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 98.82.103.91 (talk) at 03:09, 30 March 2010 (→Tentacles). 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.

Tentacles

How can this be an article on "Anime" when it doesn't even mention tentacles?

OK, sure, maybe "anime" means "cartoon" in Japan - thats all good and well, but the *English* wikipedia is supposed to be about how speakers of *English* understand the term as it is used in *English*. So, to an English-speaking audience, whats the primary difference between Anime and Cartoons?

What they'd call "Adult themes" 30 or 40 years ago. These days, its "mature audiences" or something like that, but whatever.

OK, sure, maybe it doesn't have to be tentacle rape porno, it could be something like the trend-setter Akira, which was free of direct, graphic depictions of sexual acts, but it sure made up for it in gore and science fiction.

Come on, do people actually think Pokémon when they think of Anime? I sure as hell don't - Pokémon is a cartoon, man! Zaphraud (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Thanks to Cartoon Network's Toonami, along with the adaptation of the Wizard of Oz, it's often one of the first animes a Westerner is exposed to, along with Sailor Moon and DBZ. ForestAngel (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To speakers of English, the term anime means Japanese animation, simple as that. The word cartoon is more complicated, see the Cartoon article. Yes, Pokémon is a cartoon. The only anime that are not cartoons are CGI anime. I do not see how tentacles are related to Japanese animation. 87.94.142.199 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description/definition you are proposing is not supported by reliable sources. Statements that cannot be verified using reliable sources cannot be included into the article. Since all of the reliable sources define anime as Japanese animation and has not given any other definition for the term, then that is the definition the article uses. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a source for it can be found. But I would shy away from sources on themselves and look for a source that correlates this directly to avoid undue weight issues. Oh, and the term "cartoon" is rather vague, and could potentially describe adult works as well. Pokemon (the show anyways) is pretty inexcusably anime and by many interpretations a cartoon as well. Although a cartoon generally pertains to being humorous not childish, I think anime, as with other fanciful genres, is often thought of as something for a young audience only regardless of this. RP9 (talk)

21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) sorry but if pokemon iz the first anime u think of u r sad or like 5 yrs old srsly and nobody even watches pokemon NE MOAR!

Hmm... moving on. I can't say it's the first I'd think of, but I know a lot of people who would generalize pokemon as an anime. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon is a cartoon made in Japan...Which makes it an anime. Tentacles aren't a common staple in anime...Some anime involves tentacled creatures (including some Pokemon), but a majority of it doesn't...It's most likely to be found in hentai, anyway. rzrscm (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Tentacles. Wow. I think this guy is referring to an abstract area of hentai... which is another matter entirely....69.151.145.127 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys just got trolled by the op. Damn. Tentacles btw is a form of anime porn where an anime like female is well raped by tentacles by some monster or food in the shape of tentacles. Yes Pokemon is an anime, its Japanese animation, just because its aim at kids doesn't make it less of an anime, anime can be made for any age group, get over it. Stop applying your "if its popular hate it" bs view that has griped Americans lately.98.82.103.91 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Various sources, such as here, here, and here describe anime as a "style of animation" originating from Japan. The Terminology section makes this clear, but why is it not reflected in the lead? The source after "The world outside Japan regards anime as 'Japanese animation'." states "a style of animation originating in Japan...", so how does the source support this? RP9 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anime is not Japanese

Went i was a kid on teletoon they use to call the show animation domination... and it was canadien anime and american anime. Saying that anime is japanese anime is not seeing it form a netural perspective. Family guy, simpson, or anime other american style anime is also anime ( animation ). For this reason alot of thing ahlf to be change. The article should not be anime and manga but anime and have an under title that sayed anime and manga. I am not a good edit and am not good inuff to change a whole article please correct this thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.15.53 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAYANA

