# The State of American Animation



## Wereserpent (Feb 13, 2005)

It seems to me today that the animation market is dominated by Japanese anime, now I myself like anime, and even know a bit of Japanese myself. 

Ore no nihongo wa heta desuga kokorondeiru. 

But, it seems American animation is lagging behind, all that is produced now is comedy shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons, it seems there is very little serious american animation out there. 

Any opinions?


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 13, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> It seems to me today that the animation market is dominated by Japanese anime, now I myself like anime, and even know a bit of Japanese myself.
> 
> Ore no nihongo wa heta desuga kokorondeiru.
> 
> ...




Yes, you're right.

I work in the American animation industry and I partially share your point of view. However, its a rather complex matter and would take quite some time to discuss it fully. But I'll try to offer my opinion while keeping it shorter than my normal huge posts.    But I gotta feeling its still gonna be long anyways.

Yes, (in my opinion) the American animation industry produces very very little "serious" shows/movies. Its one of the many weaknesses the industry has. By narrowing the types of audiences we make shows for, we limit ourselves. We only have a few companies that make stuff for kids. But in Japan, they have studios that make stuff for kids.....*and* for teenagers, adults, etc. In America....just for kids. Or...for kids and adults. We don't make 'em *just* for adults. And before someone mentions "Cool World" or the HBO "Spawn" animations....those are the exception and not the norm. The once in a blue moon adult animations represents a very low percentage of stuff coming out of American animation. And when it is for adults...its sitcom comedy. 

A lot of it has to do with how we make shows in America and those that control the funding. The people with the power. Money is power. In America, the "Suits" with the power care about ratings and toys only. If the show doesn't get high ratings or make the toys sell super huge in numbers, its considered a failure. Doesn't matter how good the show actually is. Doesn't matter that the toys sell fairly okay or good. If it doesn't do Pokemon or Cabbage Patch Kids numbers, its failed. Move on...next idea.... 

Now, judging a show on its ratings alone should (in theory) tell you how well recieved the show is. But the rating system is flawed...so it doesn't really. And what about shows that are great and have sucky toy lines? I've personally loved certain shows that had toy lines, but never actually bought the toys. Doesn't mean the show sucks, just meant the toys did. But doesn't matter...if the toys didn't sell, show is useless. Too bad for the audience that watched the show and too bad for the hard working folks that made it.

Not to say that Japan isn't reliant on toys and merchandise either. But a lot of their animation isn't beholden to it. Example: in Japan, you can tell when a OVA (original video animation) is a good product simply by looking at how many people bought the DVD. That's a direct yen to product numbers on paper telling you straight up. But in America, we rely on tv ratings and toy sales. None of the two directly tell the makers of the show whether or not the intended audience is liking it or not.

Some day, some studio (I hope) is going to start doing serious direct to video series that sell well and it'll prove to the rest of the industry that it can be done. I think this is one of several factors that will help the American industy grow. Once direct to video is a viable money maker it'll open the doors for products that can be made specifically for adults. For now, most remain unconvinced. Even though the anime section in Best Buy gets bigger and bigger....many remain unconvinced. Why? Because they did try direct to video. And with mixed results. But I think its not because direct to video is a bad format, its because it was often done wrong. If the VanHelsing video was better, we would've bought it. Other than Disney, most other American direct to video products don't get the proper funding. And also proper leadership. Thus, inferior product....thus bad sales. But it doesn't mean the format is not a money maker. The Japanese have proven that it works. We can't we make it work?

Well, another big factor (besides where the money comes from) is the leadership. Many of those still in charge at the very top still think in out-dated ways. They think animation should only be for children and to do it any other way is wrong (whatever reason that may be, I won't get into the various versions). But good news is....I see plenty of younger , new generation types working their way up the ladder. Someday, they'll be in charge and you'll start seeing a bigger difference. Some are actually up in fairly good positions now actually, but even they number very few...and they still have 'suits' that are above even them. As years go by and more of them get into power and more studios can sever their reliance on toy companies or network corporations, you'll see cooler animation worth watching.

None of this is to say that the Japanese are god-like in their animation either. They too have problems. But that's a different environment and a different conversation. In America, we have our own hurdles to overcome. I just hope someday we can indeed get pass them.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Feb 13, 2005)

But really, who needs anything besides Family Guy and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. That's enough to entertain me for years to come right there.


----------



## Wereserpent (Feb 13, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> But really, who needs anything besides Family Guy and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. That's enough to entertain me for years to come right there.




Because the latter is not funny.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 13, 2005)

As has been mentioned, American audiences see "animated" and don't take it seriously.  It's either for kids, like Disney and super-hero cartoons, or it's comedy.  There are some exceptions, like Waking Life, Spawn, and Heavy Metal, but exceptions they remain.

A big part of the problem, I think, is how tremendously difficult it is to sell anything new or original to an audience.  You could have the best dramatic soap opera of all time in an animated format, and most of the target audience wouldn't even watch a single episode.  The effort it would take to change that, and the potential rewards, just aren't worth it.  Remember, dozens and dozens of new shows and movies are launched every year, trying to establish a franchise or carve a place into the market, and most (in TV) are largely unsuccessful.

Given that traditional sci-fi is going through hard times on the small screen, I'd love to see a more mature (not aimed at children) animated action sci-fi show.  For example, the last season of Reboot kicked so much ass, and I love the new Justice League series.  I hear Starship Troopers was really good, but haven't seen it yet.  Genndy Tartakovsky on a half-hour Clone Wars cartoon could save the Star Wars franchise!  But I think there's a niche there that's waiting for the right show to fill it.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 13, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> But, it seems American animation is lagging behind...



If you lived through the 1970s and early 1980s, then you should see the current era as a Golden Age of American Animation.


			
				Galeros said:
			
		

> ...all that is produced now is comedy shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons, it seems there is very little serious american animation out there.



If I may play devil's advocate, why should American firms produce serious animation?  The medium lends itself to whimsical material -- you can draw just about anything without using up your budget, but you can't draw it in detail without a lot of money.

If your goal is to depict serious material, live action makes much more sense.  If your goal is to depict wacky hijinks -- or kung-fu fightin' robots -- animation makes much more sense.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 13, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> you can draw just about anything without using up your budget, but you can't draw it in detail without a lot of money.
> 
> If your goal is to depict serious material, live action makes much more sense.  If your goal is to depict wacky hijinks -- or kung-fu fightin' robots -- animation makes much more sense.




Which makes me see anime as that much more crap.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 13, 2005)

I think one thing that might hurt the direct-to-DVD animation idea is that when I hear 'Direct to Video' I think: it must be terrible. I think a number of other people might feel the same way but I have no real idea of knowing how prevalent that thought might be.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 13, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> If I may play devil's advocate, why should American firms produce serious animation?  The medium lends itself to whimsical material -- you can draw just about anything without using up your budget, but you can't draw it in detail without a lot of money.
> 
> If your goal is to depict serious material, live action makes much more sense.  If your goal is to depict wacky hijinks -- or kung-fu fightin' robots -- animation makes much more sense.




I like a few cartoons that I watch on a semi-regular basis, but most of the anime is over-the-top melodrama, for the reasons you mention. I won't say it's all crap, or anything, though a lot of it I don't like, but it lends itself to a "clique-ish" attitude also, by getting over complicated. Especially given the lack of even basic details in a lot of anime.

The Batman cartoon was done well enough I think, that if someone liked action they could have watched the show. Something in that style, but marketed for adults could have worked, but most "adult" cartoons are just foul mouthed comedy's. (some I like, some I don't)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 13, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think one thing that might hurt the direct-to-DVD animation idea is that when I hear 'Direct to Video' I think: it must be terrible. I think a number of other people might feel the same way but I have no real idea of knowing how prevalent that thought might be.



The real problem for me would be pricing. I think the current pricing for most TV seasons on DVD is excessive, let alone paying much for a series you haven't seen.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 14, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The real problem for me would be pricing. I think the current pricing for most TV seasons on DVD is excessive, let alone paying much for a series you haven't seen.



The only expensive price I have seen are the _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_ season collection DVDs. Each season goes for at least $120 retail price. I believe it is also the same price for each 3 seasons of _Star Trek: The Original Series_ DVD collection.

But honestly, I do feel bummed having to pay $30 per anime film DVD. I usually ended up spending my money on cheaper DVDs usually American-produced (_GI JOE: VALOR vs. VENOM_) or new releases at Circuit City.


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 14, 2005)

On the "All American adult toons are comedy" angle, I should point out that all of my favorite anime shows are in fact comedies. It's just that american comedies tend to be either kiddie fare or sitcoms, while Japan produces whacky, genre mixing stuff like Tenchi's Sci-Fi-Adventure-Romance-Comedy, or Ranma's Kung-Fu-Screwball-Teen Sex Comedy-Romance, ect. I rarely get into the more melodramatic stuff, not so much because it's animated, but because that isn't my thing.

  I like American animation, (and it's certainly better now than it was just 10 years ago) but it does still rarely break the mold. If you think about, the most memorable recent cartoons (Say, Gargoyles, or Batman) were good precisely because they were so different than most of what was out there at the time. Long story arcs, more mature themes, ect. Just having more american animation aimed a teenagers instead of tikes would be an improvement, imo.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 14, 2005)

Heck, I don't think there is any 'American' animation.

Even King of the Hill is done in Korea I believe.

Now if you mean American written... well, that's another story. Check out Cartoon Network for such classics as Samurai Jack, Dexter's Labratory, JLI, and others while other stations have stuff like The Batman, Teen Titans, etc...


----------



## ddvmor (Feb 14, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> I hear Starship Troopers was really good, but haven't seen it yet. Genndy Tartakovsky on a half-hour Clone Wars cartoon could save the Star Wars franchise! But I think there's a niche there that's waiting for the right show to fill it.




Starship Troopers?  Is that the 'Roughnecks' CGI cartoon you're referring to?  That was cool.  (if it's CGI, are we allowed to call 'em cartoons, or do they have their own special name?)

With regards to the Clone Wars, I think something with the Star Wars name on it will be enough to launch anything into the mainstream.  It would be nice to see a good quality, grown up CGI Star Wars cartoon.  We know it can look good - see Roughnecks/Starship Troopers, Dan Dare, Beast Wars and the upcoming Captain Scarlet shows.  Just look at the movie sequences that accompany most video and PC games these days.   All it needs is a few decent scripts and some half decent voice actors.

Does anyone know how the production costs of such a show would compare to a live action show?  Cheaper, obviously, but would it take longer to produce?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> It seems to me today that the animation market is dominated by Japanese anime, now I myself like anime, and even know a bit of Japanese myself.
> 
> Ore no nihongo wa heta desuga kokorondeiru.



To be completely honest, it's folks like you that also turn me off from anime.  "Look at me, I *so* wish I was Japanese!"  I mean, I don't have anything personal against that vibe, but I simply don't get it, and when I detect it, it immediately shuts down my brain.

I can kinda see the point; I'm not completely up-to-date on where Japanese culture is anymore than I am on where current Sudanese culture is, but anecdotally I've heard that the Japanese in general are much more forgiving of their "nerdy" element than, say, Americans are.  A friend of mine, who's also in my gaming group and is an all-around upstanding "geek hobby guy" lived in Japan for a few years, speaks flawless Japanese (on the phone, anyway, he could convince people he was a native) and even he's turned off by both anime and the "l337 ninja katana-fan" Japanophile aspect of anime fandom as well.  He said, also, that in addition to nerdy hobbies being more or less acceptable in Japan, but the Japanese in general seem to really like Westerners as well; you've got some automatic "coolness" factor in Japan just by virtue of your foreign background (quite the reversal of Japanese culture during, say, WWII.)  So I can see where it comes from, but I still don't really get it myself.


			
				Galeros said:
			
		

> But, it seems American animation is lagging behind, all that is produced now is comedy shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons, it seems there is very little serious american animation out there.



Well, honestly, how much of the Japanese animation is "serious?"  A lot of it is for kids too, and much of what isn't is either extremely slipshod in it's writing and/or animation, or is the equivalent of over-the-top 90210-ish teenage soap opera.  Except sillier.  Certainly, it takes itself more seriously than, say, the Simpsons, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that it actually _is_ more serious.  Even in anime, unless you're a raving fanboy, you have to admit that the really good shows are just as exceptional (in terms of standing out from the crowd) as good American animation is.

In terms of when should a studio turn to animation; animation ain't cheap.  Well, _good_ animation, anyway, ain't cheap.  A fully animated Disney feature film, for instance, takes several years with hundreds of people working full time on it, and will end up costing well over $100 million to produce.  The CGI equivalent is also expensive, but faster, which means relatively less cost.  Still, something like _Monsters, Inc._ or the Final Fantasy movies were hardly cheap.  "Saturday morning cartoon" quality animation can be done cheaper, naturally, but forget about anything like cool CGI effects, or things like that.  You can also do cheaper and quicker CGI animation, and there've been a few examples of it out there (the Barbie movies, the Donkey Kong show, etc.)  Also, be prepared for a lot of stock and reused footage, or (as in anime) a lot of "slideshow" like effects.  But in general, if you've got an effects-heavy action/sci-fi/fantasy type show, you can still make a case that animation _could_ be cheaper.

Then you run up against what Chain Lightning said about studio expectations and attitudes, though, so even if you can put a business case on paper, you likely won't get it funded, because it's a different paradigm than what American studios have used in the past.  What Chain Lightning _didn't_ mention, is that it's not just the studios; the "suits" he's talking about are actually right on the money and generally in line with the American viewing public in general.  Anything sci-fi animated "not for kids" is very much a niche market in America, not mass market.  I think there's a prevalent attitude amongst anime fans that if "people would just watch this, they'd love it" kinda a _Field of Dreams_-ish "If we build it they will come" expectation of the marketplace that just isn't true.  Could a really good science fiction American "anime" marketed for adults be a financially successful and viable business proposition?  Yes, quite likely.  Would such a movie/series/etc. take the world by storm, completely change the American public's opinion on animation and general and spark a revolution in the American entertainment industry?  No, probably not.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 14, 2005)

> I think one thing that might hurt the direct-to-DVD animation idea is that when I hear 'Direct to Video' I think: it must be terrible. I think a number of other people might feel the same way but I have no real idea of knowing how prevalent that thought might be.





Its not really. When we think "direct to video" = "terrible" it usually has to do with live action feature movies. Like you go to Blockbuster and see Jason Scott Lee in "Timecop 2". Well, since it wasn't even in the theatre, its probably really bad. That's kinda where that rule usually goes. But I think it doesn't really apply at all to animation. I mean, people are buying the Japanese anime "direct to videos" aren't they? That section of the isle is getting bigger and bigger. Most be something to it eh?   






> Just having more american animation aimed a teenagers instead of tikes would be an improvement, imo.




I agree. But if we can't get that at the moment, I'll settle for at least kid shows that don't treat the kids like they're stupid.





> With regards to the Clone Wars, I think something with the Star Wars name on it will be enough to launch anything into the mainstream. It would be nice to see a good quality, grown up CGI Star Wars cartoon. We know it can look good - see Roughnecks/Starship Troopers, Dan Dare, Beast Wars and the upcoming Captain Scarlet shows. Just look at the movie sequences that accompany most video and PC games these days. All it needs is a few decent scripts and some half decent voice actors.




Ah, and there's the rub. "Decent scripts" A rarity in the animation industry.    




> Does anyone know how the production costs of such a show would compare to a live action show? Cheaper, obviously, but would it take longer to produce?




It all depends on the show. 2-D usually is cheaper. The more things the CGI artists gotta build in the computer, the more costly it gets. So, if for instance, we're doing a fantasy show where the heroes go into a different dungeon each week, it'll be very costly indeed. But if its like a Sci-fi show where they mostly stay on the same ship and stick to only a few planet types, and fight the same enemies week in week out, its easier. And it does take a bit longer than a normal 2-d show. It depends on the CGI studio and the amount of staff it has. A lot factors. 

I might get cheaper. Lot studios are looking to having cgi companies in India do for it cheaper. 





> Well, honestly, how much of the Japanese animation is "serious?"  A lot of it is for kids too, and much of what isn't is either extremely slipshod in it's writing and/or animation, or is the equivalent of over-the-top 90210-ish teenage soap opera.  Except sillier.  Certainly, it takes itself more seriously than, say, the Simpsons, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that it actually _is_ more serious.




No, not a hard time. An impossible time.    Every time we discuss Anime you pop up and slam it down hard. Where as you don't understand why people like me like it, I don't understand why you don't. Weird huh? But that's okay....its America. Its fun to debate back and forth from opposite view points.





> Even in anime, unless you're a raving fanboy, you have to admit that the really good shows are just as exceptional (in terms of standing out from the crowd) as good American animation is.




