Jump to content

Talk:Anime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.38.15.2 (talk) at 17:45, 8 May 2009 (Added note re: See Also section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reliable References List

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mKrArbLUS-sJ:www.itofisher.com/mito/ito.girlsgames.pdf+%22Mizuko+Ito%22+Anime&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a I'm adding this one... Professor of Cultural anthropology focusing on Anime, you can't really go wrong... plus cited before and has a PDF.

Felix the Cat

Am I correct in thinking that early American animation such as Felix the Cat and Beety Boop influenced anime stlye? Its just that after seeing some Felix the Cat I noticed how the way his eyes were drawn and his expressions were very simular to that I have seen of anime.FSAB (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, sort of. A lot of Japoanese animation from the 30's to 40's I've seen, seems to be highly inspired by their American counterparts, I think Betty Boop in particular was enjoyed by the artist avant-garde. Also, Osamu Tezuka, who generally is considered the founder (of some sort) of both modern manga and anime highly admired the animation of Disney and Fleischer (Betty Boop etc.) and borrowed much of his visual style from them, including the large and cartoony eyes. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any appropriate part of the article to bring up the online legal distribution of anime?

Recently online video sites such as Hulu and Joost have legally been able to distribute free anime viewings on their websites. Heck, Funimation even has a Youtube account where they legally distribute free anime. Antiyonder (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't specific to anime, though, is it? Prof Wrong (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well..yes. It documents how such a foreign media is changing in its methods of distribution N-Denizen (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joost wasn't invented to sell anime, though -- there's plenty of other stuff in there. If you can source any figures that would support a claim that anime is driving uptake of such service (eg "anime accounts for 50% of all viewings on YetAnotherStreamingVideoSite.TV, a percentage that has been steadily rising since 2007"), that would be noteworthy.
Prof Wrong (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is representative?

@‘The representative styles of "classic" and "modern" anime art.’: who decided what is to be considered representative in this image? I have the feeling that the style chosen (at least for the modern part) is a bit one-sided, especially compared to image below, and may not even be the most common. Shinobu (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which style are you talking about? There are eight in each image. As for your title question, the editors of the article decide. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is valid, which is why there is no lead image. We are working on the NPOV for the rest of the article. This article needs to be restructured, see above.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up a while ago, and I assure you it is one-sided. It was added by "Otaking", a guy who likes to praise old anime, and apparently doesn't enjoy the concept of fair representation of both new and old worlds. On the left you have high quality small productions that focused on heavy shading, and on the right you have long, low budget kids shows which do not focus on shading. Additionally, the images on the left show evidence of close-ups and dramatic scenes where art style would be a focus, and on the right you simply have randomly chosen scenes. Add the fact that there are only four picture to represent decades' worth of anime, the fact that images do not represent animation of which modern anime focuses more on, and how I could easily present eight images right now that could display the complete opposite of Otaking's argument (modern anime sometimes does use detailed shading, older anime sometimes does not), and you have a biased image. I did remove it, but it was readded, and plans for a better representative image were made, but it seems they were not implemented. You only have to look at the case of representing an entire anime article with one image to see it's not adequate. It would make more sense to remove it, and probably just expand on the image below it, which shows a detailed look at lots of different styles. N-Denizen (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed this too. Why is an old 4chan troll image included in the article? I call vandalism. 83.30.249.164 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical usage

Nothing much, but the fact that 'animes' is never used should be edited to state that anime is not used as animes when talking about "Yes, I've seen a large amount of anime", but it is still used when saying "Yes, I've seen both of those animes", such as the situation with Cheese and Cheeses and Fish and Fishes.

Thanks!