How old are you? 12? "Animation Domination" has never even referred to their cartoons as "anime"...Because they're not. Here in America, anime only refers to Japanese animation, which is what this article is about...Japanese animation rzrscm (talk)
As commonly used outside of Japan, anime refers specifically to Japanese animation. This usage is pretty well documented. --Farix (Talk) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn that the Japanese use of the term for "all animation" is also noted. All this would require is an entry from a Japanese dictionary. But yes, for now, Western (and non-Japanese) uses of the term has a heavy connotation of "animation from Japan". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do, although even there it is clear-cut anymore. However, this is an English Wikipedia, not Japanese therefore the term the way it is used in English is appraopriate just like other loan words, like alchohol. Their origin and meaning in the original language should be noted, but the usage in English is what matters most. 124.180.48.127 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on that, articles are about subjects, not words. This article is about the subject of Anime, and the title should be whatever word best refers to the subject in a given language not how the subject is interpreted among the speakers of a given language. RP9 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in the the above section, I think this is not necessarily true. RP9 (talk)
Anime is usually referred to as Japanese because there is more emotion, plot, and animation quality in it, whereas the typical 'western' cartoon/animation is more of a single episode that is not connected to the other episodes in anything other than the characters.
That's not true at all...The term has nothing to do with the emotion, plot, or quality...Most anime actually has very limited animation, even compared to American cartoons, and it doesn't always have an ongoing plot. There are plenty of western cartoons that have an ongoing plot (X-Men, for example)...Anime is called anime because that's what they call animation in Japan, so since we don't live in Japan, we use it to differentiate Japanese cartoons from other cartoons. rzrscm (talk)

There are always exceptions to these rules, OVA usually consist of only one or two episodes (although I recall a certain Sc-fi that called itself OVA after 100~ ish episodes)

So, I guess, Anime is kind of like an animated Soap Opera kind of thing. Hm... =124.180.48.127 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No...Not necessarily...I don't mean to beat a horse's corpse, but anime refers solely to JAPANESE ANIMATION unless you live in Japan. In the 11 years that I've been into anime, it's only been recently that people have been coming in and trying to argue that anime isn't only Japanese animation...And it's always younger (teenage) people who have only recently gotten into anime making the claim. rzrscm (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

everytime i type in "list of anime films" or "anime films" or list of "anime original", i get redirect here. why? if no such article exist, then it still shouldnt be redirecting here.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anime films is reasonable redirect, but the others could be deleted.陣内Jinnai 02:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list is not necessary anyways. That's what Categories are for. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there already is a list of manga licensed in English, why not one for anime?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anime" and "anime inspired animation"

Hi, the article says

Non-Japanese works that borrow stylization from anime are commonly referred to as "anime-influenced animation" but it is not unusual for a viewer who does not know the country of origin of such material to refer to it as simply "anime".