If we're talking about the amount of times something from Japan stands out from its peers in comparison to the amount of times something American stands out from its peers......then yah, both about equal. But as far as pushing the art form further....I'm sorry, that prize still goes to Japan.

Look, I'm not saying every anime is friggin awesome. I know its not. In fact, I think like...most of it is pretty dull or stupid. But the ones that are good....in my mind, are so much better than anything the American studios have produced lately.



> In terms of when should a studio turn to animation; animation ain't cheap.  Well, _good_ animation, anyway, ain't cheap.  A fully animated Disney feature film, for instance, takes several years with hundreds of people working full time on it, and will end up costing well over $100 million to produce.




Actually, it really doesn't take $100 million to produce. Its just that the Disney feature production system is so flawed, it wastes/bleeds more money that it actually needs to. A lot of the films they made could've been done a lot cheaper if only they ran it smarter. But yes, it is expensive still.   




> The CGI equivalent is also expensive, but faster, which means relatively less cost.  Still, something like _Monsters, Inc._ or the Final Fantasy movies were hardly cheap.




"Final Fantasy" wasn't cheap because of the way it was managed. That movie was the Spruce Goose ...the Waterworld of cgi movies. But you're right, CGI is expensive. Roughnecks cost more to make than say Jackie Chan adventures. But its not so much more expensive than to not be a viable medium. Under certain limitations (like, proper pre-production time to build models/sets and giving the writers a restriction to not stage stories outside built sets too often) it can be done without costing an arm and a leg.




> "Saturday morning cartoon" quality animation can be done cheaper, naturally, but forget about anything like cool CGI effects, or things like that.  You can also do cheaper and quicker CGI animation, and there've been a few examples of it out there (the Barbie movies, the Donkey Kong show, etc.)  Also, be prepared for a lot of stock and reused footage, or (as in anime) a lot of "slideshow" like effects.  But in general, if you've got an effects-heavy action/sci-fi/fantasy type show, you can still make a case that animation _could_ be cheaper.




2-d in my opinion is still a good way to go.



> What Chain Lightning _didn't_ mention, is that it's not just the studios; the "suits" he's talking about are actually right on the money and generally in line with the American viewing public in general.  Anything sci-fi animated "not for kids" is very much a niche market in America, not mass market.  I think there's a prevalent attitude amongst anime fans that if "people would just watch this, they'd love it" kinda a _Field of Dreams_-ish "If we build it they will come" expectation of the marketplace that just isn't true.  Could a really good science fiction American "anime" marketed for adults be a financially successful and viable business proposition?  Yes, quite likely.  Would such a movie/series/etc. take the world by storm, completely change the American public's opinion on animation and general and spark a revolution in the American entertainment industry?  No, probably not.




I totally agree with you here. As the market currently stands, there isn't a huge market for the kind of stuff we geeks here like to see. Some fantasy or sci-fi serious adult animation show. But while not huge at the moment, its does have an audience. Enough of an audience to make good money off of. But that's the problem, why make 'decent' money, when you can spend money to make 'sweet huge amounts' of money? Thus, the "suits" idea of appealing to the as big a demographic as possible. While simultaneously being a smart business decision, it is also a horrible artistic one. One of many areas where art and business clash.

But, here's my prediction. Even though a serious sci-fi or fantasy animation isn't as hugely received now....it has been, it currently is...and will be changing. The anime section in the local stores shows this, the expanded exposure of indie animation shorts on the web also. While Joshua doesn't see the appeal of anime (according to his tastes), many others see it as a "alternative" source of animation. Through anime, you can get what American animation can't provide. Its because of this that anime is getting bigger. This to me proves that the audience is changing.....getting bigger. Each generation of kids grows up differently from the last. The next generation of kids may provide studios with a viable money making audience to actually do the kind of show we're talking about. In the 80's....only geeky guys were into video games. Now, I see teenage girls who are into anime, manga, video games, etc. Even the guys were labeled as the popular jock is into anime and video games. A lot stuff we think is niche geek products only, isn't anymore.

I mean, if we went back in time and told someone that you can make a ton of money if you did a proper "Lord of the Rings" movie...they'd laugh at you. "Fantasy" is too niche, not enough people into that geeky stuff."

Or how about a channel dedicated to just all Sci-Fi? Not enough people into Sci-fi for it to be a money making idea? 

The audience is getting bigger. The thing is, its hard to tell whether its ready now.....or a few years from now. But I think the excuse of "not big enough of an audience to do a serious animation show" is going to be outdated.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Feb 14, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Because the latter is not funny.






The Shaving!!!!


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 14, 2005)

Animation in Japan is 90-95% aimed at the 7-15 yr old market and most of that at boys. So lets face it, that it really isn't all that much more adult animated stuff, than what is produced over here. The volume of anime produced in Japan is much larger so more "good" stuff does get produced and there is more adult (non-kiddy) oriented stuff produced. But in proportion I don't think the numbers are really all that different. I mean how many series have come out in the past 5 yrs or so that can be summed up as looser boy with magical harem of girls/maids? I've lost count.

Another thing to consider is the general budget situation. The budgets on most japanese productions TV/Movies/Video are far, far lower than they are on comparable productions in the US. So animation is a more viable method for telling stories, especially SF/Fantasy stories. Nobody is going to spend $120-200 million dollars to produce a live action movie in Japan and you can accomplish millions of dollars worth of real world special effects at a far lower cost by doing it animated. 

Assuming the same quality, it costs the same to animate some horrible bizzare monster or complex mecha as it does to do a crowd scene or sports event in animation. So a large amount of stuff that would be a Syndicated live action show or a moderately priced movie over here winds up as a animated series/OVA in Japan. Stargate SG1, Andromeda, Xena, StarTrek and Terminator, Robocop or LotR etc would most likely have been done as animated series in Japan for that reason.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 14, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> (quite the reversal of Japanese culture during, say, WWII.) So I can see where it comes from, but I still don't really get it myself.




Which was, in itself, quite a reversal from the Meiji period, when Western culture was all the rage, as you can see a distorted view of in "The Last Samurai".  



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, honestly, how much of the Japanese animation is "serious?" A lot of it is for kids too, and much of what isn't is either extremely slipshod in it's writing and/or animation, or is the equivalent of over-the-top 90210-ish teenage soap opera.




Well, you're hitting questions of taste as to the quality ratio, but there are quite a few serious shows out there.  Shows like Gantz, Witch Hunter Robin, Ghost in the Shell: Stand-Alone Complex, Beserk!, Gungrave, Gasaraki and Paranoia Agent are all examples of recent totally serious shows.  How many reach our shores in large numbers is another question entirely.  Painting anime with a broad brush is the equivalent of saying that all SF and Fantasy are the same...which may be true to someone who doesn't enjoy it.

There's no question that there are quite a few series that aren't terribly serious...and there's quite a few series that mix and match their comic elements in a fashion that's altogether odd to US sensibilities.  There's no debating that much of the material can be silly.  I'm not sure that I'd group a show like Crayon-chan (for 5 year olds) with Paranoia Agent (purely for adults).  That'd be like grouping Dora the Explorer with The Shield.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What Chain Lightning _didn't_ mention, is that it's not just the studios; the "suits" he's talking about are actually right on the money and generally in line with the American viewing public in general. Anything sci-fi animated "not for kids" is very much a niche market in America, not mass market. I think there's a prevalent attitude amongst anime fans that if "people would just watch this, they'd love it" kinda a _Field of Dreams_-ish "If we build it they will come" expectation of the marketplace that just isn't true.




Funny, but I remember a similar argument like this against Anime in general 20 years ago....but here we are, with conventions 20,000-strong being held across the country.  I'm not saying that anime isn't a niche market, nor SF or any confluence of the two: what I'm saying is that it's an equally economically viable possibility as any other niche market in the U.S. for viewing, such as westerns, historical dramas or date movies.  I mean, they did build it, and _they DID come._ 

Roughnecks, for example, was considered a good show by many...but it was buried, even as a kids show.  Ever see Exo-squad?  Terrible toy-line, wonderful show.  But it was still seen as a kid's show.  Justice League and Clone Wars shows that there is certainly a market for such show, and that if agressively marketed and well-produced, they could certianly be solid, economically.  Not to mention the Riddick: Dark Fury and Van Helsing prequel one-shot videos, or the Animatrix.

I agree...the general american public's opinion isn't going to change any time soon: but it has changed, and may change again.  When I was 12, there wasn't an Anime section at the video store, or a channel dedicated to it, or several stations that showed it in specific time slots.  But just as it's taken time for video games, board games and RPGs to be seen as something adults play, the same applies to anime.

And for that matter, I like that some anime is silly.  I don't think my kids would enjoy Totoro, Spirited Away or Kiki's Delivery Service nearly as much without the silly parts.  But by the same token, the relative lack of silliness in Princess Nine didn't stop my daughter from watching the entire series, and ask for more.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> No, not a hard time. An impossible time.    Every time we discuss Anime you pop up and slam it down hard. Where as you don't understand why people like me like it, I don't understand why you don't. Weird huh? But that's okay....its America. Its fun to debate back and forth from opposite view points.



Indeed.  Although I think you've misunderstood my position; I completely understand the concept of liking anime; I just haven't found one yet that I like very much.    Conceptually, though, it's a great idea.  Actually, if an American-written market based on the same budgetary constraints and operating under similar circumstances were producing animated stuff, I'd probably like a lot of it.  I think it's the Japanese storytelling conventions (not to mention really bad dialogue, pacing, voice-acting and other "screenplay" issues) that I have the most problems with, not the subtleties of medium itself.


			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> If we're talking about the amount of times something from Japan stands out from its peers in comparison to the amount of times something American stands out from its peers......then yah, both about equal. But as far as pushing the art form further....I'm sorry, that prize still goes to Japan.



I agree with both assessments, for the most part.  With the caveat that there's some darn good stuff coming out of American mainstream studios in terms of pushing the art too.  _The Incredibles_ was a great example of good animation, with a good script (that crosses the line between a "kids show" and having situations that no kid would relate to) and great voice acting.  Heck _Treasure Planet_ was, if nothing else, a visual masterpiece.


			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Actually, it really doesn't take $100 million to produce. Its just that the Disney feature production system is so flawed, it wastes/bleeds more money that it actually needs to. A lot of the films they made could've been done a lot cheaper if only they ran it smarter. But yes, it is expensive still.



If not, then apparently every studio is equally poorly managed, it seems.  If you're well-run animation shop is only a theoretical utopia, then the actual ground floor situation, as bad as it may appear to be, is the only one that will really matter.


			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you here. As the market currently stands, there isn't a huge market for the kind of stuff we geeks here like to see. Some fantasy or sci-fi serious adult animation show. But while not huge at the moment, its does have an audience. Enough of an audience to make good money off of. But that's the problem, why make 'decent' money, when you can spend money to make 'sweet huge amounts' of money? Thus, the "suits" idea of appealing to the as big a demographic as possible. While simultaneously being a smart business decision, it is also a horrible artistic one. One of many areas where art and business clash.



In which case the market just needs to mature.  Not every show can be a Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh (oh, how I hate both of those... mostly because my kids have loved them.)  In a mature market, people are looking at filling the niche demand as well.  Sounds like we may be moving that direction.  Eventually.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 14, 2005)

So Joshua, have you checked out Berserk yet in anime or manga? Non-silly, not aimed at kids, European style fantasy anime. Good stuff.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 14, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Ever see Exo-squad?



Thanks for reminding me that I'm still angry they didn't make another season of that show...

Talk about a cliffhanger... aliens kidnap the 10th planet (and half the series regulars, am I remembering that right??)


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 14, 2005)

Exo-squad? Cliffhanger? Oh, tell me about it...I was so mad when that happened. Too young to know better, I kept waiting for them to show the next season instead of starting over after the cliffhanger episode, again and again...

  Speaking of old cartoons, am I the only person on earth who used to watch the american _Street Fighter_ cartoon? I remember it having really good animation for it's time, and was pretty decent, despite a couple of nagging issues. (Primarily inconsistancy, poor utilization of minor characters, and a tendancy to make every bad guy except Bison worthless)

  On the other extreme was the old Mortal Kombat show, which was trash on almost every level. "Lets make Stryker a major character!" "Lets try to precisely emulate the painfully stiff combat of the video game!" Or am I the only guy who got up early to watch obscure cartoons based on fighting games.   

  I should also say that hating tripe like Yu-gi-oh, (recently spoofed on CN as "Stu-pi-do") and Pokeman (Ash must die!) is a cause we can *all* get behind.   

  As far as pacing issues, ect, I can understand that point as well. I mentioned Ranma 1/2 earlier as an anime I liked, when it would be more accurate to say that I love _Ranma 1/2 _, an awesome comic book, and was largely disappointed by the anime adaption. Pacing issues were especially a problem, in fact.

  It's also interesting that no one has yet mentioned how much Japans animation industry is driven by it's comic book industry, which is also hugely different than the american one.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 14, 2005)

Yeah, that's about right.  Man, I miss that show.  Written much better than it had any right to be, even if it was shoved into a kids spot.  Incidentally, that was a cliffhanger for the third season, not the second.  The first season was a typical 13-episode trial run.  The show went just long enough to become syndicated, and then disappeared.

DANG.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 14, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I agree with both assessments, for the most part.  With the caveat that there's some darn good stuff coming out of American mainstream studios in terms of pushing the art too.  _The Incredibles_ was a great example of good animation, with a good script (that crosses the line between a "kids show" and having situations that no kid would relate to) and great voice acting.  Heck _Treasure Planet_ was, if nothing else, a visual masterpiece.




Ah Pixar.....how I love thee.  

Thank whatever diety for Pixar. They do great stuff. In fact, I often point to them as the "model" on how most animation productions should be run. Unfortunately, there's only one company that's like Pixar....and that's Pixar.  Okay, given that a couple of other companies have managed to squeeze out the occasional cool show too, but the hit ratio on Pixar is much higher. But it seems (unfortunately) that instead of other companies looking at Pixar and saying , "Hey, they must be doing something right....let's examine their methods", they still insist on running things their old way. *shrug* ah well - - I guess that's just something I should expect from all aspects of humanity eh?

Most of all the American animation shows/movies we end up liking share very similar leadership/production method. But for some reason, no matter how often that method of producing a show works, it isn't adopted. Toy companies and network big wigs still insist on doing it their way.  Which...granted, sometimes works out okay. But often doesn't. 



> If not, then apparently every studio is equally poorly managed, it seems.  If you're well-run animation shop is only a theoretical utopia, then the actual ground floor situation, as bad as it may appear to be, is the only one that will really matter.




Not every studio. For the most part - especially tv shows, most studios get a lot of mileage out of the amount of money they spend on their project. But feature animation is a whole other ball game. For some reason, most feature projects have huge amounts of wasteful spending. Most but not all.  Ok, I don't 100% for sure...but I think "Iron Giant" ran smoothly without waste. Unfortunately, WB marketing dropped the ball on the marketing...but that's whole other story.  TV animated series are usually underfunded. But despite this, a lot of shows are able to bring some good stuff to the table regardless of that handicap. Now imagine if they had half the money the feature guys were spending....



> In which case the market just needs to mature.  Not every show can be a Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh (oh, how I hate both of those... mostly because my kids have loved them.)  In a mature market, people are looking at filling the niche demand as well.  Sounds like we may be moving that direction.  Eventually.




Yah, I'm not a big fan of Pokemon and/or Yu-Gi-Oh either. More dislike toward Yu-Gi-Oh than Pokemon. 



> So Joshua, have you checked out Berserk yet in anime or manga? Non-silly, not aimed at kids, European style fantasy anime. Good stuff.




Hmmm...that's tricky. Not sure if Joshua will like it. The animation is fine, but it isn't a good example of the best of recent anime animation. (like Cowboy Bebop) There are times where the animation art looks like 80's anime and not 90's anime. But story wise...man, I like it more than Cowboy Bebop (but that's me). I know this is gonna sound like blasphemy, but I like Cowboy Bebop but I don't love it. I don't think its as sweet as some people say it is. But it is pretty good at times anyways. 

Joshua, I don't know what you've tried so far. I'm not sure if you've only seen stuff that Cartoon Network shows. Or you'll only seen stuff like "Burn Up W", "Love Hina", "Dragon Ball Z",  and "Yu-Gi-Oh". And if you've only seen the badly dubbed versions. But there is some good anime out there.

It is hard to get certain people to start "liking" anime. Obviously if you're trying to convert someone, you wanna start off by showing him/her the BEST one. But it kinda depends on the person and his/her tastes in stories too. 

Then there's weird combinations like "Berzerk". Animation is obviously on a small budget, but the series is good. And when you're into D&D like me. To heck with "Record of Lodoss War", its all about "Berzerk".  Then there's clever writing like in the original 6 episodes of "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure". If only you can convince the viewer to get pass the odd names and odd outfits people are wearing. The whole thing about those "stands" and how their users use their powers is great stuff. 