 Done - Yup, sounds right to me - I've adjusted that sentence. If anyone can think of a better way of phrasing it than the way I did, go ahead; I'm not entirely happy with it. ~ mazca t|c 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the sentence a little as it didn't clarify that "animes" is the incorrect plural form. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit did alter the meaning of what I wrote - that isn't a problem as I was quite possibly wrong. I was stating that while the use of "anime" as a mass noun is correct, it's also correct to pluralise it normally (with an s) when you aren't using it as a mass noun. I was under the impression "I watched all three of those animes today" is correct, grammatically. ~ mazca t|c 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping the new language and sources clarifies the situation. But anime pluralized as animes is not supported by any of the English dictionaries that I've looked at. --Farix (Talk) 14:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is simply that my understanding of the rule is that, in the case of another irregular plural, fish, that it can be used as fish for singular or plural, but varies when saying fish of different types, such as goldfish and salmon. "I saw some fish at the lake", but "I couldn't decide which of the fishes I wanted as a pet." Isn't anime seen the same way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.67.194 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right, and I doubt the dictionary would be that exhaustive with a loan word. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen that stated as being correct. But your viewpoint is not supported by any reliable sources so far. So calling it an irregular plural would be original research, if not disputable. --Farix (Talk) 21:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anime is a borrow word. Anime, is therefore, Anime in plural, because Japanese has no plurals. There is no mass version of the word. Does that make it more clear? It's more like "sheep" than "fish" Where no matter how many group of Sheep you have it's still sheep. It's the same with manga. It's just that many people tend to put on an "s" like they do on "sheep" out of reflex rather than knowing better. When Oxford English Dictionary lists Anime with a correct definition and says "s" is acceptable, then you have a case to argue.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, there are about 500 nouns in English that are loanwords from Japanese. Of these, about 300 are count-nouns (i.e. pluralisable), and of these count-nouns, about 60% do take regular English plurals (i.e. -s or -es), while the other 40% don't (link (requires JSTOR access)). While my personal preference is in agreement with yours, that may just be my personal preference, and the idea that it doesn't happen in English just because it doesn't happen in Japanese doesn't really have any basis. --Thegooseking (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of those borrowed words, Oxford English Dictionary still does not recognize Anime as an official English word. Too bad. Your "preference" is not supported by the English language. Find your source and source it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check a newer edition -- anime is in there.Prof Wrong (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anime is a borrow word. Anime, is therefore, Anime in plural, because Japanese has no plurals.
Sorry Kinno, but it doesn't work that way. Consider that the Japanese word for "sandwich" (sandoichi?) is a borrowing from English, but it doesn't take a plural '-s' (sandoichis). Why? Because the host language -- Japanese -- works that way; the rules of the source language don't matter. Or (sticking with sandwiches), the Italian word for "sandwich" is "panino", the plural of which is "panini". In English we call a toasted Italian-bread sandwich a "panini" and talk about two "paninis"... because that's just how English works.
Which isn't to say that anime does take an "-s", just that it could if English speakers felt it was better that way. However, I'm not convinced that anime is really in widespread use as a discreet item -- I'm more used to seeing it used to describe the category or concept of anime.
The "incorrect pluralisation" mentioned in the article as it stands is a confusing leap of logic at best: the "error" here isn't the pluralisation -- the error (if it can be called that at all) is using it as a countable noun. While I talk about "an anime film" there are people who talk about simply "an anime". The lack of plural in the English loanword arises from our perception of it as a category, not an item.
Prof Wrong (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just made an edit, and I'll understand if it's removed under NOR, but I googled "these animes" and I thought 8,790,000 hits spoke for themselves -- the word is in use as a countable, even if it hasn't reached the dictionaries yet.
(I prefered the old wording of the NOR policy, when it stated that anything that was patently obvious was OK....)
Prof Wrong (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you missed is that Google search for "these animes" returns results for "these animals". I'm afraid the only thing it proves is that Google is progressively turning into unusable crap. "these animes" -animals, on the other hand, returns 17000 results, a few times less than "these anime". Squeal (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. It asks "Did you mean these animals" and gives you the first two hits for "these animals", but the matches counted at top and returned in the main list are for "these animes". Flick through the other pages of the list. Meanwhile if you write "these animes" -animals you're excluding many animes that include animals, such as Pom Poko and Princess Mononoke.
So Google shows almost nine million pages that have the phrase "these animes" -- it's pretty clear that more than a few people say it.
Prof Wrong (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual characteristics