Is the "commonly" appropriate here? I would assume that the vast majority of the English-speaking people who know the word "anime" understand it to refer to the *style* and do not care whether it was produced in Japan or elsewhere. If the term "anime-influenced animation" is used only in scholarly/business/fanzine context, then the word "commonly" does not apply.
It would be nice to back either point with evidence; but that would have to be a survey among the general public, and I don't know where to look for that. I can point out however that the Webster Online entry (which is supposed to record common usage) defines anime interms of style, not country of production. Until more solid evidence turns up, perhaps we should just replace "are commonly referred" by a noncommital "may be referred". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've almost never heard anyone who is familiar with anime refer to it as a "style", except to make fun of those who aren't familiar with anime. The term is always used as a synonym for Japanese animation. Anime like Ninja Scroll or Vampire Hunter D have nothing stylistically in common with Pokémon or Shugo Chara!. So in that respects, the Webster's dictionary definition of "anime" is very much incorrect. We will need to find a more authoritative source for the correct definition.[1] —Farix (t | c) 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is very worrisome. If "anime" were to mean simply "Japanese animation" then the name of the article would be in question, as WP rules requires an English name to be used when possible. But I would rather trust Webster on this one. (Dictionary makers usually base their definitions on general usage of the word as found in large newspapers, magazines, etc. I don't know about Webster, but some 20 years ago the the OED was already using large database of such texts to check their definitions.) Needless to say the same word may mean different things to different people; but again, note that a Wikipedia article on anime must be written for general readers, not only for those who "know" (or like) anime. All the best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Stolfi (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But are we not suppose to provide the correct definition so long as it is backed up by reliable sources? And I don't see how anime being a synonym for Japanese animation should affect the name of this article. Anime is the more common name. And the fact that we are writing for a general reader is more reason why we should provide the most accurate definition possible instead of an inaccurate or even incorrect definition. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry for the confusion. Forget the renaming. My claim is that "anime", for the general public, means a general style, and not "Japanese animation". Webster is a reference that supports that. The reference you gave seems to say that common people agree with Webster, while a particular anime outlet says it is the origin. The latter view is understandable since they presumably have business ties with Japanese producers; but "animation offered for certain outlets" cannot be the basis for the Wikipedia definition. The question is: what are the *average* "anime fans" fans of, exactly? Would they care for a Shugo Chara! look-alike animation made in Korea or China? Would they care for a new series of Bugs Bunny cartoons made in Japan, with the original style? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
here's a source talking better about the evolution of the name meaning: [2] The into doesn't really say that the usage of "anime" means non-Japanese anime-inspired works. It was published in 2009. If the usage is there, it should be given due weight - ie it appears more academic and expert commentary uses anime to define something that isn't anime-inspired and as such those types of sources are generally considered higher quality. Usage of the term, if there is RS evidence should be noted, but not focus on it.陣内Jinnai 02:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a conversation example: (my dad) "Why do they look so weird?" (one of my siblings) "Oh, because it's anime." (my dad) "Anime?" (same sibling) "You know, Japanese cartoons." To most people, anime will always simply be used to describe Japanese animation regardless of whether or not it's technically correct. It's like calling "champagne" made outside of France "champagne", it's technically wrong, but most people don't really care. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been into anime for 11 years, and I would never refer to anything made outside of Japan as anime, nor have I ever heard anybody refer to anything made outside of Japan as anime until recently, which honestly baffles me. There are a lot of different styles in anime, so it's ignorant to try to apply it to a style...Some American cartoons may be influenced by certain styles of anime and try to emulate it, but that doesn't make it any more anime than getting plastic surgery to look asian makes you asian. This is a stupid argument that only exists out of ignorance. rzrscm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps you only speak to people who are as dedicated to the subject as you are, or perhaps only to people who are very precise with their speech. Most people with only a passing knowledge of the subject say this all the time. People call acetaminophen "Tylenol" and adhesive medical strips "Band-Aids" even if they're not made by Johnson and Johnson. In some parts of the USA they even call a Pepsi a "coke"! All of these uses are technically wrong, but absolutely common. It would be wrong for an encyclopedia to ignore reality and pretend that no one ever speaks that way.
Why are you so dead set against mentioning that some people use the words more broadly than is technically correct? APL (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture "Anime Eye"

I think it's just ridiculous to have a picture such as that eye as the main picture. I mean, honestly that eye stereotypes the way your typical western person sees anime. It makes me shiver. I think it should be changed >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigochild777 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "eye" is part of an article series box on anime and manga. It was chosen because that style of eye is one of the very few identifiable elements found in most anime and manga series. —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, I concur. (though I was a bit thrown off by it when I first arrived at the article) 72.191.116.59 (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha...I was thinking the same thing and thought about bringing it up here. rzrscm (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with the above that I consider the eye a rather bad choice to describe an entire genre. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole category of potential images to choose from. The pickings are not quite as slim as people think (based on comments I've heard before). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest Anime

A 3 second animated clip was discovered and is believed to be as many as 10 years older than the 1917 anime.

See here

124.180.48.127 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source

Found an interesting fact: "The number of Japanese anime DVDs exported to the United States increased from 2.1 million in 2000 to 12 million in 2005". [3] -- deerstop. 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Adult Content"

I've noticed a few cases of anime (especially OVAs, and including "This Ugly Yet Beautiful World") that will go so far as to show womens' breasts, yet are not distinctly considered hentai as long as they don't go farther than that, and are not necessrily considered 'adult'(uncertain). I know that restrictions on more adult matters for a younger audience are slightly lessened in Japan, but should this particular consideration be noted in this article? 69.151.145.127 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime&oldid=352879528"