Talk:Anime/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Difference between Anime And Cartoons

I think that the main article should have a section about the difference between Anime and Cartoons. I personally think the biggest difference is that Anime has an ongoing plot/storyline and Cartoons have episode-specific plot/storylines. --69.146.199.233

• I think, if anything, it should talk about the perceived difference among fans of anime. To the Japanese, anime is simply anything that's animated. Period. They sometimes make distictions such as calling shows like Looney Tunes "Amerika no anime," but other than that, "anime" just equals "animation" to them. As for anime not being episodic, that's not true. There are many, many, many episodic anime out there: Doraemon, Azumanga Daioh, Highschool! Kimen-gumi, Urusei Yatsura, Sazae-san, and many more that never make it over here. There may be more (percentage-wise) episodic shows in the West, but there is certainly no shortage of them in Japan. ^_^ --nihon 01:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

definitely agree about the stylistic difference points.. Would not call Disney animation anime. 67.188.192.110 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that User is right, we need/ there should be a section for "Differences between Anime & Animated Cartoon" Because if anime is the same, there will be no need for Anime article. You can tell the difference between anime by:

• big eyes
• plot: they mostly use Robots, tech, chi/pi/qi, demons, mostly based in Asia
• Characteraise: you can tell by characters, most audeince like cheeky characters, some characters act too dumb
• Fashion: the way they dress
• Mark: anime character always have marks, or something, like a mark at their right eye, mark on chest or arm, mark on sword...
• Parnter: anime parnters always have something fellowing them, like Berserk, that puk(fairly), Cardaptors that thing that follows that girl, Outlaw Star, that mini robot in the ship.

But in Animated Cartoons, you can tell by them! >x<ino 15:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect for the most part - big eyes does not apply for all anime (e.g. Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust), while the plot tends to be based in Asia (mostly because that is where it is made), the plot itself can be about anything, not all characters have marks - in fact, very few in my collection have them (e.g. the characters in Voices from a Distant Star), and characters having partners that follow them is actually somewhat rare in my experience. - Darkstar949 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this will just focus empasis on the very POV idea many fans have that anime is somehow superior to every other form of animation, especially if you get as "specific" as Xino is proposing. Besides, anime ARE cartoons, just ones from Japan. MasterGrazzt 06:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, not all anime has giant robots, qi, or demons in them...Doinkies 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with MasterGrazzt -- anime is nothing more or less than cartoons from Japan. That's all. Animated cartoons are an artistic medium, not a genre. It doesn't matter what the content of the cartoon is, who the cartoon's target audience might be, or what genre it fits into, because a cartoon is a cartoon. As for the differences between Japanese cartoons and western cartoons, I think that's already spelled out pretty clearly in the text.--Filby 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, if we should say anything it would be to mention that anime is more accepted as a valid form of expression for any type of story as opposed to most western countries where animation is seen as something for children. - Darkstar949 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just your opinion and it's not a fact. -24.197.193.252

No, Darkstar949 is correct. In Japan, animation is seen more as just another way to express an artistic vision rather than something just for kids (which is how it is almost always viewed in the States). Granted, that is beginning to change as more anime is brought over and more people see that anime is "not just for kids", and that the stuff that "isn't just for kids" isn't necessarily tentacle porn. (^_^) --nihon 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Animation is recognized worldwide as a medium of artistic expression, and has been used since its inception to express themes that would be considered mature even today. What's more, even if the 'cartoons are for kids' argument was the general concensus of the american artistic community (and it most certainly isn't...), that does not change anime from a medium into a genre. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.140.12.15 (talk • contribs) .

That definantly echoes what I have read on the culture of anime in Japan. That they invest as much money and creative license into an anime series or movie that we in the US do in live-action movies and series, and that the fans take it just the same. Very cool I think. Eluchil 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that anime is seen as a geeky fringe culture in Japan, and it's manga that's universally accepted. Yes, they don't think it's "for children" but that doesn't mean a business man or a housewife will watch it. Not many people in North America think Star Trek is for children, but that doesn't mean everybody watches it. MasterGrazzt 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Popular Anime

This is an accident waiting to happen. Popular Anime. Do we have any criteria as what a "commercial success" is? I would be okay with a bit of objectivity on a, say List of popular anime, but in interest of keeping this article as readable as possible, we don't want everyone adding their favorite anime to the list. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it could be a problem. The section was intended only to list the 'biggest hits' in North America, of which there are only a few and everyone pretty much knows what they are. However I can see someone already added 'Card Captor Sakura', not exactly as popular as say Dragonball Z or Pokemon! However, having a section of the biggest hits would add value to the Anime section for sure. Therefore, it's worth considering a solution. How about labeling the section more specifically? Instead of 'Popular Anime' maybe 'Anime Hits in North America'? rm dash r