Then there's the new "Appleseed" cgi movie. Man that thing is sweet as heck. But there's just one small flaw. At one point during some exposition dialogue, its kinda unclear about who's doing what. But I might attribute that to the poor Hong Kong subtitles. 

My favorites to recommend are: 

-"Laputa: Castle in the Sky" : anything by Miyaziki is great for both kids and adults, but this one is my favorite. "Spirited Away" is a close 2nd. But I think this one's pacing and storytelling is closer to western tastes than Spirited Away was.

 -"Memories" : a colletion of 3 stories, each with its own seperate director and art team. I like showing this one to people who think all anime is big eyes and small mouths. The first story "Magnetic Rose" is drawn with realistic proportioned humans. The Japanese do have differenst styles. The "iffy" part is maybe the third story. Its ponderous like a lot of anime. Its the most abstract. But artistically, again it shows that the Japanese have different styles too. Not all big eyes small mouths. The third story is done very much in the same kind of style you see in European comic books.


-"Macross Plus": this might qualify as over melodramatic soap opera stuff, but where its done in an annoying way most elsewhere....I kinda like it here. Or is because I'm just a huge fan of the original series and enjoy this latest slicker more polished story set in the same universe? This was one of the first OVAs where I first took notice of Yoko Kanno. She does the music for this. Is not just some high pitched teen girl screaming. It could easily fit in the indy alternative section. In fact, when I have it playing in my house or car, no can tell its from an anime show. They always ask, "Hey what group is that?" Then they're always shocked when I say "Oh...its a soundtrack from a Japanese cartoon."

-"Berzerk" : Again, may not be the flashiest animation, but if you play D&D, you gotta watch it. Plus, I think it'll appear to the same type of people that like "The Black Company"  I showed it to a friend who isn't into anime at all. But he does read a lot of fantasy books. He watched this series when I loaned him the DVD set. At first, he just thought it was just okay. I mean, I can see why. At first glance and in the beginning......its got the earmarks of certain things most people don't like in anime. The main character is a cool fighter type, but another major character is your usual semi-androginous pretty boy type. You think "oh here we go....." But the series gets better and better as you watch it. Nice build up. Yeah....the last disc makes you go "F**K!!! Oh my .....gawd......" But I think in a good way.  Plus I hear they're about to start releasing the episodes that come after that.

Also, a little less Euro looking, but still very fantasy . . there's "Twelve Kingdoms". I really don't like anime like Slayers and the goofy fantasy. I like the serious stuff more. And yes, the whole story about someone from our Earth getting transported to a fantasy land is old and been done...."Twelve Kingdoms" does it fairly solidly. I didn't like the "Guardians of the Flame" books by Joel Rosenberg. Yah, when I was young it satisfied my need to vicariously live through the character's adventure of being transported to your own gaming rpg world...but ......didn't quite do it well enough for me. I've only seen the first 2 discs of this series, but so far so good. I'm not voting it the best looking anime, but its solid enough to get by and not distract me while I'm watching.

-"The Cockpit": I actually don't own this. I saw a friend's laser disc copy. But I've been looking for it ....for a long time. Its a series of stories all told during WWII. Each story revolves around aviation or a pilot.  Has heart and also has great animation. 

-"Ninja Scroll" : not the tv series...(that's garbage), the original movie. Although one particular scene may make you think its a perv movie....the movie is a great ninja flick. Solid story, solid pacing, great animation, good design work.

Now, it could be that you'll not like any of these....but I think they're pretty good. If you know someone who owns them. Maybe borrow one and check it out. Be interested in hearing your thoughts.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 14, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> But, it seems American animation is lagging behind, all that is produced now is comedy shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons, it seems there is very little serious american animation out there.



I don't want to totally hijack the thread, but I thought I'd list some good, recent animated series from American studios:
_
Batman
Superman
Justice League
Gargoyles
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Samurai Jack
_
And, of course, most of the animated movies from Disney and all of the CGI movies from Pixar have been excellent -- along with Brad Bird's _Iron Giant_.

Then we have a number of live-action shows that hit the same market as anime: Hercules, Xena, Buffy, Angel, Smallville, Alias, Battlestar Galactica, etc.  With cheap CGI effects, they can do _anime_ via live-action.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 14, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't want to totally hijack the thread, but I thought I'd list some good, recent animated series from American studios:
> _
> Batman
> Superman
> ...




Agreed. I wish we'd make more. I love "Iron Giant". And even though most people don't like it all that much, I have a guilty pleasure kinda thing going for Dreamwork's "Sinbad".

I liked "Beauty and the Beast" and the classics, but I was kinda either so-so or let down on Disney's latest offerings. I didn't like "Treasure Planet" and "Atlantis" all that much. "Lilo and Stitch" is good though.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2005)

I'll have to check out Berzerk, then.  In fact, just added it to my Netflix queue.  I might even move it up to the top next week when my wife's out of town.

I guess I mispoke earlier; there _is_ one anime I can think of that I actually liked quite abit; the Street Fighter movie.  I've been also very interested in picking up the Fatal Fury stuff.

But that's because I love the source material.  

I also thought the Ranma 1/2 episodes I saw were OK, but not great.

I saw about 10 minutes of the Cowboy Bebop movie, then turned it off to watch something else.  The whole "save the convenience store from being robbed by my crack team of urban commandos" routine, and then when the old lady asked him who he was, and he just turned around trying to look all cool and said, "I'm just a bounty hunter," my "this is really stupid" meter went off and I took the DVD out and never ended up putting it back in.  

I also thought "Ghost in the Shell" wasn't bad, though.  A lot of folks had also recommended to me "Fist of the North Star" but that one blew chunks.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 14, 2005)

Based on what you like or what I'm reading here, Berserk may be up your alley. If you're looking for more D&D style anime, Record of the Lodoss Wars would probably be more up your alley as it has magic and elves and spellcasters. Berserk is more 'historical' or 'gritty' than fantasy but like Conan, there are some terrible things out there in the night.

I've also heard good things about Full Metal Alchemist, but I'm one of those people who don't bother with a series until it's finished.

Last Exile is another good one that's heavy on story and is serious, but is more of a far future type deal.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 14, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I saw about 10 minutes of the Cowboy Bebop movie, then turned it off to watch something else. The whole "save the convenience store from being robbed by my crack team of urban commandos" routine, and then when the old lady asked him who he was, and he just turned around trying to look all cool and said, "I'm just a bounty hunter," my "this is really stupid" meter went off and I took the DVD out and never ended up putting it back in.
> 
> I also thought "Ghost in the Shell" wasn't bad, though. A lot of folks had also recommended to me "Fist of the North Star" but that one blew chunks.




The Fist of the North Star movie, I assume?  It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, without the context of the series, not unlike the Bebop movie.    It was made for the fans of the show...and that doesn't necessarily mean it was actually that good.  Mind you, I'm not going to try and defend Fist of the Northstar, because it's not necessarily the deepest material...but I will say that the original series was a highly influential work, both in breaking down barriers and style.  The story is actually much better than the movie, which is a great big mess.  Mind you, I don't think you'd dig the 80s animation.  The appeal of the movie was that it was a pretty-looking summary of the first two seasons of the show...horribly, horribly condensed.  Lots of characters appear with virtually no introduction, the story jumps around and I hear the English voice-cast was terrible.

For that matter, I'll go against popular opinion and say that the Ninja Scroll movie is only good in parts, and that the action sequences are great, but bordered by a weak story, IMHO.

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is an excellent series, and more interesting to me than the original movie.  I haven't watched the second movie, yet.


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 14, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> He said, also, that in addition to nerdy hobbies being more or less acceptable in Japan,




I think it may be more of a case of nerdy hobbies havinga stigma in the US, rather than them more acceptable in Japan.  Certainly, Japan is not the only country where Nerds are accepted a bit better than in the US.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2005)

Well, maybe that's also part of my problem; I've seen very few series and considerably more movies instead.  It sounds like, WizarDru (with one D) you're saying that may be a bit back-asswards.

Although with Street Fighter, I thought the show was terminally boring (only saw the first three? episodes) while I really enjoyed the movie.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2005)

Y'know, I'd probably also enjoy something that totally didn't take itself seriously, and was really campy to boot.  I saw a preview for _Cosplay Complex_ and I thought to myself that I'd probably enjoy that campiness of it.

I dunno.  I'll probably try it anyway.


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 14, 2005)

Heh, I think you've stumbled unto a couple of factors at once there.  

1. Many anime movies are extras, intended for fans of the T.V. shows, and don't really make sense to those who aren't already familiar with the series. There are a number of exceptions though.

2. A great deal of anime television series, in turn, are based on manga (comic books). As popular manga will often run for _years_, not many t.v. series actually succeed in covering an entire manga run before being cancelled. Also, the t.v. producers inevitibly add changes and side adventures to shape the story the way they want it. Lots of t.v. shows based on manga have "filler" episodes, designed to take up time while they wait for the next comic book chapter to be finished. Filler is rarely very good.  :\ 

3. Sometimes the movies are still better.    Street Fighter the Movie is waaay better than the Street Fighter T.V. show. (I think, officially, the t.v. show is considered a prequel) The show does have it's moments though. Ken vs Vega is a cool fight, and Zangief vs Guile isn't bad either. Not including Blanka is unforgivable, though.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 15, 2005)

Some comments on some of the shows mentioned already.

*Exosquad* totally kicked ass. Despite the failure of the toy line, I've been tempted many times to seek out one of JT Marsh's exo-frames just because it looks so cool. The theme song (orchestral) is one of my favorite themes, too.  It ranks among my all-time favorites.

It took me a while to get into *Cowboy Bebop*.  The final two episodes, titled "The Real Folk Blues," however, are what really makes the show stand out.  Of course, that's the pay off, which you won't be able to properly appreciate if you've never seen any of the other episodes.  The series is all about a bounty hunter named Spike.  He's a fairly laid back guy with a smart ass attitude and a touch of Peter Parker luck, and he manages to pull off a genuine aura of coolness.  He's got some cool fighting moves, but he's not Jet Li; he's not going to win every fight through sheer skill.  What the final two episodes are about is how he comes to terms with his past, as a former affiliate of the mafia (the Red Dragons), including the woman he loved but who got away, and the rival who wants him dead.  It's a great story, with action, drama, romance, and tragedy.  The animation, voice acting, and translation are all top notch.  If I had only 10 DVDs to watch for the rest of time, you can bet your ass this would be one of my picks.

I also have to disagree that *Ninja Scroll* has great action but a weak storyline.  Ultimately, it's an action movie, yes, with some inspired fight scenes (the duel with the blind guy is my favorite).  But it's also a somewhat different kind of love story, about a tragic character named Kageiro, who is incapable of making connections.  Her touch is literally poisonous, and she sees herself as nothing more than a lowly ninja whose life is completely expendable.  The way Jubei is able to get through to her, and treat her as a real person and not just a means to an end, is a far better story than the kind of drek we see in most romantic movies that Hollywood puts out.  Maybe the story doesn't do much for you, but it's far from weak.  It's quite well written (although a bit jumbled at times).  The TV series, though, is extremely mediocre, with none of the heart of the movie.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, maybe that's also part of my problem; I've seen very few series and considerably more movies instead. It sounds like, WizarDru (with one D) you're saying that may be a bit back-asswards.
> 
> Although with Street Fighter, I thought the show was terminally boring (only saw the first three? episodes) while I really enjoyed the movie.




Mad mac definitely pointed out some of the reasons, but as he mentions, it really depends.  Fist of the Northstar is a show I've loved since the mid-80s, but I love the manga much more.  The movie was fun for someone who knew the show, but it wasn't what I'd call good.  Let me clarify on Ninja Scroll...I think it's got some great set pieces, but I think that many fans give it way too much weight...personally, I thought the last third of the movie was somewhat jumbled.  Tastes vary, which is the point.

Sometimes the movie is a summer blockbuster to cash in on the series...this is common for series for a younger crowd...Dragonball Z is a classic example.  It's had what, 10+ movies?  

If you want a show that's fun and doesn't take itself seriously, watch something like Lupin III, or better yet, watch the Castle of Cagliostro or Revenge of Fuma Ninja Clan movies, which are both exceedingly funny AND good.  A show like Paranoia Agent COULD have been done in live action...but takes advantage of the medium, as opposed to resorting to it to tell the story because of budgetary reasons [it's done Satoshi Kon, of Tokyo Godfathers fame).

Lodoss War IS D&D (that's what the original novels were based in), although the TV series is not as good, IMHO...but still somewhat fun.  Beserk! was...mind-blowing.

There are many shows which don't fit the standard teen anime mold...but you have to know what you're looking for, sometimes, or just be experimental.  Hellsing is a little from column A, a little from column B, for example.  Trigun starts out resoundingly silly, but it's a shell over some very serious material.  And so on.


----------



## Wereserpent (Feb 15, 2005)

To Joshua Dyal: Hell, I am not that bad compared to some people I know.  I myself am not particularly fantatical about anime and dislike about 98% of the stuff.  I just have to keep my Japanese up and I was just in the mood to type some.  I too find the fanatical ones obnoxious beyond all words and they are exactly the reason why I left my Japanese class.  So, sorry I if I came across as being obnoxious.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 15, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> To Joshua Dyal: Hell, I am not that bad compared to some people I know.  I myself am not particularly fantatical about anime and dislike about 98% of the stuff.  I just have to keep my Japanese up and I was just in the mood to type some.  I too find the fanatical ones obnoxious beyond all words and they are exactly the reason why I left my Japanese class.  So, sorry I if I came across as being obnoxious.




I took a japanese course (and planned on continuing) for the ability to taunt obnoxious fanboys and girls.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> To be completely honest, it's folks like you that also turn me off from anime.  "Look at me, I *so* wish I was Japanese!"  I mean, I don't have anything personal against that vibe, but I simply don't get it, and when I detect it, it immediately shuts down my brain.




Don't take this the wrong way, but this seems to be your own prejudice showing through here. 

You seem to be misinterpreting the sentiment that Galeros was (IMO) trying to get across. The idea of being more "into" anime because one can speak (some) Japanese isn't some sort of cultural envy; it's because, one enjoying a foreign product, it helps to have additional knowledge about the culture that created said product. Anime is created in Japan for Japanese consumption. As such, there are indelible aspects of Japanese society in any particular anime; there's nothing wrong with wanting to study the language and culture to try and understand that better.

It's fine that you don't understand this, but don't misunderstand the difference between some fanboy-ish obsession, and a true desire to learn something. If someone is inspired by anime to learn to speak a foreign language, that's to be applauded, not scorned.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 15, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Sometimes the movie is a summer blockbuster to cash in on the series...this is common for series for a younger crowd...Dragonball Z is a classic example.  It's had what, 10+ movies?




Thirteen, actually.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 15, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Thirteen, actually.




Oh, good glayvin!


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'd probably also enjoy something that totally didn't take itself seriously, and was really campy to boot.  I saw a preview for _Cosplay Complex_ and I thought to myself that I'd probably enjoy that campiness of it.
> 
> I dunno.  I'll probably try it anyway.




Cool. 

I think you got the proper attitude toward anime. You try some, don't like some, saw a few you like. Sounds good to me. Y'know what? There's nothing that can turn off a guy toward anime more than buying something he thought he was gonna like (read a good review or impulse buy from reading back cover) and then going home, watching it, and finding out that it sucks big time. With the DVDs being about 5, 10, or even 15 dollars more than a regular DVD movie.....it hurts. Sorry if I misunderstood and maybe thought you hated "all" anime. As you clarified, you do like some.

In a cheezy rpg gaming kind of kung fu macho road to discovery thingy....I like the Fatal Fury anime.  Its pretty solid. But I might be biased because I was running a Street Fighter rpg at the time and watching the "Street Fighter" movie and "Fatal Fury" series was great inspiration.

In the light and fun adventurous not too serious area, maybe check out the "Read Or Die" anime. Not the tv show though. I've heard to stay away from that. But the original "Read Or Die" is good stuff too. I mean....I didn't pick it up for a while because of the title and none of the art on the box lent me to believe it was any different from the rest of the drek, but I gambled one day and it actually payed off.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 15, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Don't take this the wrong way, but this seems to be your own prejudice showing through here.



Quite possibly.


			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> You seem to be misinterpreting the sentiment that Galeros was (IMO) trying to get across. The idea of being more "into" anime because one can speak (some) Japanese isn't some sort of cultural envy; it's because, one enjoying a foreign product, it helps to have additional knowledge about the culture that created said product. Anime is created in Japan for Japanese consumption. As such, there are indelible aspects of Japanese society in any particular anime; there's nothing wrong with wanting to study the language and culture to try and understand that better.



