I think something can be considered anime or manga as long as they get the art right. The content or nationality of the creator doesn't matter to me. For example, I consider Avatar anime because the art doesn't look like a cheap knock off (as opposed to Kappa Mikey or Serenity)
So I think term Anime and Manga should be used with what it actually is, which is Japanese Animation and Comics.
animeantics wrote:I personally don't like things such as Avatar being called "Anime". While it is influenced by anime, it's not authentic anime.
minakichan wrote:The term "anime," derived from the English word "animation," is generally used in the West to describe animation that originates from Japan, although the Japanese use the term to describe animation in general]
And,Wikipedia wrote:The distinctive "large eyes" style of Japanese animation was invented by Tezuka,[2] who based it on cartoons of the time such as Max Fleischer's Betty Boop and Walt Disney's Bambi and Mickey Mouse.
Very generally, I'd say that it being funded/produced by a Japanese company qualifies it.
I had this widely known "anime style" in mind when I made my post (and that would be like the picture of the Haruhi cast you posted).
So really, Japanese anime was inspired by American animation and now American animation is being inspired by Japanese animation. If you trace the roots of "authentic Japanese anime/manga," you get Disney and stuff, XD. It's actually a very interesting pattern, and like I said before I think terms may change or solidify when the categories become more concrete.
minakichan wrote:Fair enough, but (just to nitpick) what happens if I emulate an Urasawa style very well-- one that isn't really Haruhi-esque at all?
minakichan wrote:Isn't it lovely how NOTHING IS CERTAIN AT ALL? x3
I like how there are specific terms for Japanese animation and comics. I don't like calling them "Japanese cartoons" or "Japanese comics" because when you say "comics" or "cartoons", it conjures up the wrong images for us Westerners.
LadyRushia (post: 1273774) wrote:What I meant by "getting it right" in terms of the art is that some of the foreign (mostly American) attempts tend to try to copy a style that is widely recognized as "anime style," and it doesn't work so well. I know the art within anime and manga varies much more than people think, but I had this widely known "anime style" in mind when I made my post (and that would be like the picture of the Haruhi cast you posted).
Also, now that I think of it, I call Avatar "American anime." So far, it's the only show in that category for me. Some people might hate me for that, but whatever. People are gonna call it different things until the categories become more solidified.
And,
So really, Japanese anime was inspired by American animation and now American animation is being inspired by Japanese animation. If you trace the roots of "authentic Japanese anime/manga," you get Disney and stuff, XD. It's actually a very interesting pattern, and like I said before I think terms may change or solidify when the categories become more concrete.
LadyRushia (post: 1273739) wrote:I think something can be considered anime or manga as long as they get the art right. The content or nationality of the creator doesn't matter to me. For example, I consider Avatar anime because the art doesn't look like a cheap knock off (as opposed to Kappa Mikey or Serenity). I also consider it anime because the story line holds its own against its Japanese counterparts]
Return to Anime and Anime Reviews
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 363 guests