Ok Ambush Commander I support the notion to move this to its own page. When the section was called Popular Anime I wanted to add Card Captor Sakura because it enjoyed several runs on TV and Cable here in Australia, whereas Gundam has not to my knowledge been aired! Neon Genesis Evangelion was very popular here when it first ran on free-to-air TV as well. I treated the section as "english speaking" countries since this is "english speaking" wikipedia, though I'd have to add a section called 'Anime Hits in Australia' if I wanted to keep Card Captor Sakura and add Evangelion now. So let's put a for and against as to whether to keep this or move it to its own page

-Squilibob 07:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

For

• Awareness of well known anime to non-fans having a section of the biggest hits would add value to the Anime section for sure
• Adds a good generalization of what western audiences target in anime
• Adds to the Distribution part of the article
• There is already a notable anime page which has catagories and is well structured.

I actually like the idea of a short summary of the hits in the USA on the Anime page itself. This way when older people look up anime they will have a nice summary of the state of Anime all together. What really bothers me is that most older people don't even know what Dragon Ball Z is and that it is extremely popular in the USA. Monpocker

Against

• Other lists relating to anime are already on their own page and are already in the See Also section.
• Relates only to North America but is in an article for all english speaking wikipedians
• Prone to becoming longer with users adding more entries
• Prone to becoming POV or maybe it already is POV!

I would argue it is redundant with the existing lists. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see we're treating this democratically. Along with the For and Against, I'd like to have a list that everyone can add to to propose what should be done about this part of the article. It can't be left as it is, it's going to cause more problems. See the archive of this talk page about the Notable anime discussion, the problem and the solution. This part of the article is repeating history.

Changes to Popular Anime/Greatest Hits in North America

1. Rename Greatest Hits in North America to Commercial successes outside of Japan or Commercial successes in North America although the latter may still be prone to problems. The section will need to be rewritten with references.
2. Remove section altogether, leave popular anime to the Notable anime list.
3. Scatter the entries in the list within the other content in the article. Dragon Ball Z is already doing this, it's listed as an example and there's an image with the caption linking to the Dragon Ball Z article
4. Move section to its own page, just like Notable Anime was moved in the past.

• I vote for #2 because Notable anime lists why the anime is notable. - Squilibob 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote for 2 as well, but I would also accept a compromise in which the blurb for the anime currently in the greatest hits are extended to note their commercial success. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote for 1, yes change the name to "Commercial successes outside of Japan" because North America isn't the only place.

And for the Notable Anime, Noteable ANime and Popular are merely the same, because Popular anime are like, DBZ, Narutor and even Samuria X. While Notable Anime, are still the one people notice, like DBZ, Samuria X and even Narutor

Go to any fool and ask him, about Akira, he will notice it, even Akira isn't popular right now(it was before). SO...I say just either

1. change the name to "Notable Anime(Popluar)"
2. Delete both places and just leave the link linking to Popular Anime/Notable Anime
3. Putting either Notable Anime or Poplura Anime in this main section, and explaining that popular animes are so notable by fans and people, because they see them around. Put some bit of listing, and reidrect the audeince to the full listing of either Popular Anime or Notable Anime.

>x<ino 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Popular != Notable. There are influential, original critical successes whose commercial popularity are nowhere near DBZ or Pokemon, say. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends, Pokemon, is a well know Wanna Be Anime, most fans like it while others don't, which they notice it has a Notable Anime.

DBZ is a well notable anime and popular anime

>x<ino 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

At this stage the list has been removed and hasn't been mentioned again. It's left to the list of notable anime to list those anime. It should be noted that the following anime are already directly linked (some multiple times) from the anime page:

Pokèmon, Laputa, Astro Boy, Gatchaman, Lupin III, Mazinger Z, Gundam, Akira (2), Cowboy Bebop (2), Spirited Away (2), GITS, Dragon Ball Z (2), Fushigi Yugi (I think that is supposed to be Fushigi Yūgi), Love Hina, Doremon, Neon Genesis Evangelion (2), Chiccha na Yuki Tsukai Sugar, Hoshi no Koe, Ah Megi Sama, Cyborg 009, Cardcaptor Sakura, Utena, Gravitation, Mai-Hime, Cutey Honey, FLCL (2), Dead leaves, Only Yesterday, Mindgame, The Hakkenden, Bubblegum Crisis, and Tenchi Muyo (3 times).

So maybe its best to leave the page as it is, there's a lot of links already there - and - already in context - Squilibob 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please leave some form of pronunciation guide near the beginning of the article; I too thought it was "a neem" when I first read it.