Quite possibly.  However, there certainly are folks who are into that kind of cultural envy.  Just because I'm not a huge anime fan doesn't mean I'm not familiar with anime fandom.  In fact, anime fandom is certainly a factor in why I'm not a bigger fan of anime.

Galeros may not be that kind of guy, and from his subsequent posts, he seems to not be (so my mistake in jumping on him, although I tried not to be rude about it) but don't try to tell me there aren't a whole bunch of really nerdy anime fanboys that aren't exactly as I described.  I've met some in person.  I've met scads of them online.  They're scary.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Quite possibly.
> 
> Quite possibly.  However, there certainly are folks who are into that kind of cultural envy.  Just because I'm not a huge anime fan doesn't mean I'm not familiar with anime fandom.  In fact, anime fandom is certainly a factor in why I'm not a bigger fan of anime.
> 
> Galeros may not be that kind of guy, and from his subsequent posts, he seems to not be (so my mistake in jumping on him, although I tried not to be rude about it) but don't try to tell me there aren't a whole bunch of really nerdy anime fanboys that aren't exactly as I described.  I've met some in person.  I've met scads of them online.  They're scary.




And people make fun of Trekkies... ever been to an anime con?


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> And people make fun of Trekkies... ever been to an anime con?




Yes, I have. And, pound for pound, I had more fun at Otakon 2004 (with the kids, no less) than I have at any non-gaming 'con since the 80s, with the possible exception of the 1998 Baltimore Worldcon. The biggest difference was that I found the median age was lower (at 36, we were the older fans), the fans were much more sophisticated at costuming and there was a much bigger emphasis on different media, such as Asian Cinema and video games. Oh, and the male to female ratio was much closer to even than any other type of convention I've attended.

Were there some embarrasing fanboys and fangirls there? Yup. Just like at any kind of convention, be it gaming, Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, Anime, general SF, literary SF, auto shows, spelling bees, sporting events or any large gathering of people.  The worst fanboy I ever met was at a Philcon , '86 I think, where a guy had bought a small dragon puppet, put it on his shoulder and then regaled anyone he could trap with it's extensive history and adventures (it was named Frodo)....or was it "Filthy Pierre", the bizzarre cross-dressing accordian-playing filk-singer who was playing Lensman folk-songs, trying to woo my wife while I was talking with someone else?

Frankly, it sounds like it's time for the Geek Heirarchy chart, again:


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 15, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The Fist of the North Star movie, I assume?  It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, without the context of the series, not unlike the Bebop movie.    [...]  The appeal of the movie was that it was a pretty-looking summary of the first two seasons of the show...horribly, horribly condensed.  Lots of characters appear with virtually no introduction, the story jumps around and I hear the English voice-cast was terrible.



"Now I will turn myself to steel!"

My friends and I (lo, those many years ago) found _Fist of the Northstar_ oddly interesting, but the jarring jumps in the story left us scratching our heads.  To this day, we can proclaim, "Now I will turn myself to steel!" to indicate a non sequitur or inexplicable context change.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 15, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Frankly, it sounds like it's time for the Geek Heirarchy chart, again:



Where do "Stylish, urbane --not-to-mention handsome-- thirty-something year old gamers who hang out in bars drinking vodka martini's (up w/olives) while discussing Paranoia Agent, the new Battlestar, and their great new campaign comncepts with their buddies" fit in?

Just out of idle curiosity, mind you...


----------



## Klaus (Feb 15, 2005)

WizarDru, that chart is just priceless!

And where would Star Wars fans fit? (probably paralell to trekkies)


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> "Now I will turn myself to steel!"
> 
> My friends and I (lo, those many years ago) found _Fist of the Northstar_ oddly interesting, but the jarring jumps in the story left us scratching our heads. To this day, we can proclaim, "Now I will turn myself to steel!" to indicate a non sequitur or inexplicable context change.




Ha! That would a perfect example. That was the king of the Kiba ("Fang") Clan Bandits, who in the movie is reduced to a bit player for all of 15 seconds or so. In the series, he and his bandits are the subject of a 5 episode story arc, condensed from 3 volumes of manga. One thing about the series is that a lot is made of martial art schools and how the styles interact; something the movie completely glossed over, and something the English translations always avoid, it seems.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Where do "Stylish, urbane --not-to-mention handsome-- thirty-something year old gamers who hang out in bars drinking vodka martini's (up w/olives) while discussing Paranoia Agent, the new Battlestar, and their great new campaign comncepts with their buddies" fit in?




But, but...I drink Guinness.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 15, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Ha! That would a perfect example. That was the king of the Kiba ("Fang") Clan Bandits, who in the movie is reduced to a bit player for all of 15 seconds or so. In the series, he and his bandits are the subject of a 5 episode story arc, condensed from 3 volumes of manga. One thing about the series is that a lot is made of martial art schools and how the styles interact; something the movie completely glossed over, and something the English translations always avoid, it seems.




Maybe it's just me, but when I was 16 and saw this at the Music Box, high as a friggin kite, I thought, "Man, it must be awesome to just punch through somebody."

Nowadays I keep trying to find the manga. The latest version was in full color deluxe edition and went for 9 volumes and introduced the missing brother, whose not even in the movie at all. It too of course, was cancelled. Argh!


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but when I was 16 and saw this at the Music Box, high as a friggin kite, I thought, "Man, it must be awesome to just punch through somebody."
> 
> Nowadays I keep trying to find the manga. The latest version was in full color deluxe edition and went for 9 volumes and introduced the missing brother, whose not even in the movie at all. It too of course, was cancelled. Argh!




Yeah, that was a pity.  The manga ran some 28 volumes, I think.  Beserk!'s Miura claims it as a direct influence on his work.  The show/manga Gantz has one of the characters quoting directly from it, too.  There were four brothers, in total: Ken, Jagi, Toki (aka Jesus Christ) and Ra-O.  Ken was the youngest and third most powerful, but was eventually named the Hokuto successor.  Hilarity (and a nuclear war) ensues.  Oh, and the fake Toki, but that's another story.  Oh, and Ra-O's brother Kai-O, and the Gento Stars...and, and....well, the show did go over 100 episodes, and I might have watched a couple of them.  Heh.  Such is the style of Ultimate Sadness.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 15, 2005)

How about a different thread with a semi-decent breakdown? Most of the sites I've seen are in Japanese and despite my enjoyment of manga, I'm not learning a new language just for that!


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> How about a different thread with a semi-decent breakdown? Most of the sites I've seen are in Japanese and despite my enjoyment of manga, I'm not learning a new language just for that!




Okay, go here.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 16, 2005)

This isn't an example that most people will be able to take advantage of, but if anyone's familiar with Naruto, it's a great example of an anime that has a wide range of what it's capable of. There are very serious fighting episodes, episodes where nothing it taken seriously at all, and some that move you to tears (case in point, I just watched episode 109, which was absolutely heart-breaking).

Just wanted to toss that out there.


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 16, 2005)

Naruto hasn't even come stateside yet, has it? Yeah, yeah, people have been watching it in Japan or off the net for ages, but I don't have that option.

  Only read the first 3-4 manga volumes myself. Seems interesting, if a bit quirky. (Hardcore ninja violence starring cute widdle adolescents. yeesh)


----------



## Dark Jezter (Feb 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Quite possibly.
> 
> Quite possibly.  However, there certainly are folks who are into that kind of cultural envy.  Just because I'm not a huge anime fan doesn't mean I'm not familiar with anime fandom.  In fact, anime fandom is certainly a factor in why I'm not a bigger fan of anime.
> 
> Galeros may not be that kind of guy, and from his subsequent posts, he seems to not be (so my mistake in jumping on him, although I tried not to be rude about it) but don't try to tell me there aren't a whole bunch of really nerdy anime fanboys that aren't exactly as I described.  I've met some in person.  I've met scads of them online.  They're scary.


----------



## takyris (Feb 16, 2005)

Generally speaking, anime provides a wide variety of entertainment forms (comedy, horror, action, romance, etc), but it usually does so through the lens of Japanese culture.  That is to say, generally speaking, you're getting your entertainment delivered to you with a set of cultural assumptions in it -- just like you are with American cartoons.

Now, there are commercial reasons for the success of anime in Japan, and it's possible that if enough corporate studios got behind it, 2d animation in America could take off in the same arenas -- although there've been enough 2d flops to make the American corporate execs pretty leery about that.  (I'm not saying that Titan AE was good or bad.  I'm saying it was a flop, financially, and the execs, whether right or wrong, look at that and say, "We put big actors and a lot of money in there, and it still flopped.  Whatever the reason, it's not gonna work for us right now.")

All that said, I still, generally speaking, don't dig on anime, primarily because I don't dig on the cultural differences.  This doesn't mean I hate Japan.  This doesn't mean that I think Japan is more sexist than the U.S. -- it means that I have learned to accept the American cultural stuff that I don't like in a movie that I otherwise do like, because I've grown up with it, and I can tune out some stuff.  I can't tune out the Japanese stuff, because it's all new to me, and I have to sit watching the whole movie going, "Really?  This is what they think about women? This is their idea of a tenderhearted romance?  This is...? Feh."

So, my short answers are that:

1) American 2d animation is unlikely to get the kind of market penetration that Japanese animation gets any time soon.
2) Every culture brings its own stuff in with it -- and while few people can justifiably and intelligently claim to be able to judge one culture as superior to another, it is perfectly reasonable for folks to like or dislike certain cultural things because of their own personal preferences.  Nobody should be casting stones.
3) Market forces are not evil bad things corporate people do to program the unsuspecting public.  Corporations sell anything they think anyone wants to buy.  Right now, they think Americans would rather just buy anime DVDs than go see stuff in the theater -- at least, in sufficient quantities to be profitable.

And personally, I enjoyed "Spirited Away", thought "Princess Mononoke" was decent but somewhat overrated (possibly read too much build-up), laughed at the few Ranma episodes someone showed me but didn't feel a need to hunt more down, and have seen a lot of stuff (Ninja Scroll, I think, maybe, for example -- the one with the poison babe and the guy with the sword on a string) that was built up for me as wonderful and struck me as lame.  I almost find the dialogue stilted (less so when subtitled, but then, I turn on captions even when watching U.S. TV, so possibly I'm biased toward reading) and the brood-factor too high for me to enjoy.

Please note that I'm not saying no anime could ever entertain me (as you'll note by the use of "enjoy" in that paragraph).  I'm saying that the stuff I've seen seemed to have some things that didn't do it for me personally as part of the basic cultural assumption.

Which likely means that if you did see a big upswing in American animation, it'd probably be *American* animation, without many of the cultural assumptions that anime usually makes.  It would have American cultural assumptions -- which means that you probably wouldn't enjoy it -- at least, not in the same way that you enjoy anime.

It's okay to like _Amelie_ and not _There's Something About Mary_.  It's okay to like _There's Something About Mary_ and not _Amelie_.  It's okay to like both.  It's okay to like neither.  But it's obvious to most people that they come from different countries, and carry different cultural assumptions with them.  And that difference is a valid reason to like or dislike either of them.  It's subjective as heck, but it's valid.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 16, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> It seems to me today that the animation market is dominated by Japanese anime, now I myself like anime, and even know a bit of Japanese myself.
> 
> Ore no nihongo wa heta desuga kokorondeiru.
> 
> ...




In Japan, T.V. is dominated by animation, so it makes sense that their animation is going to progress more quickly than America's for that medium.  But America's still way ahead on cinematic animation.

The current American television animation, to me, seems to be somewhat of a fad/company thing.  You've got the Ren & Stimpy style animation that grew to dominate the Cartoon Network and Nickelodean, and you've got the Groening/Simpsons animation that grew to dominate prime time television.

It's not really that there is nothing else out there, it's just that those two companies and their clones do most of the animation.

But on the cinema front, you keep getting massive CG breakthroughs (mostly from Pixar, but also Dreamworks) and even on non-CG (though certainly computer-aided) you still get absolutely beautiful movies like the Iron Giant and Prince of Egypt.  Non-CG animation is just getting a bit rare nowadays.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 16, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, anime provides a wide variety of entertainment forms (comedy, horror, action, romance, etc), but it usually does so through the lens of Japanese culture.  That is to say, generally speaking, you're getting your entertainment delivered to you with a set of cultural assumptions in it -- just like you are with American cartoons.





I hope I'm understanding what you're saying here. You're saying that when you watch one of these shows, (from either country) you're seeing something made from the industry's "assumption" of what they think you like to watch?

If that's what you're saying, I agree. And with that, both countries have producers that often assume wrong. Thus, shows that are bad.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Now, there are commercial reasons for the success of anime in Japan, and it's possible that if enough corporate studios got behind it, 2d animation in America could take off in the same arenas -- although there've been enough 2d flops to make the American corporate execs pretty leery about that.  (I'm not saying that Titan AE was good or bad.  I'm saying it was a flop, financially, and the execs, whether right or wrong, look at that and say, "We put big actors and a lot of money in there, and it still flopped.  Whatever the reason, it's not gonna work for us right now.")




Yeah, you're right. Its too bad that the execs sometimes think this way.

It should be said that there are differences in how American studios make TV animation and Feature Film animation. Yes, there has been some unsuccessful investments in both.  But the ones that you're bringing up are the big Feature Film ones. Judging on how successful the animation market is based on the numbers from "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within", "Titan AE", "Quest for Camelot", and such isn't a good measuring stick. 

The problem with those movies and a lot of the rest of animation, is that they aren't made in the same way that movies like  "Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles" are made. My gripe, that I mentioned earlier, is that one of the major weaknesses that hamper the growth of American animation is this reason. Its not that animation is risky, its mostly the state of how the industry works.  American studios aren't incompetant. They do have talented people with good artists as well as good production people. They just need to be let loose to do what they do best without the interference from those who don't know the craft or have no pulse on the audience.  Now, it happens every now and then, but just not often enough to push the industry significantly further.





			
				takyris said:
			
		

> All that said, I still, generally speaking, don't dig on anime, primarily because I don't dig on the cultural differences.  This doesn't mean I hate Japan.  This doesn't mean that I think Japan is more sexist than the U.S. -- it means that I have learned to accept the American cultural stuff that I don't like in a movie that I otherwise do like, because I've grown up with it, and I can tune out some stuff.




That's a very good point. I think this is a totally legit reason to not like anime. Its just not your thing.





			
				takyris said:
			
		

> I can't tune out the Japanese stuff, because it's all new to me, and I have to sit watching the whole movie going, "Really?  This is what they think about women?




Not sure if you think this or not. But not all Japanese media demean women. Its mostly an amime thing. I watch Japanese TV a lot too, and I don't see it in their live action shows. I bring this up because I don't want people reading this to think that the whole of Japan are a bunch of sexist pigs. This latest generation of Japanese is different than that of the old school generation.  I think the treatment of females in a lot of certain types of anime is due mostly to the makers catering to the horny weirdo geek boy market. Those guys above with the pillows.    Unfortunately, that's what seems to get translated and brought to the states the most. Unfortunately.

There is though, another point. Even though there's lots of objectifying of women and perv cheesecake going on....they still do a few things concerning equality of representation better than a lot of American shows I know. You know that in America, its hard to pitch an action/adventure show where the main lead is a female? Next to impossible. Because so much is based on appealing to 7-10 year old boys to watch and buy the toys, the execs think boys won't buy girl dolls. Whatever......one of my favorite characters as a kid was Miria from the Robotech series. They only do lead females if its a musical or a slap stick/comedy show like "Power Puff Girls" or "Kim Possible".  

2nd Point: it maybe true that you won't make as much money if the main toy franchise character for your action/adventure line is a girl, but that shows again the weakness of the industry only catering to a small demographic (12 and under). 

So yes, there's shows like "Burn UP W" and what not, but there are plenty of Anime shows that (to me) have stronger written female characters than most I've seen in American shows.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 16, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Where do "Stylish, urbane --not-to-mention handsome-- thirty-something year old gamers who hang out in bars drinking vodka martini's (up w/olives) while discussing Paranoia Agent, the new Battlestar, and their great new campaign comncepts with their buddies" fit in?
> 
> Just out of idle curiosity, mind you...




By the description, probably at the top.  But remember the chart only covers who those particular groups feel are geekier than they.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 16, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Please note that I'm not saying no anime could ever entertain me (as you'll note by the use of "enjoy" in that paragraph).  I'm saying that the stuff I've seen seemed to have some things that didn't do it for me personally as part of the basic cultural assumption.




And by cultural assumption, you are referring to 70 P.S.I. circulatory systems, correct?  (that's the only thing my mind can think of when Ninja Scroll is mentioned)


----------



## reanjr (Feb 16, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right. Its too bad that the execs sometimes think this way.




Unfortunately, American companies can't find any animators willing to move into communes and get paid $3/hr.  I'm sure if they could, they'd be fine with producing animation that doesn't sell that well.