It would be a good idea to explain more thoroughly how anime-style characteristics differ from American animation. When people see anime, they think big eyes, heads, etc, but these are also characteristics of American animation. I'm sure many of you know that early on, the anime style was adapted from Disney animation. I believe I read that from Tezuka Osamu somewhere in case you want a source for the article. I'm not an expert on anime, so I don't plan on doing any major work for the article, but I just wanted the editors to know that it's wanting in that area. - Cyborg Ninja 12:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition used in the article, anime is any animation produced in Japan, whether or not it is idiomatically what we might expect from anime, so there may be no real commonality in visual characteristics that spans all of anime, or the differences in visual characteristics between Japanese and American animation may be more due to the respective styles of individual artists than a national thing. It does seem like there should be specific visual characteristic differences between Japanese and American animation, but that's probably very hard to verify at all, let alone with sufficient objectivity. --Thegooseking (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above statement by The Goose King. For non-big eyed-anime, Master Keitan comes to mind. There is also all of Miyazaki--which is certainly anime too. Tere is some running thread of "limited animation" in anime, but with the advent of computers, this, too, might change. There are some 3D anime coming out as well... So it's hard to define anime besides that it comes from Japan and uses Japanese aesthetics of the times to create it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a general struggle to even quantify the "anime style" - as visual characteristics may or may not be transferrable from one style to another. Personally, I'm rather curious about differences in production methods - or even methods to design characters, settings, and other visuals. There may be distinct differences there. Yet, such answers can only come from sources describing the making of an anime vs that of a non-Japanese cartoon. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60% of ... is Japanese

In the section on 'influence on world culture' it would probably be notable to mention the 60% thing, but I've read conflicting reports on what is 60%. They say:-

  • 60% of all animation worldwide is Japanese,
  • or 60% of animation broadcast on TV worldwide is Japanese,
  • or 60% of new animated movies worldwide are Japanese,
  • or 60% of all animation viewed by children worldwide is Japanese.

Those are the ones I've seen; there may be even more. Does anyone know which it is, and have any good source to back that up? --Thegooseking (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: Anime and American Audiences

The second paragraph in this section needs to be edited. This sentence: "It is also important to note that the Western world abandoned their ancient pagan beliefs during the middle ages, whereas Shinto has remained relatively unchanged in modern Japanese culture," not only ascribes the negatively understood term "pagan belief" to Shinto, but also implies that Western beliefs have somehow progressed beyond those pagan beliefs into something superior to Shinto. Then, the second sentence; "Because of this, Shinto has been able to provide over eight million deities and their surrounding folklore for anime creators to utilize," is illogical following that inaccurate first sentence anyways. And while I'm sure that Levi's article is an informative read, I think that it has been negligibly summarized in this paragraph. I also think that this section, if it is going to focus on Shinto's influence on and presence in anime, is inaccurately named, for while American audiences do lack that basis of cultural understanding, it is what American audiences DO perceive that should be important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr10 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Job titles

Should the article contain something describing the various roles of different people/companies in the animation process such as the Sakuga Director and the role of in-between animators and such. Two source are here in wao's post and here, though I'm not sure either can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelFire3423 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue?

Unless someone can offer a reason why the character design section is tagged for not being neutral, I will remove this tag. The tag was added on August 12, 2008, but the problem was not explained on the talk page and was not obvious to me. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just checking that and didn't find any discussion about it. I think it should be removed. 200.82.91.91 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have something to do with the use of indefinites(mostly,may,commonly). The "summon a mallet from nowhere leading to the concept of hammer space" is probly also misplaced as western animation use it too. That being said, I'll go ahead and remove it and if someone has a problem they can put it back up and explain their reasoning. --Wilson (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link the the See Also section should be updated from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Glossary:Japanese_film_credit_terms to the non-deleted page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Japanese_film_credit_terms

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime&oldid=288713149"