, of this needs to be included in the anime section (say, under an expanded critical response section). Furthermore, the breakdown of differences between the Japanese style of animation and the more commonly known American style for feature films have to be recognised, as they are important in the overall visual distinction of anime. There are also many other differences which I have not gone into here (the role of the animation director, the lack of distinction between effects animators and regular animators, the combination of in-betweening and clean-up) that should idealy be addressed. I hope that some improvement in this area of the article can be made, and I will look into trying to find some sources which would be suitable for Wikipedia (as most of my direct knowledge comes from people in the industry, and from original research). If an effort was made to improve these elements of the article, I think the overall quality would be substantially increased.

LainEverliving LainEverloving 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I posted something like that a few months ago. The problem though is getting sources. There aren't many people who want to make a life of cultural study of anime. C'mon... you could be the only animeologist... therefore not much has been written on the subject in an academic setting. This makes it really hard to cite technical things like limited frame rates, cheats, etc. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Production and as a Business

What about how animes are made and how do they profit from it? Kamuixtv (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd say that belongs in it's own topic, or a drastically reduced sub-section on the page. Anime was originally made like any traditional animation, for example Disney cartoons/films, but recently it's been moved to suit the digital age. I'm not an expert on the whole concept, but it'd be good to find out at least and see if it would fit somewhere here.--Opacic (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Once enough of that material gets here, then yes - it may warrant its own article. However, that is obviously not needed at this point. Yet, whatever y'can do on the subject - that'll be great. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eye size in proportion to age/maturity

I've noticed that large eyes seem to be a way of denoting immaturity or youthfulness. You can have a young character and an old character on the same show, the young one with Powerpuff eyes and the older with Bebop eyes... if you know what I mean. Examples shouldn't be hard to find. One easily-recognizable one is Fullmetal Alchemist, where older characters like Roy Mustang have normal-proportioned eyes, and Edward Elric has larger eyes. Didn't notice this mentioned anywhere on the page, maybe it should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.192 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While this is true, it really depends on the individual anime/manga... and should be pointed out. It also begs the question about how many individual stylistic things we should point out compared to general things.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that Japanese animator draw their cartoon with large eyes beacuase it shows more emotions than ordinary size eyes. And according to the article they tried to draw a character w/ normal eye size but they are not satisfied with the emotions they are seeing, so they stick w/ the characters w/ big eyes until now.Reinbowe (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Storywriting

So. Who would like to volunteer starting up the section on the storywriting? Common cliches, etc. Granted, there is already the Genre section. KyuuA4 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm not good at writing academically without someone giving me a second pass, but I do know the story conventions... again we need sources otherwise we'll never get to GA. If anyone has sources, comments, etc message me.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


story writing in some animes turn out beutifull but more and more ive been noticing overly complicated story lines and incomplete thoughts and explanations. for example in the rouronin kenshin series they did not finish an arc at the end leaving many fans a the end of the series with a bitter taste in their mouths. just go's to show that some things in this anime and less than desirable not to say that shows on tv today non animated are better mostly worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekamakazi (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage in the UK -- unreferencable, but true.

I added the following in the other day: DVD outlets in the UK are increasingly categorising animated material aimed at an older market as anime, regardless of style or country of origin., giving examples.

Now, this was "original research" -- I've personally seen these titles in the anime section of UK chain shops Virgin Megastores and HMV -- so it got tagged "citation needed". Fair enough.

So I tried to find proof of my claim. I doubt there is any published research into how HMV and Virgin shelf their cartoons, so I thought I'd put a link to one of their websites where the DVD is clearly categorised as "anime" at the top of the page.

This has been reverted stating Sales pages aren't references. While this is true in general, I would say in this instance it is a perfectly valid primary reference as my note was on the usage of the term anime by these shops.