Anime is like Indie animation.  Shoestring budgets and people willing to work almost for room and board.



> You know that in America, its hard to pitch an action/adventure show where the main lead is a female? Next to impossible.




You mean like Alias?  As long as you work the hot chick angle, you're gold.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 16, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, American companies can't find any animators willing to move into communes and get paid $3/hr.  I'm sure if they could, they'd be fine with producing animation that doesn't sell that well.
> 
> Anime is like Indie animation.  Shoestring budgets and people willing to work almost for room and board.




And that's why we do almost all our animation over seas. Its cheaper. A quality animated series can be done. And done in a cost effective manner.  Its done all the time year in year out.  Problem, like the original topic stated, is that the American animation industry hasn't grown beyond only providing for child audiences and adult sitcom comedies. 

We've talked back and forth about which is better...Anime, American animtion, ...why don't you like it? You should check this out....this can't be done....this looks better....

....but the core of it is this: doesn't matter who's better, Japan or America, doesn't matter if it can be done or not, because it can.....the thing is, that serious mature animated action adventure (the stuff people like us love to watch) *are not * being done in America enough. Don't you all agree?

Let's face it, animation is an inferior medium in comparison to live-action for those who want realism. Thing is, its expensive to produce a tv series in live action when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy. You gotta scrape up a lot of money to do one decently. Like "Star Trek" and "Battlestar Galactica"....but even those guys have to skimp on a lot of stuff. Battlestar recently had to use the same p-90 submachine gun seen in Stargate during that prison hostage episode. If it was animation, it would've been cheaper to have the artist draw a new gun for that show. But to have your prop department make like 6 new guns just for that one show is expensive. Stargate is about going to different worlds, and yet...they seem to always go to pine wood evergreen forest worlds. If it was animation, you can draw an exotic locale each time. 

That's why its nice if someone could do a seriouc sci-fi/fantasy animated show. I know some of you say that animation is for whimsical funny stuff only....but, with the medium, we can bring to life stories that live-action couldn't do.  We can get more of the stories we like if another output of expression became available. Animation could be it. But in America, it isn't because of the industry. And that's what I think you have to agree with me on. That Japan has at least that over us. You may think they have bad stories or bad animation, but you gotta admit that at least they do it over there.




			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> You mean like Alias?  As long as you work the hot chick angle, you're gold.




That's a live action show for adults. I'm talking about animation. Action/adventure animation. Our live action tv industry for adults has plenty of good shows and lots of strong well written female characters in lead roles.

And yes, the "hot chick" angle is brought up, but most don't really think that's a viable element to draw a male audience even though it clearly is. The problem is, (and I'm gonna use a live-action example for this one) when one exec says "okay, I'll do your hot chick thing " and does it...then it bombs ....they say, "See, it didn't work".

Problem wasn't that the hot chick thing didn't work, it was because they forgot to take care of the other part that makes people wanna watch. That part being....a good story.     In an article in Entertainment Weekly, a few studios were quoted saying that the reason why they think "Catwoman" and "Elektra" didn't do big numbers was because the audience isn't ready for strong action female leads. Rubbish....guys like this make me puke. 

Thankfully, the EW guy who wrote the article and said that wasn't the case with "Aliens" and "Terminator" now was it? Or like you said, "Alias".


----------



## KaintheSeeker (Feb 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I saw about 10 minutes of the Cowboy Bebop movie, then turned it off to watch something else. The whole "save the convenience store from being robbed by my crack team of urban commandos" routine, and then when the old lady asked him who he was, and he just turned around trying to look all cool and said, "I'm just a bounty hunter," my "this is really stupid" meter went off and I took the DVD out and never ended up putting it back in.




Should have seen the series.. much better than the movie in my opinion. Of course I think it ended on a weird note and some points were never really resolved. Like.. just how intelligent was Ein? (the corgi braindog)


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 16, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Problem wasn't that the hot chick thing didn't work, it was because they forgot to take care of the other part that makes people wanna watch. That part being....a good story.     In an article in Entertainment Weekly, a few studios were quoted saying that the reason why they think "Catwoman" and "Elektra" didn't do big numbers was because the audience isn't ready for strong action female leads. Rubbish....guys like this make me puke.
> 
> Thankfully, the EW guy who wrote the article and said that wasn't the case with "Aliens" and "Terminator" now was it? Or like you said, "Alias".




No need for you to puke, it is a firmly established fact that most hollywood execs are idiots. La Femme Nikita lasted for like 6-7 seasons on TV (still waiting for season 2 to be released). Relic Hunter lasted a similar period of time. Their statement is especially ironic, given that the star of Elektra is also the star of Alias. 

Hollywood is driven by fear, anything that is successful is wonderful and destined to have been that way. Anything that fails is the fault of someone else and something that exec wasn't involved with or responsible for. 

Perhaps they've been able to make a financial success out of so many bad movies, that they really do think that seriously though?


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 16, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> All that said, I still, generally speaking, don't dig on anime, primarily because I don't dig on the cultural differences.  This doesn't mean I hate Japan.  This doesn't mean that I think Japan is more sexist than the U.S. -- it means that I have learned to accept the American cultural stuff that I don't like in a movie that I otherwise do like, because I've grown up with it, and I can tune out some stuff.  I can't tune out the Japanese stuff, because it's all new to me, and I have to sit watching the whole movie going, "Really?  This is what they think about women? This is their idea of a tenderhearted romance?  This is...? Feh."




As I'd say to most who say they don't like anime, I believe you haven't seen the right anime shows.  Anime grew out of and is an extension of manga, and so the fairest comparison to an American medium is American comic books... which suffer the same problems of sexism and even subtle misogyny.  As a huge comic and anime fan, I do not find American attitudes to be significantly better, and although I love both media, you have to call a spade a spade.

The American TV and comic industry has failed for years to attract the young female audience.  But large numbers of young females have gotten into anime and manga, like Ranma 1/2, Fruits Basket, Kareshi Kanojo no Jijou ("His and Her Circumstances"), Sailor Moon, and many others.  Noir is one of the best action anime shows in recent years, starring two female assassins.

But yes, there are definitely cultural differences in the romantic elements, and if you don't care for stories along those lines, that's perfectly fine.  What's "good" and what's not depends heavily on our expectations (which is why the Matrix sequels, for example, are seen by so many as so bad).  Also, often people just say that shows are "good", when what they really mean is, "it's good for me."  I'd recommend different anime to different people, the same way I would for books, movies, TV shows, and so on.  And most of the time when I talk about things that I personally like on these boards, I talk about _what_ is good rather than simply raving, so that people at least have a better idea of what to expect and don't go into it with the wrong expectations.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 16, 2005)

Again, we return to the 'anime covers a wide base' theory.

One doesn't pick up a copy of FHM and expect insightful commentary about empowered women...you expect pictures of hot chicks posed provocatively, with articles about how to land babes, a review of the Decemberists and mix the ultimate martini.  

Yes, there are shows that have women shown as sex objects or cheesecake, and many shows that are purely about the 'fan service', showing masturbatory fantasy women for young teenage boys.  Newsflash: Much of anime is targeted at that audience.  These shows are like watching the O.C. or One Tree Hill is in America.   Read any comic books in the last several decades?  Noticed the female characters outfits?  Same motivations.

If you want a series that doesn't pander, get something like "Kaze no Yojimbo", "Witch Hunter Robin" or any number of other shows either aimed at an older demographic, or that simply don't focus on that aspect.  Further, it's not really fair to drag shows like "Kim Possible" into the mix: it's a Disney production solidly aimed at tween girls, but with enough crossover appeal to reach some boys.  It's not fair to accuse it of not being Alias...it wasn't meant to bear that weight.

Compare and contrast "Kim Possible" with, say "W.i.t.c.h.", and you'll see that female leads win out when there is a female audience to watch it.  The problem is finding that audience and reaching them.  But that's another discussion entirely.

The fact remains that many shows written as well as an Exo-Squad or at Starship Troopers:Leathernecks series are marketed poorly or at the wrong audience, and thus don't reach the popularity they might.  QUICK: Name the number of primetime, non-comedy animated series that have debuted on a major network in the last ten years.  If you include the WB, I can think of....ONE.  Now, consider how much most of Fox or the WB's flops have cost to produce, and consider how economical such a show might be.  I'm not saying they'd be an automatic hit....if professional producers, directors and program directors can't consistently do that, how could I?  It's quite possible they might not succeed at all...but we've never actually had a chance to see, either way, have we?  And with TV markets getting more desperate, I think it's only a matter of time.  Notice how well Cartoon Network is doing with their offerings in the choice 18-35 demographic.  Samurai Jack and Clone Wars, among others, show that it CAN be done.  It's more a question of whether targeted channels like SciFi or CN do it sooner or later, IMHO.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 16, 2005)

Wow, this thread has really gotten into some good, in-depth analysis.  I'm not sure that I have anything really substantial to add to this other than to highlight points that I especially agree with.

I think takyris makes an excellent point (stated much better than my own fumbling attempts to say sorta the same thing) that it's the Japanese cultural lens process that makes much of the anime "weird" to me.  Add to that, the fact that studios do a very poor job of determining what exactly leads to the success or failure of a show, and quite often botch it entirely, canning good concepts because of flawed execution.

However, rather than bitch and moan, I think animation fans have a lot to be excited about moving forward.  Although they may wish for a faster transformation of TV, direct-to-video or even movie studios paradigms, look at what we do have -- a recent proliferation of shows that are moving in the right direction.  The aforementioned Clone Wars, or the Batman, or some of the other shows that are starting to show up have questionable target audiences.  In other words, the studios are hedging their bets; making shows that could appeal to adults, but still cloaking them in a "kids show" veneer.

I mean, my kids like the Justice League or Teen Titans well enough.  But comparing that to the old Superfriends I used to watch as a kid shows an extremely marked increase in sophistication of plot, dialogue and even just the situations the characters find themselves in.  They haven't come all the way out of the closet yet and stated, "yes our target audience is 18-35 year old guys who like to read comic books" instead of necessarily kids, but they're pretty darn close.


----------



## takyris (Feb 16, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> You're saying that when you watch one of these shows, (from either country) you're seeing something made from the industry's "assumption" of what they think you like to watch?




Sort of.  One part subject matter and one part execution.  If I said, "There's this interesting movie -- it's about a bounty hunter who gets assigned one last assignment but feels conflicted as to whether he should carry it out," and then I added either "It's anime", "It's a French movie playing at the local independent theater," or "It was a big American summer blockbuster a few years back", most folks will come up with three slightly different pictures.  Whether their assumptions are true for that particular movie is a matter of chance, but most of us here could come up with a stereotypical view of what kind of movie each of those would be, and how they'd be different.  That's what I mean.  The industry assumptions are in there, but so are the directorial choices -- a Japanese director of an anime feature thinks, "How can I convey the needed emotion here?  What's a good way to show the power dynamic of their relationship?" and comes up with a different answer, generally speaking, from the answer that a French director comes up with, or the answer that a big U.S. director comes up with.

This is all general -- the directors of the Matrix are on record as saying that they were trying to make a movie that felt like live-action anime, which is sort of a conscious attempt to break the stereotypes I'm talking about -- but generally speaking, it holds, I think.



			
				Chun-Tzu said:
			
		

> As I'd say to most who say they don't like anime, I believe you haven't seen the right anime shows. Anime grew out of and is an extension of manga, and so the fairest comparison to an American medium is American comic books... which suffer the same problems of sexism and even subtle misogyny. As a huge comic and anime fan, I do not find American attitudes to be significantly better, and although I love both media, you have to call a spade a spade.




As to the latter, no argument.  The average comic book is more than a little sexist.  Even if the superheroine isn't weaker or dumber than the superhero, she's wearing a bikini.  The notion that the guys are just as idealized and unrealistic as the gals is possibly true, but there's still a double standard going on there.

But as I said in my first post, I've grown up with that stuff, and learned to ignore it.  It's harder for me to ignore the sexism in anime because the sexist tropes are different and new -- essentially, I haven't set up my ignore filter on anime cultural sexism yet, but I set it on American comics awhile ago.

As to the former (I haven't seen the right stuff), that's possibly true, but the only real exposure I've had has been people who like anime trying to get me to watch stuff and saying, "Dude, this is awesome, you have to watch it."  If the anime-lovers are telling me to watch this stuff as the prime examples of the genre, and then it turns out to be drivel (or not drivel but not to my taste), that's going to give me certain baseline assumptions for the genre.  I'd suggest that there needs to be a group of anime advocates advocating the good stuff. 

Random side note: What's wrong with "Kim Possible"?  KP is awesome.  It's a show where the male and female lead are friends, it addresses at least the G-rated issues in a humorous way, the girls fight effectively while the guys are comic relief much of the time (KP and Shego as opposed to Drakken and Ron), and it has wonderful writing.  I'd put Kim Possible up against, say, "Sailor Moon" as shows aimed at the same audience, and KP comes out worlds ahead as far as I can tell.

I don't love every episode, but then, I'm not a teenager, so it ain't really aimed at me.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 16, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Random side note: What's wrong with "Kim Possible"? KP is awesome. It's a show where the male and female lead are friends, it addresses at least the G-rated issues in a humorous way, the girls fight effectively while the guys are comic relief much of the time (KP and Shego as opposed to Drakken and Ron), and it has wonderful writing. I'd put Kim Possible up against, say, "Sailor Moon" as shows aimed at the same audience, and KP comes out worlds ahead as far as I can tell.
> 
> I don't love every episode, but then, I'm not a teenager, so it ain't really aimed at me.




Don't look at me, I was recommending the show as good, light fare.  My daughter has a KP backpack and lunchbag, as well as a few toys.  And I happen to think that their episode poking fun at Everquest was pretty darned funny.  For that matter, any show with Ricardo Montalban doing Senor Senior (and his son Senor Junior)...well, that's all right by me.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 16, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Don't look at me, I was recommending the show as good, light fare.  My daughter has a KP backpack and lunchbag, as well as a few toys.  And I happen to think that their episode poking fun at Everquest was pretty darned funny.  For that matter, any show with Ricardo Montalban doing Senor Senior (and his son Senor Junior)...well, that's all right by me.




As long as she doesn't scream: SENOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 17, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> If the anime-lovers are telling me to watch this stuff as the prime examples of the genre, and then it turns out to be drivel (or not drivel but not to my taste), that's going to give me certain baseline assumptions for the genre.  I'd suggest that there needs to be a group of anime advocates advocating the good stuff.




The difficulty there, of course, is that people have different tastes.  I have, however, seen numerous threads on this very board where posters have asked for recommendations on s movies, anime, comics, and so on, and have gotten many good responses.  It's a little more difficult with anime, however, as many recommendations may be for series that are not yet available in the States, and even the series that are available can be cost prohibitive to the casual viewer, especially compared to access to American movies and books.

My main point to anyone who has an overall negative or unfavorable view of anime is simply to keep an open mind, and consider that there may be far more to the medium than you've seen thus far.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 17, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Further, it's not really fair to drag shows like "Kim Possible" into the mix: it's a Disney production solidly aimed at tween girls, but with enough crossover appeal to reach some boys. It's not fair to accuse it of not being Alias...it wasn't meant to bear that weight.







			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Random side note: What's wrong with "Kim Possible"? KP is awesome. It's a show where the male and female lead are friends, it addresses at least the G-rated issues in a humorous way, the girls fight effectively while the guys are comic relief much of the time (KP and Shego as opposed to Drakken and Ron), and it has wonderful writing. I'd put Kim Possible up against, say, "Sailor Moon" as shows aimed at the same audience, and KP comes out worlds ahead as far as I can tell.




Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Where are you guys getting this from?    When did I ever say "Kim Possible" is bad? I happen to like that show. And I do enjoy it over "Sailor Moon".  I'm not comparing American animation's representation of female characters to that of live action shows like "Alias".

This is what I wrote:



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> There is though, another point. Even though there's lots of objectifying of women and perv cheesecake going on....they still do a few things concerning equality of representation better than a lot of American shows I know. You know that in America, its hard to pitch an action/adventure show where the main lead is a female? Next to impossible. Because so much is based on appealing to 7-10 year old boys to watch and buy the toys, the execs think boys won't buy girl dolls. Whatever......one of my favorite characters as a kid was Miria from the Robotech series. They only do lead females if its a musical or a slap stick/comedy show like "Power Puff Girls" or "Kim Possible".