I assume the Japanese characters are intended to show the way the word is written in ordinary Japanese usage and are not intended as a pronunciation guide (although they serve that purpose if you happen to know katakana). So; perhaps keep the two distinct, but leave the roman-alphabet pronunciation in.

Fourohfour 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote in a small pronunciation guide earlier without knowing that it was in the first section below; it got reverted. I will now write a reference to that section at the head of the article. Yes, it looks enough like "ah NEEM" to be confusing (and to get not-as-nice people to make fun of you or me being a noob by not pronouncing it right). ~GMH talk to me 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I can your point. The problem was it was too hard to find under the heading of Terminology. I broke that section into two subsections. The reference to that section at the head of the article shouldn't be needed since the pronounciation is in the very next paragraph. - Squilibob 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Podcasts

This section seems to be an advert for the I Like Anime article (not to mention that article seems very much like and advert itself). Thoughts? --nihon 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears the page linked to in this section is only a vanity/advert page, which will likely get deleted. I've removed this section from the main page. --nihon 08:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought podcasting was interesting enough to be mentioned. That being said, it wasn't added with the intention of adding more content to this page and was a blatent attempt at advertising the "I like anime" page which is an awful article. If it were to be added again, it need only be mentioned very briefly. - Squilibob 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that podcasting is worth mentioning, but it shouldn't necessarily link to any specific podcast or blog, IMHO. --nihon 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than having a section, perhaps there should be a single link to the biggest/oldest/most respected podcast or (if it exists) a aggregator. I'm more familiar with blogs than podcasts and a sensible link would be to an aggregator like Animeblogger.net Antenna.

AniPages?

This seems to just be a personal blog, which it shouldn't be linked from this page. What do you think?

• Pelleas AniPages: Rare and literary anime.

--nihon 02:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly isn't a database. - Squilibob 08:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Zapped. --nihon 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See however, this comment by Neilworms, also note Ben *does* have a datebase of anime based on western literature. Personally, I think it'd be better if the external links section just din't exist, seems like 90% of edits to the page are adding and reverting bits and pieces, and no one (including me :) actually has a go at improving the (pretty sorry) article. --zippedmartin 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

pov?

This sentence seems pretty p.o.v. to me:

"Anime is characterized by stark, colorful graphics and stylized, colorful images depicting vibrant characters in a variety of different settings and storylines, aimed at a wide range of audiences."

The colorful graphics part is fine, but the 'variety of storylines' thing and 'vibrant characters' seems to be unnecessary.... I mean, any drawing style or genre could have good characters, and varied storylines. I would think it would be a more accurate synopsis to describe the basic characteristics of the drawing style.

Its tone is inappropriate to a small extent. I'll rewrite that part. The paragraph focuses too much on what makes anime appealing as opposed to what constitutes what anime is and how it is created, and that should be what the first paragraph should be about. The content that describes what makes anime appealing, I will move to the "characteristics" section as that is a suitable place for it to go. Someone may rewrite it, if it still seems inappropriate. I thought that some of this could be be put under "target audience", so I did some moving there too. - Squilibob 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a good compromise, because the appeal is important as well, but not in the first blurb.

count noun

Anime can be used as a common noun, "Do you watch anime?", as a count noun, "How much anime have you collected" or as a suppletive adjective, "The anime Guyver is different from the movie Guyver".

"How much anime..." is not an example of count noun usage. Count noun would be asking "How many anime have you collected", which doesn't sound right to me. --Dforest 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine to me. Anime is just like "deer" or "sheep" and has a null plural morpheme. Perhaps this is just my study of the Japanese language getting in the way, but I think "animes" would sound rather funny. Indi^talk 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've heard animes before, and IMO it's right. Down with irregular English pluralization!--Prosfilaes 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Animes" is incorrect. LaurenMcMillan is correct in her assessment above. --nihon 02:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is "animes" incorrect? Your blanket statement isn't helpful. --Prosfilaes 03:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's incorrect is prescriptive and misleading. In fact, loanwords in English may take on different plural forms, kimonos for instance. The article should just state that both 'anime' and 'animes' are used as plural, and not dictate which should be. --zippedmartin 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of both sounds good to me. I was just stating what I think sounds right, not what is right. =) Indi^talk 14:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, my point is that "How much anime have you collected?" is an example of a mass noun, not a count noun. Probably in most cases we would say something like "How many anime films have you collected?", rather than using 'anime' or 'animes' as a countable noun. This is consistent with other mass nouns, such as water, for example. We usually say "How many glasses of water", rather than "How many waters" (unless you're comparing the subtle difference of some ersatz mineral waters or something). Dforest 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was disputing your actual point, which is patently correct. Be bold, etc. --zippedmartin 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes no one was arguing against it, in fact the article needs people to correct this sort of thing. I didn't know the difference. - Squilibob 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)