Otherwise the entry on anime has to be left out-of-date, because we are forced to exclude verifiably true information on grounds of a technicality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Try taking a picture of the display. I can see that method as a

way to bypass the need for a citation -- probably. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)



That'd be less reliable, though, as anyone can shift a couple of DVDs in a shop then take a picture. I can't alter the websites of major UK retailers, so a quick check shows I'm telling the truth more than any picture could.
I accept sales blurb is no good for technical or specialist content, but this isn't about anything more technical than "shops (like this one) use words this way." The only likely source for this, other than the shops themselves, is a new edition of a dictionary or encyclopedia, and if Wikipedia has to rely on other references works as its prime source, what's the point in Wikipedia?
Prof Wrong (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Harumph. Just yesterday I saw the latest batch of Marvel DVDs (Iron Man et al) in the Anime rack at one of the afforementioned retailers. But I still can't cite anything -- it's still only "original research". Prof Wrong (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah stuff it. I'm putting it back in. Really, seriously, the NOR rule says no original research unless the conclusion is totally and utterly obvious. Yes, this is original research, but it is also completely and utterly obvious. You walk into a shop, you see it. It's true; it's obvious; it's not a breach of the NOR rule. Prof Wrong (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And I'm taking it out. "Increasingly"? According to whom. Your personal observation is the very definition of original research. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And if doesn't, I will. Its pure WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Not only does it violate the policy on no original research for the above stated reasons, it also violates the policies on neutral point of view—because you are inserting your own opinion into the article—and verifiability—because the information you've attempted to insert has been unchanged and no published reliable source has been presented. All three of these policies are the foundation for including any thing into a Wikipedia article. Text that violates any one one of these policies is bad enough, but text that violate all three is entirely unacceptable. --Farix (Talk) 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think neutral point of view has anything to do with it, there is no sort of bias in that argument. Having the opinion that one thing is a fact is different than having an opinion on the subject of the article. If I mistakenly think the latest Nike shoes only come in red, that's not a violation of NPOV, I'm simply wrong (of course probably violating verifiability). If I think they SHOULD only come in red, then that is against the policy. The other two probably apply. Kopf1988 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime is only feature films? What?

The following line appears in the article:

In English-speaking anime fandom, it is generally accepted that an animated production can only be known as "anime" if it is an animated (normally 2D), professionally produced, feature film (though not necessarily a "movie") created by a Japanese company for the Japanese market.

This is a really bad definition as it excludes all OVAs and TV anime series. The reference for this claim [1] is only defining what AniDB uses to define "anime" for inclusion in their database, not defining "anime" in general. This needs to be reworked as OVAs and TV anime far outnumber feature film anime releases. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. I have not read anything from that source to support the claim that this is generally accepted. I am not an expert by any means but I would find it extremly unlikely that the majority of people in the fandom would blieve that TV series like Naruto, Inuyasha, Death Note, etc are not anime. I doesn't make sense. --76.66.191.240 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence?

"Coincidentally, as the popularity of the Internet grew, so did for anime."

I don't really think it was a coincidence. Is this based on anything or did the person not know what "coincidentally" means? 38.98.223.57 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Genres

The section on thematics incorrectly labels Mobile suit gundam as a super robot anime, when it is in fact the first if the "real-Robot" anime. Its something of a pet hate of mine. I would have corected myself if I could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.159.26 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Real Robots to the sentence. I think it's better now. EnviroboyTalkCs 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example of Bishōnen anime

I feel that Princess Princess would be a better example of a Bishōnen anime than CLAMP because as the article states "most CLAMP shows". I can assure you that every Princess Princess show is pure Bishōnen. The show itself is about three boys who are so pretty that they are gawked at in an all guy school as a substitute for girls. Thus I feel Princess Princess would be a better example and be a higher quality specimen Bishōnen show that would more throughly express this anime thematic. I'm new at this so ya help me here If I am doing this talk thing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halofan101 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"most CLAMP shows" is rather vague, considering that this should be a NPOV encyclopedia, and if I were a reader who didn't know jack about Anime, I wouldn't know what the hell CLAMP is. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok unless anyone objects I will be changing the Bishōnen example from CLAMP to Princess Princess sometime after 04:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halofan101 (talk • contribs)
I would certainly object because the change really hasn't been discussed yet. You simply made a proposal and there has been only one comment about the proposal. --Farix (Talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that the CLAMP example is a rather poor one, but I'm not certain that Princess Princess is an ideal example either. Collectonian (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I believe that Princess Princess is an good example of a Bishōnen anime or at least better than "most CLAMP shows".