What I am saying here is that: when it comes to *Action/Adventure* animation series in the U.S. (which are mostly based off toylines), its hard to pitch a show where the main character is female. Because I didn't want someone to retort with "that's not true, they have Power Puff Girls and Kim Possible". So I wrote ,_"They only do lead females if its a musical or a slap stick/comedy show like "Power Puff Girls" or "Kim Possible". _ 

 I don't see how you think that means I don't like "Kim Possible".  What my post said was that female characters (in American animtion) only get a fair shake in comedy/adventure , slapstick comedy, and Disney like musicals. Not in straight action/adventure. The thinking being, that there are shows done for boys and shows done for girls. But I'd like to think we can make action/adventure shows that are not gender specific. A show that is just for _people_. My point was that, this is what Japan has over the American animation industry. They have "Witch Hunter Robin" and such. We don't. And that's also tied to directy to the original postter's statement. That the American animation industry doesn't produce serious action/adventure. So how can females be represented poorly or fairly in an area that has no products to judge?




> It's not fair to accuse it of not being Alias...it wasn't meant to bear that weight.




Don't worry, I know. Its a cartoon comedy aimed at young girls. What I accuse of not being "Alias" was "Catwoman" and "Elektra". Sorry if there was any confusion,but I thought I had written it clearly.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 17, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Not sure if you think this or not. But not all Japanese media demean women. Its mostly an amime thing. I watch Japanese TV a lot too, and I don't see it in their live action shows. I bring this up because I don't want people reading this to think that the whole of Japan are a bunch of sexist pigs. This latest generation of Japanese is different than that of the old school generation.  I think the treatment of females in a lot of certain types of anime is due mostly to the makers catering to the horny weirdo geek boy market. Those guys above with the pillows.    Unfortunately, that's what seems to get translated and brought to the states the most. Unfortunately.




I did my undergraduate comps on gender roles in anime. As a big fan of anime as a whole, it was somewhat depressing, because although I passed with high marks, the conclusion I pitched was that, as a general rule, anime was somewhat sexist.

This isn't due to any desire to malign or oppress women, but rather (as I found it) it was simply a reflection of the values of the parent culture. Likewise, this is only a generality, and didn't extend across all anime (Lina Inverse from The Slayers seems to be beyond that mold, for example). It wasn't even so much a case of "bimbos with big boobs" in anime, but rather the subtleties of the dynamics in relationships. The girls of El-Hazard were the examples I cited, since none of them seemed "empowered" in the feminist sense of the word.

Ultimately, this didn't detract from my enjoyment of anime though, since one must take the bad with the good.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 17, 2005)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Naruto hasn't even come stateside yet, has it? Yeah, yeah, people have been watching it in Japan or off the net for ages, but I don't have that option.




I don't either, I just borrow from friends who do.

In terms of coming stateside, it was just announced in Anime Insider that it will premier on Cartoon Network this fall. Even if AI is wrong, ShoPro Entertainment (an intermediary licensing company) has announced their acquisition for the rights to Naruto (since ShoPro is merging with Viz, that may influence what happens) so very soon now, someone will release it domestically.



> _Only read the first 3-4 manga volumes myself. Seems interesting, if a bit quirky. (Hardcore ninja violence starring cute widdle adolescents. yeesh)_




You need to read just a little further to see that veneer being pulled back. Get to the end of the final battle with Zabuza, and then see what you think.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 17, 2005)

I really like "Naruto". I've only seen maybe six episodes. But I liked 'em.

I was talking with friends of mine and we discussed similarities in story structures. Like, when you say "this is is like that but with this instead". For instance: "Magnificient Seven" is "Seven Samurai", but set in the wild west. "Bug's Life" is "Seven Samurai", but with bugs.

With that, we said, "Naruto" is "Harry Potter", but with ninjas instead of wizards. You guys agree?


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> What I am saying here is that: when it comes to *Action/Adventure* animation series in the U.S. (which are mostly based off toylines), its hard to pitch a show where the main character is female. Because I didn't want someone to retort with "that's not true, they have Power Puff Girls and Kim Possible". So I wrote ,_"They only do lead females if its a musical or a slap stick/comedy show like "Power Puff Girls" or "Kim Possible". _



_
_Now I'm the one who must not have been clear. 

I wasn't directly responding solely to you, but pointing out that Kim Possible is exactly what it was meant to be. The real issue is the target audience: young boys. Action shows appeal much more to boys than girls. Most american animation, when classified as Serious, are usually action-based shows. The Batman is a reasonably good show (it's not as good as B:TAS, but it stands on it's own well enough). But it's clear to me that my daughter is much more interested in the character's inter-relationships than in the fights, which I think captivates my son more. She likes to understand the villain's motivations, his plans and the plot, more than being concerned with individual powers or actions scenes.  A show like Kim Possible de-emphasizes the action in favor, usually, of the comic sequences or the relationships of the characters...by design, because they know the target audience enjoys that.

Could boys respond well to an action show with a female lead? Possibly, but I tend to doubt it. Action-based female characters usually only show up on enemble shows, like any Power Rangers show, Exosquad, TMNT, Jackie Chan Adventures, Teen Titans and Justice League, to name a few. And notice that while the shows may give them equal time-share, the toys based on the show clearly do not. Challenge: try getting a Wonder Woman and Hawkgirl action figure from the Justice League toy-line. Oh, they exist....as 'chase' figures, one to a case, usually. (although, in fairness, the Martian Manhunter is pretty rare, too). Watch the commercials for the Teen Titans toy-line. The commercials would lead you to believe that there are only three members on the team...the boys. Oh, the girls are in the commercial...in a background shot, never highlighted or identified.

Now, I'm not saying this is bad or good. In fact, the individual shows highlight their female characters quite well. Justice League, for example, has some of the best female characters around, particularly Wonder Woman. Teen Titans has an excellent balance that appeals equally to boys and girls. Kids Next Door has virtually no difference between boys and girls, while a show like Samurai Jack paints women as equally capable (and usually equally dangerous) as the men. The idea, then, is that it's merely playing to its audience. Will this ever change? Should it? I have no idea.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I know. Its a cartoon comedy aimed at young girls. What I accuse of not being "Alias" was "Catwoman" and "Elektra". Sorry if there was any confusion,but I thought I had written it clearly.




LOL!!!!  Brilliance.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 17, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> My main point to anyone who has an overall negative or unfavorable view of anime is simply to keep an open mind, and consider that there may be far more to the medium than you've seen thus far.



Anime is not a medium; that's just a silly claim that shows a lack of understanding of what media is (and I've heard it in many other places as well.)  It's a style, or perhaps a grouping of related styles. 

And to recommend to someone that's been repeatedly burned by shows that aren't good that they "keep an open mind and try again" is a bit silly as well.  Why can't you accept that some people _simply may not like anime?_  That's another of my beefs with anime fans in general; many of them refuse to believe that people could _not_ like anime, so they develop this misplaced bitterness against whatever they believe is "holding back" anime from more mainstream popularity.  This view is totally wrong IMO.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Anime is not a medium; that's just a silly claim that shows a lack of understanding of what media is (and I've heard it in many other places as well.)  It's a style, or perhaps a grouping of related styles.
> 
> And to recommend to someone that's been repeatedly burned by shows that aren't good that they "keep an open mind and try again" is a bit silly as well.  Why can't you accept that some people _simply may not like anime?_  That's another of my beefs with anime fans in general; many of them refuse to believe that people could _not_ like anime, so they develop this misplaced bitterness against whatever they believe is "holding back" anime from more mainstream popularity.  This view is totally wrong IMO.




Alright, perhaps medium isn't the best term for it.  I don't think "style" is much better, though, as it's more vague than medium, and "genre" is also definitely incorrect, as anime covers a number of different genres.  Anime covers a wide variety of styles and genres.

Nor did I ever recommend people "try again," because I recognized in that post that there are a lot of barriers to trying again.  What I said was, consider that there's much more to anime than you've seen, and that it's not all just silly, or sexist, or whatever else you don't like about it.  I'm not trying to convert anyone here.  I'm saying there's more to anime than what many people have seen on American television.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 17, 2005)

Which I'd agree with.  I've found some animes that I like well enough.

I'm pretty much convinced that I'll never be a "true believer" though -- even the best ones I've seen have been only "OK" to me.

I agree it's difficult to classify just what anime is, but I think medium is the wrong word.  Depending on what you think a medium is, either all anime is one medium (but so is all other animated motion picture) or it's several media, including movies, open-ended series and "miniseries."  But so would all other non-anime animated pictures fall under these classifications.

It's a bit difficult to call it a genre, because it encompasses multiple genres.  Its a bit difficult to call it a style per se, because it encompasses more than one style.  I think a related group of styles all based on a shared cultural assumption (i.e., they're all Japanese) is probably the best bet.

One side effect of these discussions, though, is that every time we have one I'm inspired to try out a few more titles.  I've stuck Berserk on my netflix queue as well as the Street Fighter animated movie (again) and the Tekken movie (because after I selected Street Fighter it popped up too) and some more light-hearted ones like Cosplay Complex and Najica Blitz Tactics.

Which brings up another odd anime convention that I've always been curious.  They sure love to show these flashing panty shots, don't they?  I've heard anecdotally that Najica has a lot.  What's that all about?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Which brings up another odd anime convention that I've always been curious.  They sure love to show these flashing panty shots, don't they?  I've heard anecdotally that Najica has a lot.  What's that all about?




My girlfriend calls the first Vampire Hunter D movie the Panty movie because of this.

BTW, Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust is another serious all action animated feature that  doesn't go that route, but ironically enough, Yugi-O the manga does quite a bit.

Little deviant bastards.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 17, 2005)

I've seen the Vampire Hunter D movie and don't remember that at all.

That reminds me, there was a series that I saw an episode or two of about a teenage girl that gets supernatural power to fight demons and the like.  I know, that probably describes fourteen dozen animes, but I've always kinda wanted to watch the rest of it and can't for the life of me remember the title.  I thought it was Vampire Hunter, or something like that, though.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Which brings up another odd anime convention that I've always been curious. They sure love to show these flashing panty shots, don't they? I've heard anecdotally that Najica has a lot. What's that all about?




It's just an odd cultural thing, I suppose.  I've never found a deep explanation for it.  Mostly, I think, it's a way to allow titillation without showing anything, particularly in a region that anime has long been restricted from showing.

That is to say that in Japan, up until recently, showing pubic hair in any form was verbotten, be it in manga, anime, live TV or live movie forms.  It was always a loosely enforced standard, most likely with its roots in the Nationalist movement that had it's origins in pre-WW II Japan, which in turn had it's root in Victorian era.  Drawing a particularly graphic picture in a weekly manga usually resulted in a call down to the local prefectural police house for a short 'don't do that, again' speech.

This had a very odd side-effect however, which was the preponderance of characters with invisible, missing or hairless private parts.  Another way this was bypassed was to pixelize the offending areas, like watching Cops where they hide someone's face.  Now, enter into this the idea of panties, which allow the showing of said region without actually showing anything at all; it's enough to get a 14-year old boy going "Oh...yeah!" without actually violating any rules.  It's also a fairly likely scenario, given the typical Japanese school girl uniform.  It's a lot easier to show a girls panties than it is to show actual nudity, at least as often as some shows have done.

And yeah, there are some fans who don't get that some folks just don't find anime that compelling, and are darned irritating.  I've met people who don't understand why I don't think Ranma 1/2 is really that interesting after about 8 or so episodes, for example, or who figure I just haven't watched enough Gundam, yet.  No, no...I've watched TOO MUCH Gundam, son, that's the problem. 

If you're looking for some shows that are very far from that mark, one very understated and underrated show, to me, is "Master Keaton".  But then, some folks aren't willing to try watching a show about the globe-trotting adventures of an insurance investigator for Lloyd's of London.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That reminds me, there was a series that I saw an episode or two of about a teenage girl that gets supernatural power to fight demons and the like. I know, that probably describes fourteen dozen animes, but I've always kinda wanted to watch the rest of it and can't for the life of me remember the title. I thought it was Vampire Hunter, or something like that, though.




Heh.  You ain't just whistlin' dixie, brother.  Vampire Princess Miyu, perhaps?  Did she have a protector who wore a mask?  Anything distinctive you can remember about it?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 17, 2005)

Don't remember a protector.  I remember in the first episode she went off with her boyfriend for a "romantic tryst" of sorts and he got killed in the act of fondling her breast or something like that.  And, uh... there was a Japan-pop song during the closing credits?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 17, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> No, no...I've watched TOO MUCH Gundam, son, that's the problem.




There is no such thing as too much Gundam. Especially if you can get a hold of the old 80s SD Series. Ahh, the bootleg Gundam series that populate my shelves are many...


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Don't remember a protector.  I remember in the first episode she went off with her boyfriend for a "romantic tryst" of sorts and he got killed in the act of fondling her breast or something like that.  And, uh... there was a Japan-pop song during the closing credits?




Can you describe the outfit she wore when fighting demons? Did she use weapons, spells, sex, etc... to fight them? Was it especially gory or violent? Was there a definite style to the character designs and/or artwork?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 17, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Can you describe the outfit she wore when fighting demons?



Maybe red?  Kinda slinky?  Don't remember exactly.


			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Did she use weapons, spells, sex, etc... to fight them?



I mostly remember weapons.  I think she might have fought them at a school, actually, in one of the very first episodes.


			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Was it especially gory or violent?



Reasonably so, yes.  Also featured some nudity.  If it were American and live-action, it would definitely be rated R.


			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Was there a definite style to the character designs and/or artwork?



Not really; pretty standard anime.  Not too "cute", not too "realistic."  Kinda dark.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 17, 2005)

Coudl be Devil Hunter Yoko.

Maybe Devil Lady?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 17, 2005)

Devil Hunter Yoko!  I think that might be it.  Let me google it and see if it looks familiar.

EDIT:  Yep, that's it!  Thanks, Joe!  However, it's not on Netflix or Amazon.  Bummer!  Does it perhaps have an alternate title?

SECOND EDIT:  That's because it's Devil Hunter *Yohko*.  Found it on Amazon, but not Netflix.  Still bummer!


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 17, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Coudl be Devil Hunter Yoko.
> 
> Maybe Devil Lady?




Devil Lady is Go Nagai, IIRC, he DEFINITELY has an art style.

Devil Hunter Yoko seems more likely. Check this out.

http://www.clho.net/anime/anime.php?anime=82


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've seen the Vampire Hunter D movie and don't remember that at all.



I suspect that you and I both saw an edited version.  I saw Vampire Hunter D years ago, on TV ; when I saw it again recently, it seemed a bit more...racy than I remembered.  And not that good, either.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 17, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I suspect that you and I both saw an edited version.  I saw Vampire Hunter D years ago, on TV ; when I saw it again recently, it seemed a bit more...racy than I remembered.  And not that good, either.




Like Fist of the North Star, I don't think it's "good" as opposed to... "classic".

I love that stupid hand of his. Talk about a cohort eh?


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2005)

You've got to put the first OVA in context, too.  When I first saw it in 1986, there was nothing else like it.  By today's standards, it's both tame and disjointed due to a IMHO incomplete adaption from the novel.  The Vampire Hunter D Movie, "Bloodlust" is better, but by no means great.  Visually, it looks quite nice, and the world setting is a lot of fun.  You can also see the differences in what's considered allowable and what kind of budgets they had.  

D, like Fist of the Northstar, broke down a lot of barriers.  I am curious, though, when you watch these shows, are you watching the English dubs?  I'm not a snob about dubbing (in point of fact, for Big 'O', Master Keaton, Inuyasha and several other shows, I PREFER the U.S. voice casts), but many of the stuff I've seen mentioned so far suffered from some really bad dubbing jobs....especially the first wave of dubbed material.  

And even some recent dubs don't always work: I'm told that "Witch Hunter Robin" had a terrible English dub (despite a proven and talented cast)...but I listened to Hellsing's English dub, and found it OK.  Master Keaton's cast...well, I can imagine them any other way (and frankly, I appreciate the relatively good UK and European accents).


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 17, 2005)

And there is going to be a Vampire Hunter D novel coming out published by Dark Horse.

Good stuff!


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 17, 2005)

Lots of little points I feel like responding to for some reason...

  First off, never got Gundam. Or any other giant robot show, actually, but especially Gundam. Bores me to death.

  I got into Ranma through the manga, which I found fast paced, funny, and cute. The anime, on the other hand...it just seems to drag a lot of the time. The comedic timing of the comic just isn't there, and almost every decision to deviate from the comic turned out for the worse, imo. Still, it's a quirky series, did better with girls than boys, and I wouldn't fault anyone for not liking it.   

  Josh: Dude, Tekken Movie not good! I rented it once, and honestly wished I could just wipe the whole thing from my mind. I mean heck, I watched the american versions of Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, _and_ Darkstalkers, and I wouldn't wish Tekken on anyone. Fatal Fury now, is on my get around to watching someday list...

  CN is picking up Naruto? Cool. I'm running out of Adult Swim to watch, anyway. Full Metal Alchemist and Inuyasha are the only shows I can turn too for new episodes these days.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 17, 2005)

Yes, do not get the "Tekken" anime. It really really sucks. Be afraid. Be very afraid.




