Talk:Anime

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)