I believe the plot of the show implies Bishōnen
When beautiful Tooru transferred to an all-boys school, he received a warm welcome...but little did he know that his new classmates had nominated him for the academy's "Princess System." The lovely campus "Princesses" must dress as girls (in frilly Gothic Lolita costumes) at school events in order to lighten the stolid masculine atmosphere. Tooru balks at first, but soon comes to realize the advantages of being a "Princess.[2] The fact that it says "beautiful Tooru" implies beautiful boy which is Bishōnen

It may or may not be the absolute perfect example of Bishōnen anime but it is a very good one certainly better than "most CLAMP shows" both from a NPOV and a practical point of view. Also sorry about the short time, as I said I am new to the talk concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halofan101 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Princess, however, is a fairly obscure title, so using it as an example wouldn't help the reader. I would suggest a better known title such as Boys Over Flowers, Absolute Boyfriend or The Wallflower. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Good Point but I do not believe that the level of obscurity matters as long as the content is good. If a reader is looking for an example of a Bishōnen show it does not matter if it is well known or not as long as it fits the needs and provides and accurate picture of the genre. It might actually be better to use a more obscure show because people might have fewer preconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halofan101 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No matter what we do I think it is safe to say that "most CLAMP" episodes" needs to be changed. Princess Princess would be ideal but I guess anything would be better then CLAMP. Halofan101 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to purpose changing the Bishōnen anime from "most CLAMP" episodes" to Princess Princess at least on a temporary basis until farther discussion has concluded; at which time we can change it if we feel the need to. Halofan101 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I must oppose the change as Princess Princess is too obscure to provide an affective example. I've already gave three other suggestions that are far less obscure but would be affective examples. --Farix (Talk) 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can compromise on this one. I can go with The Wallflower anything would be more effective than "most CLAMP" episodes" Since you already approve of this example and no one else seems to care I think it will be safe to change it to this example. Halofan101 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Source for Expansion

The first issue of PiQ has a piece written by Tatsunori Konno, president and CEO of Bandai Visual USA, entitled "Is Anime Dead?" From a segment I read, it seems to be discussion the business model of anime in Japan and how it differs from the US television model, and the state of the industry. Here is one quite from the piece posted elsewhere:

"The Japanese anime business model is fundamentally different (than movie and tv shows). Anime appears to the public via TV broadcasting at first, but the sponsors of these programs are often either the anime producers themselves, or investors in the production committee's member companies. In short, the production companies are essentially paying Japanese TV stations to broadcast their product. They consider the whole 30-minute block as an advertisement for anime DVDs or other merchandise that'll help them cover production costs later on."

Collectonian (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


A new section on the "Business Model of Anime" might a expansion that could be created. One might be able to include things such as internet streaming or convention booth sponsoring or use of viral marketing or anything of that that line along with the concept of "30-minute block as an advertisement" idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halofan101 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit to examples in "Progressive Anime" genre

I would like to add Angel's Egg to the list of examples, because it is much older (1985), and thus has a wider circulation. It is also extremely unique and provocative. Having 3 examples instead of 2 wouldn't break continuity much, and it would be a worthwhile in providing diversity, because the current 2 are extremely recent. Saderlius (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The limit was set to two examples because it was plenty to illustrate the genre. It also prevents editors from adding their favorite anime. If progressive anime gets an exception, then editors are going to insist that all other genres receive three, then four, and on and on. However, you have not made a case as to why one of the current examples do not illustrate the genre effectively and why Angel's Egg is a more affective illustration of genre. --Farix (Talk) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei is already labeled as a comedy in its wiki, not progressive, but i admit progressive is a meta-genre. It is also Shōnen anime. Angel's egg is surrealist anime, which is extremely rare, with the result of symbolic content adding a considerably more progressive element to the film.
Progressive anime is defined as "extremely stylized", yet SZS touts not much more than a washed-out, grainy visual style that mimics film. Besides the extreme pessimism and cynicism portrayed, thats really the only progressive element going for it that i can see, and it contains little progressive content.
In contrast, Yoshitaka Amano uses grays and pastels to render an extremely dreary, post apocalyptic, foreboding, and gothic style to Angel's egg. The imagery constantly challenges the audience once they realize the presence of hidden metaphors- and it appeals to the subconscious. No other anime invests so much pregnant properties in the style.
Byōsoku 5 Centimetre is considerably more suited to be considered progressive, since it gives a realistic portrayal of the ephemeral qualities of the human condition, which is rare in anime. However, B5C is listed as Drama, and rightly so, as the content is not progressive for drama, only for drama portrayed in anime. Angel's egg is listed as "drama, fantasy, surreal", and all this achieved with practically no dialog- thats progressive!
Also, Angel's Egg is referenced as "progressive anime" in the opening paragraph of the wiki article. This is not surprising, since Mamoru Oshii is expressly mentioned, along side Miyazaki, in the wiki History of anime article as the most notable contributer to the "progressive anime" movement.
This deserves his work to be mentioned in the progressive genre example, and angel's egg is no doubt the most extreme example. Moreover, i can't find any links which label the 2 current examples as progressive anime except for this wiki article. I suggest dropping one of these in favor of Angel's Egg. To pick one, I would personally sacrifice Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei, because it appears to be less progressive. thanks for your time.
Saderlius (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What else do i need to do to get it changed? Saderlius (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