> I wasn't directly responding solely to you, but pointing out that Kim Possible is exactly what it was meant to be.




Oh, I assumed you were directing it to me because ...I think, not sure....that I was the only one that mentioned "Kim Possible".

Anyways, I totally agree with your comments about the show. Your comments also on toylines vs. actually show is spot on too. This is one of the things that irratate me about toy companies. Whether their decision is valid or not, it still irratates me.

The only point I'm a little skeptical on is your comment, " ....is exactly what is was meant to be."  I'm not totally sure myself what Disney and the creators of the show "meant" for it to be. But I assumed it was suppose to offer a comdey/action show for girls. They saw "Power Puff Girls" as successful over at Cartoon Network and wanted to offer a show to appeal to a similiar audience. That's the vibe I get from Disney. But I could be off base.

Your version tells it differently. You're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong - we seem to be missing each other on this   ) that "Kim Possible" was meant to be for boys. Its possible, but I really doubt it. I think it was more like Disney's attempt to match CN's success with "Power Puff Girls" as well as tap into the same audience that enjoyed "Spy Kids". I think its more about that.




			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Why can't you accept that some people simply may not like anime? That's another of my beefs with anime fans in general; many of them refuse to believe that people could not like anime, so they develop this misplaced bitterness against whatever they believe is "holding back" anime from more mainstream popularity. This view is totally wrong IMO.




Personally, I can accept that some people don't like anime. When I was younger I would try to push it on my friends, but I really don't anymore. Not that it matters, I think all my current friends now love anime anyways.  Plus, I don't think you're an anime hater anyways Joshua. Like you said, you found some anime that you do like, so in my book, you like anime. 

But I agree with your sentiment that no one should try to keep pushing something onto someone else when its clear that they're not going to change their mind about it. Hey, I don't like sea urchin sushi, no one is gonna change my mind about it.   

Plus, being pushy is counter productive to the goal of getting someone else to like anime. It just makes the situation worse. 



			
				Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I'm saying there's more to anime than what many people have seen on American television.




That's the only reason why I may jump in on a discussion on anime. Sometimes, I'm afraid that a particular person who's debating on the subject has only been exposed to what they've seen on Toonami or something. 



> First off, never got Gundam. Or any other giant robot show, actually, but especially Gundam. Bores me to death.




Yeah, if you're not into it, you're not into it. But on a side note: there are different types of Gundam. In the same way that Batman has "elseworlds" versions like "Gotham by Gaslight" , Gundam has the same. Gundam Wing, G-Gundam, Gundam Seed, and such aren't the real Gundam. I personally like the original Gundam like, Gundam:Stardust Memories and Gundam:8th MS Team. But even watching those might not get someone to become a Gundam fan.

I kinda equate Gundam with Lord of the Rings and other old classic fantasy books. The fans say this is where it started and its the classics, then people read it and are bored/not entertained.  At a time when all big robot shows were the same formula crazy scientist uncle make big machine with rocket fists , Gundam came out and offered more realistic sci-fi like robot action. The creator was influence by Asimov, Clarke and such. There was no faster than light travel, there was a reason why people didn't just launch missiles at each other long range, there were many elements that made it more "realistic". This was the show that was a turning point to bring in a different era of the "more realistic" robot series. Like Votoms and Macross. 

The hard part about getting someone to like Gundam is that....there's no jumping in point that is particularly good to jump in at. The story is very dependant on you knowing the world and how it works. Its technology, its politics, its timeline. To do that, you gotta watch from the beginning. To do that....you gotta watch the old late 70's original show (which they haven't redone in newer animation). But come on...who's gonna watch that old looking show? Then after than you gotta watch Gundam Zeta and Gundam ZZ (the two tv series). But they don't have those for sale in America. And those two tv series were the ones that got everyone from being fan to a fanatic. So successful the stories were that they are trying to recreate is success by basically following the same formula in other Gundam incarnations. 

Its like getting someone to like Star Trek Next Generation cast and giving them only the movies. Then they come back and go, " I dont' see the big deal". Then you say, "well, you should probably see the original tv series"....but they don't sell it. 

Gundam is weird that way. Its too big an investment to get into properly. Because of this, I rarely pimp this show out. I've actually was able to get one other friend into it, but he's a special case. He didn't mind the footwork that went into going back and starting from the stone age. But even going back and doing all this won't mean you'll like it. If it doesn't appeal to your tastes....it doesn't appeal to your tastes. Heh heh.

As far as big robots are concerned, I personally like the more realistic ones. Like "Patlabor", "Macross", "Gundam", and the like. But every now and then I like the silly over the top stuff too. Like "Mazinkaiser".


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2005)

Well, on the combined recommendations of everyone here, Tekken is coming off my Netflix queue.  Sadly, Netflix also does not have the Fatal Fury anime, and I don't want to buy it from Amazon just to see it.

Although I've heard good things about it, and as a fan of the game (and that whole genre of game, for that matter) I probably wouldn't regret the purchase.  Unless it's extremely expensive.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 18, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I really like "Naruto". I've only seen maybe six episodes. But I liked 'em.
> 
> I was talking with friends of mine and we discussed similarities in story structures. Like, when you say "this is is like that but with this instead". For instance: "Magnificient Seven" is "Seven Samurai", but set in the wild west. "Bug's Life" is "Seven Samurai", but with bugs.
> 
> With that, we said, "Naruto" is "Harry Potter", but with ninjas instead of wizards. You guys agree?




I disagree. While there are some similarities, they all seem to be only skin-deep.

The most basic one is the grouping of the protagonists in both stories. Both have a boy as the main character, with another boy and a girl as his closest friends and teammates. There's also a very powerful, but somewhat hands-off teacher who watches out for them. Likewise, the girl is usually much smarter, in terms of book-smarts, than her companions.

A few other similarities are that the main character each has a particular hidden power within them, and is orphaned as a baby, and grew up with some sort of undeserved prejudice levelled against them. Likewise, the main villain in each series is obsessed with immortality.

However, there are differences than similarities in my mind. For example, there is no dichotomy of "magic vs. mundane" in Naruto like there is in Harry Potter; the ninja world in Naruto has the ninjas as being a well-known and (apparently) a popular profession. 

Likewise, the character relationships are quite different. Harry doesn't chase after Hermione the way Naruto does after Sakura, and likewise Hermione doesn't fawn all over Ron the way Sakura does over Sasuke. On the same note, Ron isn't bitter or obsessed with revenge the way Sasuke is.

Likewise, the antagonist structure is different too. All villainy in Harry Potter can be traced, either directly or indirectly, to Voldemort. In Naruto, while Orochimaru is a major villain, other villains like Zabuza and Itachi have either nothing or almost nothing to do with him. Also, whereas Voldemort needs to defeat Harry, Orochimaru barely even knows Naruto's name.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. The two are a bit similar in construction, but it's like saying two houses painted red are the same house: it's obvious when you look inside that they aren't really that similar at all.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 18, 2005)

You're totally correct Alzrius. But yah, I meant in a very basic kind of way. In the same way I can say the two houses are red. Which they are despite them being different on the inside.

Both have the young orphaned boy with hidden powers with the undeserved prejudice against them. Both are in a school. The whole trio thing too. 2 guys and a girl. Relationships are different, you're right...but the trio is there. Both stories has that cool geek dream scenario: there is a school for Wizards/Ninjas that you can go to. 

Sure, there's so much more that makes these two series popular with kids. But I think the school setting is a big part of the recipe too. I mean, as a school kid in class daydreaming as you're being asked to multiplications, wouldn't you rather be in a school for Ninjas or Wizards? Personally, I would love to be in a school for Ninja Wizards.    Okay, joking aside, I just meant those parts really. Obviously, the points you wrote make Naruto very very different than Harry Potter.

But I'm glad you pointed it out. Noting the differences clears up any misunderstanding I might have created that Naruto is just simply Harry Potter with ninjas instead of wizards.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> ....but the core of it is this: doesn't matter who's better, Japan or America, doesn't matter if it can be done or not, because it can.....the thing is, that serious mature animated action adventure (the stuff people like us love to watch) *are not * being done in America enough. Don't you all agree?




I don't.  I don't see much of a reason to do a serious animated movie when the same movie can be done with live action.  I could see it being used as a niche market for inexpensive productions, but for mainstream movies, I think it would be a waste.  A good example of where I see animation having a purpose is in the HBO series Spawn.  HBO could not (at the time; they probably could now) have made that show live action.  The expense would have been enormous.  But making it an animated show brought it into the realm of possibility.  With CG getting cheaper and cheaper every year, I think we'll see that animation has even lost that niche, leaving it only for the most fanciful of productions (a la children's television).  Not to mention, after Sin City comes out we'll have that new fad of animation that will really drive the American animation market for the next half-decade.  By the time it's over, CG will be even cheaper.



> Let's face it, animation is an inferior medium in comparison to live-action for those who want realism. Thing is, its expensive to produce a tv series in live action when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy. You gotta scrape up a lot of money to do one decently. Like "Star Trek" and "Battlestar Galactica"....but even those guys have to skimp on a lot of stuff. Battlestar recently had to use the same p-90 submachine gun seen in Stargate during that prison hostage episode. If it was animation, it would've been cheaper to have the artist draw a new gun for that show. But to have your prop department make like 6 new guns just for that one show is expensive. Stargate is about going to different worlds, and yet...they seem to always go to pine wood evergreen forest worlds. If it was animation, you can draw an exotic locale each time.
> 
> That's why its nice if someone could do a seriouc sci-fi/fantasy animated show. I know some of you say that animation is for whimsical funny stuff only....but, with the medium, we can bring to life stories that live-action couldn't do.  We can get more of the stories we like if another output of expression became available. Animation could be it. But in America, it isn't because of the industry. And that's what I think you have to agree with me on. That Japan has at least that over us. You may think they have bad stories or bad animation, but you gotta admit that at least they do it over there.




There's many productions I would like to see like this, but the truth of the matter is, they would be economic disasters even at their lowered cost.  Animated films lose something (unless we're talking top-notch CG like Shreck or something like Gollum) of the "actor"'s personalities.  I just don't think you can get an American audience to come back to an animated show again and again.  And like I said, CG is getting cheaper all the time.



> That's a live action show for adults. I'm talking about animation. Action/adventure animation. Our live action tv industry for adults has plenty of good shows and lots of strong well written female characters in lead roles.




OK, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  Don't you have to have a serious animated series before you can have a strong, well-written female lead?  There's nothing American about not having a strong, female lead (as you further state with examples like Aliens, Terminator, and mine, Alias).  We just don't have serious animation.



> And yes, the "hot chick" angle is brought up, but most don't really think that's a viable element to draw a male audience even though it clearly is. The problem is, (and I'm gonna use a live-action example for this one) when one exec says "okay, I'll do your hot chick thing " and does it...then it bombs ....they say, "See, it didn't work".




Hot female leads draw attention.  Good stories maintain that attention.  Or you can just go completely unsubtle, like Baywatch, and make the most successful show in the world. 



> Problem wasn't that the hot chick thing didn't work, it was because they forgot to take care of the other part that makes people wanna watch. That part being....a good story.     In an article in Entertainment Weekly, a few studios were quoted saying that the reason why they think "Catwoman" and "Elektra" didn't do big numbers was because the audience isn't ready for strong action female leads. Rubbish....guys like this make me puke.




I'm not sure if good story was the problem with those movies.  Because I never saw them, I don't know what the stories are.  I don't know anyone who went to see them to find out if there was a good story, either.  They were simply victims of poor marketing.  They may be wonderful movies - or horrible ones; I just don't know.  And the trailers didn't make me want to find out.

Not to mention, Elektra was a non-starter due to Ben Affleck's increasingly dull performances.  Daredevil was just not that good (note, no mention of any kind of association between Daredevil and Elektra is made in the previews; but that doesn't fool the comic-book loving target audience).



> Thankfully, the EW guy who wrote the article and said that wasn't the case with "Aliens" and "Terminator" now was it? Or like you said, "Alias".


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> As I'd say to most who say they don't like anime, I believe you haven't seen the right anime shows.  Anime grew out of and is an extension of manga, and so the fairest comparison to an American medium is American comic books... which suffer the same problems of sexism and even subtle misogyny.  As a huge comic and anime fan, I do not find American attitudes to be significantly better, and although I love both media, you have to call a spade a spade.




That's just bull.  I'm not a fan of anime.  I have seen just about everything everyone always raves about.  I think the problem is the confusion of anime as a genre.  It's not.  It's a medium.  And as a medium, it is poor at expressing the types of movies I am a fan of.



> The American TV and comic industry has failed for years to attract the young female audience.  But large numbers of young females have gotten into anime and manga, like Ranma 1/2, Fruits Basket, Kareshi Kanojo no Jijou ("His and Her Circumstances"), Sailor Moon, and many others.  Noir is one of the best action anime shows in recent years, starring two female assassins.




You mean like when my little sister's friends all sit around and watch Cartoon Network and Disney all day?  Where are you getting this idea from that young girls do not like American TV?



> But yes, there are definitely cultural differences in the romantic elements, and if you don't care for stories along those lines, that's perfectly fine.  What's "good" and what's not depends heavily on our expectations (which is why the Matrix sequels, for example, are seen by so many as so bad).  Also, often people just say that shows are "good", when what they really mean is, "it's good for me."  I'd recommend different anime to different people, the same way I would for books, movies, TV shows, and so on.  And most of the time when I talk about things that I personally like on these boards, I talk about _what_ is good rather than simply raving, so that people at least have a better idea of what to expect and don't go into it with the wrong expectations.




You are going in with expectations that other people SHOULD like anime because you do.  And your expectations are not being met, so you blame it the fact that "[they] haven't seen the right anime shows".


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Sort of.  One part subject matter and one part execution.  If I said, "There's this interesting movie -- it's about a bounty hunter who gets assigned one last assignment but feels conflicted as to whether he should carry it out," and then I added either "It's anime", "It's a French movie playing at the local independent theater," or "It was a big American summer blockbuster a few years back", most folks will come up with three slightly different pictures.




Slightly different?  I don't think the French... and the Blockbuster... would have anything to do with one another.  As far as anime is concerned; as I stated before, it's a medium, not a genre.  Telling me it's anime tells me nothing about the mood of the movie.  It could run the gamut between French and Blockbuster.  I can picture either.



> As to the latter, no argument.  The average comic book is more than a little sexist.  Even if the superheroine isn't weaker or dumber than the superhero, she's wearing a bikini.  The notion that the guys are just as idealized and unrealistic as the gals is possibly true, but there's still a double standard going on there.




I'm confused as to how that is a double standard.  If the guys are just as beefed up (and I've seen the crotch bulges in comics, so don't tell me they aren't) how is that two standards?  It's one.  Comic book characters are attractive.  That's not sexist.



> But as I said in my first post, I've grown up with that stuff, and learned to ignore it.  It's harder for me to ignore the sexism in anime because the sexist tropes are different and new -- essentially, I haven't set up my ignore filter on anime cultural sexism yet, but I set it on American comics awhile ago.
> 
> As to the former (I haven't seen the right stuff), that's possibly true, but the only real exposure I've had has been people who like anime trying to get me to watch stuff and saying, "Dude, this is awesome, you have to watch it."  If the anime-lovers are telling me to watch this stuff as the prime examples of the genre, and then it turns out to be drivel (or not drivel but not to my taste), that's going to give me certain baseline assumptions for the genre.  I'd suggest that there needs to be a group of anime advocates advocating the good stuff.
> 
> ...




Right on.  Kim Possible is a wonderful show.  Not my taste (nor am I a target), but it certainly beats out similar offerings I've seen from anime.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> What I am saying here is that: when it comes to *Action/Adventure* animation series in the U.S. (which are mostly based off toylines), its hard to pitch a show where the main character is female. Because I didn't want someone to retort with "that's not true, they have Power Puff Girls and Kim Possible". So I wrote ,_"They only do lead females if its a musical or a slap stick/comedy show like "Power Puff Girls" or "Kim Possible". _




That's just stating the obvious then, isn't it?  You're basically just saying boys in America play with action figures and girls in America play with dolls.  So what?  And on top of that I don't remember an action/adventure show that wasn't slapstick/comedy since the 80s... American parents don't like violence or sex in their children's programming.  ... I just realized how fascist the phrase "Children's Programming" sounds...



> Don't worry, I know. Its a cartoon comedy aimed at young girls. What I accuse of not being "Alias" was "Catwoman" and "Elektra". Sorry if there was any confusion,but I thought I had written it clearly.




I was confused on that point.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Anime is not a medium; that's just a silly claim that shows a lack of understanding of what media is (and I've heard it in many other places as well.)  It's a style, or perhaps a grouping of related styles.