hello? Objections? Hows my case? insufficient? who should i talk to? Saderlius (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you believe Angel's Egg is more progressive than the current examples, then replace the innaccurate one. Not much we can do but change it back. Change the link then post on here a good explanation of why. And by good, I mean really convincing. Kopf1988 (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second sentence, second paragraph...

"... and anime is available in most motion-picture media ranging from television broadcast to literature." What is this meant to mean? If it makes a point or any sense, it certainly isn't clear to me at least. Mnealon (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime and American Animation

I believe we should have a sub-section within this article discussing the differences in quality amongst Japanese and American animation, most notably the increased amount of finances that often are put into American animations. --66.192.186.101 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Will we also put in sections comparing anime to animation from every other country? Can it be properly sourced and be a neutral section? What value does it add to the article? Collectonian (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it will add any value to the article as a whole, and there are points likely to be highly debated. So it won't be neutral. Shadowfoxza (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there are differences *cough*American sucks in comparison*cough* but there is not much of a way to say that neutrally, as just demonstrated without reliable source. Kopf1988 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

anime IS animation in general. Just call it japanese animation. It's correct and makes more sense.--138.88.250.97 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to spread your bias of Japanese animation.

[edit] Question about one of the pictures in this article

Hey theres a picture in this article that shows a few diffrent anime's in it and has the caption: "Some of the more uncommon art styles of modern anime" What animes are the bottom right one and the top left one? Phantom Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.138.186 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the image, there's a larger version and a description which identifies all the sources. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on Western culture

Since I know this a highly watchlisted article, which often has contentious editing - I figure I'll suggest an inclusion here instead of putting it in. The last paragraph in the section says

"Anime conventions began to appear in the early 1990s, during the Anime boom, starting with Anime Expo, Animethon, Otakon, and JACON. Currently anime conventions are held annually in various cities across the Americas, Asia, and Europe.[51] Many attendees participate in cosplay, where they dress up as anime characters. Also, guests from Japan ranging from artists, directors, and music groups are invited."

Perhaps that could be further expanded by including a sentence about Anime Clubs and their prevalence. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. Quick stab at it.

"In addition to anime conventions, anime clubs have become prevalent in Colleges, High schools, and community centers as a was to publicly exhibit anime as well as broadening Japanese cultural understanding."

Short, sweet, acknowledges its existence with out belaboring too many details. Comments? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no further comment, I am adding this to the last paragraph. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Maybe I just missed it, but it would be nice to have a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anime_and_manga_by_genre, under the genre category, but maybe that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.179.56 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Edits

Under "Distribution," there is a mention of five regions. This should be edited to note this applies to DVDs only, and mention that Blu-ray regions are divided into only 3, where Japan is combined with several other countries. Perhaps link to wikipeida's entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Region_codes.

The "Influence on Western culture" section needs to be rewritten. It is a bunch of sentences strung together, and no paragraph relfects its own individual thought. Maybe it would work better as a bulleted list until someone will rewrite it as a coherent section. 63.165.163.222 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on Western culture?

What about the influence of western animation on the whole Japanese animation process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CN Guy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animation -> Anime

Why do people call it anime?, Anime is just a mispronunciation of Animation. For example they do that on a lot of manga titles but we don't call Death Note; "Desu Noto" we call it Death Note. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling in this section header. I hope you don't mind. I also corrected the spelling of "mispronunciation." That said, I think you are addressing this with a bias for the English Language (which is understandable!) Some of these words are Loanwords, but more often then not, they become an amalgam of two languages - with only a derivative core similar. It goes the other way too [3]. To categorize "anime" as "just a mispronunciation" of "animation" would be false, after all the Japanese have a word for animation - it's not suprisingly アニメーション. - AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't know that, anyweay thanks for correcting my spelling. I was thinking about being a part of the typo team but maybe not. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Evry pwson mskes mistaks.