Yes, it's a style.  But it's a style that has been turned into a platform.  It's gone beyond style.  It is as distinct from traditional American animation as traditional American animation is from live action.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> I'm saying there's more to anime than what many people have seen on American television.




If American television was the only exposure an American had to anime, they would be MORE apt to enjoy it rather than less.  American television only shows that anime that is fit for American mass consumption.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Which brings up another odd anime convention that I've always been curious.  They sure love to show these flashing panty shots, don't they?  I've heard anecdotally that Najica has a lot.  What's that all about?




It's about the objectification of women, what else?


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> ...or who figure I just haven't watched enough Gundam, yet.  No, no...I've watched TOO MUCH Gundam, son, that's the problem.




Yes, I find the "You need to watch 3 hours before it gets good" defense very amusing.  If you need to watch that much before it gets good... then it's not that good.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Don't remember a protector.  I remember in the first episode she went off with her boyfriend for a "romantic tryst" of sorts and he got killed in the act of fondling her breast or something like that.  And, uh... there was a Japan-pop song during the closing credits?




Are you being fecetious or actually trying to be more specific?  I can't tell...


----------



## reanjr (Feb 18, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> The only point I'm a little skeptical on is your comment, " ....is exactly what is was meant to be."  I'm not totally sure myself what Disney and the creators of the show "meant" for it to be. But I assumed it was suppose to offer a comdey/action show for girls. They saw "Power Puff Girls" as successful over at Cartoon Network and wanted to offer a show to appeal to a similiar audience. That's the vibe I get from Disney. But I could be off base.




I think it was "meant to be" something for Christy Carlson Romano to do since Even Stevens was cancelled (best show on Disney, IMO).



> Your version tells it differently. You're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong - we seem to be missing each other on this   ) that "Kim Possible" was meant to be for boys. Its possible, but I really doubt it. I think it was more like Disney's attempt to match CN's success with "Power Puff Girls" as well as tap into the same audience that enjoyed "Spy Kids". I think its more about that.




Actually it seems to be more directed towards boys (or at least gender unspecific) to me... but then I never liked the things I was supposed to like as a child...


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 18, 2005)

hold on a sec...so much to read


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 18, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I don't.  I don't see much of a reason to do a serious animated movie when the same movie can be done with live action.  I could see it being used as a niche market for inexpensive productions, but for mainstream movies, I think it would be a waste.  A good example of where I see animation having a purpose is in the HBO series Spawn.  HBO could not (at the time; they probably could now) have made that show live action.  The expense would have been enormous.  But making it an animated show brought it into the realm of possibility.  With CG getting cheaper and cheaper every year, I think we'll see that animation has even lost that niche, leaving it only for the most fanciful of productions (a la children's television).  Not to mention, after Sin City comes out we'll have that new fad of animation that will really drive the American animation market for the next half-decade.  By the time it's over, CG will be even cheaper.





Okay, not sure if some of you are aware of this, but CGI *is* animation.  2d animation and CGI animation are under the same category as "animation".  So you saying "With CG getting cheaper and cheaper every year, I think we'll see that animation has even lost that niche..." is like saying, "with microwave ovens making food faster to cook, we'll see that heating up food has lost its niche."

CGI is animation. 



I said this: _"....but the core of it is this: doesn't matter who's better, Japan or America, doesn't matter if it can be done or not, because it can.....the thing is, that serious mature animated action adventure (the stuff people like us love to watch) are not being done in America enough. Don't you all agree?"_ 

then you said: _"There's many productions I would like to see like this...."_ 

So basically, you do agree then. Right?



> I don't.  I don't see much of a reason to do a serious animated movie when the same movie can be done with live action.




I never said it had to be a movie. But you're right - why do it in animation when you can do it live action? I think I'm being misunderstood again.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 18, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Yes, I find the "You need to watch 3 hours before it gets good" defense very amusing.  If you need to watch that much before it gets good... then it's not that good.





I don't know about others, but I got hooked on Gundam right away. I didnt' take 3 hours. I think it took 3 minutes.   

But that's me.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> All villainy in Harry Potter can be traced, either directly or indirectly, to Voldemort.



**cough, cough**  Dursleys **cough cough** Dolores Umbridge **, etc.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 18, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Oh, I assumed you were directing it to me because ...I think, not sure....that I was the only one that mentioned "Kim Possible".




Yes, but you weren't the only one who was talking about shows _like_ Kim Possible, and questioning the seriousness of the story.  And I'm not sure what I said to imply that I thought KP was for boys...it's solidly for girls, and I thought that's what I said, pointing out how the show _de-emphasizes_ much of the action in favor of the situational humor and relationship issues.  It is, however, accessible to boys, which is true of any action-based show, regardless of which gender it's targeted at.  Notice how W.I.T.C.H. and Kim Possible both have prominent but generally ineffectual male heroes.  Like reanjr says, KP was made to give two of Disney's teen actors some work, to pull in young female viewers and to push some merchandise while they're at it, such as the KP cheerleader set, action figure collection and various show paraphenalia, such as t-shirts, backpacks and lunchboxes....some of which, my daughter has.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> I'm confused as to how that is a double standard. If the guys are just as beefed up (and I've seen the crotch bulges in comics, so don't tell me they aren't) how is that two standards? It's one. Comic book characters are attractive. That's not sexist.




There are two standards because generally, female characters end up wearing much less functional costumes than male characters do, in comics.  Take a look, for example, at this George Perez picture of the Avengers at 30.  Quick, other than Thor and Quasar, how many men have their arms completely uncovered?  Now, how many female characters?  Now, how many men have completely uncovered legs?  None?  How about the female characters?  How many men have exposed chests?  The Hulk?  Now how many female characters have deep 'V' cut outfits, bikini tops or bustiers?  Why is Crystal the only one wearing a jacket?  And this is from an artist who treats women well, compared to some of the really bad hacks.  The point is that women in comics, more than men, are more commonly objectified, and often shown wearing outfits that don't really make sense in the context of what they are doing.  The reason, obviously, is the target audience, but I think it's a bit hard to swallow that there's no sexism at work there.  If I had time, I'd link the 'Girlfriend in the Refrigerator' site, which shows the many, many unpleasant things that happen to the ladies foolish enough to be involved with male comic heroes (even if they're superheroes themselves).


----------



## Thanee (Feb 18, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> It seems to me today that the animation market is dominated by Japanese anime, now I myself like anime, and even know a bit of Japanese myself.




Dunno, when I think of animation these days, I immediately think of Shrek, Nemo or Incredibles. I don't think there is _any_ japanese anime, which can even get close to such coolness.

And Simpsons and Futurama? That's a class of its own, well ahead of all that anime stuff.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 18, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Dunno, when I think of animation these days, I immediately think of Shrek, Nemo or Incredibles. I don't think there is _any_ japanese anime, which can even get close to such coolness.
> 
> And Simpsons and Futurama? That's a class of its own, well ahead of all that anime stuff.
> 
> ...




Heh, you said it.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 18, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> You are going in with expectations that other people SHOULD like anime because you do.  And your expectations are not being met, so you blame it the fact that "[they] haven't seen the right anime shows".




Wow, am I sick of people accusing me of being some raving anime fanboy who thinks anime can do no wrong.  Twice in this thread, already.

I do NOT think people SHOULD like anime.  I think MOST people have seen very little anime, and a very limited selection.  I think anime has covered so many different art styles, genres, and story types that saying "I don't like anime" is like saying "I don't like movies" or "I don't like television" or "I don't like books."  All of which is entirely possible.

If you have seen a wide variety of critically and/or popularly acclaimed anime, however, and found nothing that you care for, then yes, I am at a loss as to how that can be.  The same way I would be in the case of movies, television, etc.  If you choose never to watch any anime again, I think "that's a shame" not "you should try this."  Frankly, it doesn't bother me if you don't like anime.  It DOES bother me if people go around saying "I've seen all this anime, and it's all crap."


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 18, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> If American television was the only exposure an American had to anime, they would be MORE apt to enjoy it rather than less.  American television only shows that anime that is fit for American mass consumption.




This is entirely not true.  You may enjoy the standards set on American television, but many people find them restrictive.

This has everything to do with the original topic of this thread.  American television has far more restrictions on violence and nudity than Japanese (or many other countries).  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  But for anything animated, the culture assumes that the show is for children.  This is not always true, in the case of anime.

There are many reasons why various anime shows have not yet hit American shores, most having to do with business reasons.  It's a matter of finding the right distributor for the show in question, whether that's a movie studio like Disney (and Studio Ghibli), TV network like Cartoon Network, or DVD/video production.  Will we ever see widespread distribution of anime?  We're seeing the beginnings of it.  Maybe it'll continue increasing, maybe not.  But the assumption that there's nothing else in Japan that's fit for American consumption is wrong.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 18, 2005)

_I said:_
The American TV and comic industry has failed for years to attract the young female audience. But large numbers of young females have gotten into anime and manga, like Ranma 1/2, Fruits Basket, Kareshi Kanojo no Jijou ("His and Her Circumstances"), Sailor Moon, and many others. Noir is one of the best action anime shows in recent years, starring two female assassins.

_Reanjr said:_
You mean like when my little sister's friends all sit around and watch Cartoon Network and Disney all day? Where are you getting this idea from that young girls do not like American TV?

_And now I say:_
For years, when I was growing up, there were few cartoons for girls.  I bet you cane name plenty of cartoon franchises for boys with long histories:  Transformers, G.I. Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and so on.  What cartoons were there for girls in the 80's?  Let's compare:  Jem.  My Little Pony.  She-Ra.  Guess what?  They weren't that successful.  Of course they still watch TV.  But the animation industry was heavily skewed towards boys.

The comic industry is far worse.  You cannot begin to argue that girls read comics, because any girls who do are the exception, rather than the rule.  This is not because they don't like sequential art.  Many of them are finding more interesting reading material (for them) in the manga section than the comic section.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 18, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> I think anime has covered so many different art styles, genres, and story types that saying "I don't like anime" is like saying "I don't like movies" or "I don't like television" or "I don't like books."  All of which is entirely possible.




I highly doubt that. The comparisons, that is. I don't like anime. It's as simple as that. It's not that I don't like what it's about, but more of the production. I REALLY dislike the animation style, as well as the actual design of it. The animation always seems the exact same to me. At least with western-based animation, there's always a variation.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> I think MOST people have seen very little anime, and a very limited selection.  I think anime has covered so many different art styles, genres, and story types that saying "I don't like anime" is like saying "I don't like movies" or "I don't like television" or "I don't like books."  All of which is entirely possible.
> 
> If you have seen a wide variety of critically and/or popularly acclaimed anime, however, and found nothing that you care for, then yes, I am at a loss as to how that can be.  The same way I would be in the case of movies, television, etc.  If you choose never to watch any anime again, I think "that's a shame" not "you should try this."  Frankly, it doesn't bother me if you don't like anime.  It DOES bother me if people go around saying "I've seen all this anime, and it's all crap."



In my experience, people who have seen little anime are the people who had no interest in it from the begining (such as my wife, for instance.)  She never gave it a fair shake, but by the same token, she doesn't give most sci-fi or fantasy a fair shake either.  She already knows she's not likely to like it, and guess what; she's right.

On the other hand, most people of the "geek crowd" who don't like anime, in my experience, have seen quite a bit of it, mostly what's been recommended by their missionary friends who proseletyze it to them incessantly.  So, what, they have to see _all_ anime before they can finally decide they don't like it?

I've seen a fair amount of anime, including much of the "highly recommended" stuff.  I haven't liked most of it.  I have liked some of it, but not more than a good old Hollywood movie, or heck, a good old Hong Kong movie for that matter.  I can find a few shows out there that I'm certainly glad I saw, and maybe even one or two that I wouldn't mind owning.  But at what point will you concede that I most definitely do separate out anime from "all movies" or "all TV" and that yes, I prefer other forms of visual entertainment?

I think that's the real rub, rather than folks that see one or two things and then decide "all anime is crap."  I've never actually met anyone like that.  Although there are three (of five) in my gaming group that have given anime a pretty fair shake and just aren't really converts.  One of them lived in Japan for a few years and speaks fluent Japanese and is familiar with the culture, and of anyone you'd think he'd be the fan.  He's not.  He still tries it occasionally too, thinking maybe he'll find something he really likes, but he doesn't.  But at least he gets to keep his Japanese fluent.


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 18, 2005)

Heh, I can relate to that. Popping in a DVD now and then is probably the only thing keeping my japanese from rusting away entirely. My Kanji skills are crap, though.  :\ 

  I can't say that I've ever understood the motivation "anime evangelists" since I grew up knowing my taste in entertainment wasn't typical. I grew up watching cartoons...and never really stopped. I love animation, something my family rags on me about once in a while, but generally accepts. Never felt that everyone else needed to enjoy watching the same things as I did.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2005)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Heh, I can relate to that. Popping in a DVD now and then is probably the only thing keeping my japanese from rusting away entirely. My Kanji skills are crap, though.  :\



I know at least two guys who also married Japanese women... although probably for more reasons than simply to keep their language skills sharp.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Feb 18, 2005)

Something that has been going through my mind as I've been involved in this thread, is the amount of people I know that like or dislike anime. At work, with friends, with family, friends of friends, most range from "I like anime" to "not really into it that much, but I did see some I thought was neat".  I just realized that it is only here at EN World that I've found people that actually say they "hate" anime. I mean, not just "ah...I'm not really into that much" ... I mean actually hate it. 

Please don't think that I'm against anyone who hates anime, but I just find it odd that the only ones I've met that hate anime to that degree are here on these forums. 

......hmmmmm.....okay wait a minute, that's wrong. I did meet/encounter one guy that hated anime. This was back when anime wasn't that popular yet. Best Buy didnt' have a section of it or anything. Heck, there wasn't even a Best Buy at the time. Our city had only one little shop that sold anime. I was in there one day and some guy walked in and started ranting..."Why do you people like this crap? What's the big deal?" 

Okay, other than that guy....I've never met anyone that hated anime. Except some of you guys here.    But I guess that means I haven't met enough people...heh heh.







			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that. The comparisons, that is. I don't like anime. It's as simple as that. It's not that I don't like what it's about, but more of the production. I REALLY dislike the animation style, as well as the actual design of it. The animation always seems the exact same to me. At least with western-based animation, there's always a variation.





Odd thing is, I have friends that say all the American style look the same. But they're wrong. Sure, there are camps that you can lump certain styles in with the other, but certainly not ALL of them look the same. The key word is "seems". You used it and said, "The animation always seems the exact same to me". Which I don't doubt. But it isn't. There are different styles in anime. 

Its is comments like this that make fans of anime ask, "how much have you seen?"  Anyways, the whole thing I believe is attached to the liking and disliking of the subject matter anyways. I used to say all rap music sounded the same. But as time went on, I found it that it wasn't all the same.  But the thing that kept me from finding this out was that I didn't like the stuff to begin with. Not liking it means you're not going to invest time to "get to know" it more. 

Now, because I say this, don't misunderstand and think that I'm saying you're bad for not being patient and getting to know anime more. Nothing wrong with only dabbling a little and making the decision not to go further. I too have things I've tried only a little and just moved on. Nothing wrong with that. There's only such my time in a day, one can't possibly dedicate time and concentration on fully exploring everything.

But anyways mojo1701, I said all that so you don't think I'm jumping down your throat and yelling "no it isn't!!.....wah wah wah"

But anyways, it isn't.   There are many different styles in anime. If I were to put together a set of "art of" books from various selected anime in front of you, you'll probably see it too. "Memories" doesn't look like "Bezerk" which doesn't look like the new cgi "Appleseed" movie which doesn't look like "Vampire Hunter D:Bloodlust" which doesn't look like "FLCL", which doesn't look like "Blood: The Last Vampire" which doesn't look like "Mazinkaiser" which doesn't look like "Spirited Away" which doesn't look like "Yukikaze" which doesn't look like "Demon City Shinjuku".


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2005)

I've seen several different styles within anime, but it all looks like anime even so, at least by virtue of the fact that it doesn't look like American animation.  I mean, it doesn't _really_ all look the same, but if you don't really like any of the styles, I can see how you'd think that.

I get people telling me that all my music sounds the same, which I figger is just the same phenomena.  To me, naturally, it's very varied and unique.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 18, 2005)

What I find so funny about the "I like American animation better" is that Japanese animation is really just an outgrowth FROM American animation. Its basically a take on the old Disney and Warner Brothers styles. Sure, its evolved in its own right by now, but you can still see the similarities in a lot of places(a big one being the crazy expressions that drive some people mad).

But I don't care if someone likes anime or not. If you like it, fine, you like it. If you don't, whatever. I've given up on trying to bring people into anime...I've gotten to be a diaglo of anime, subs only and yes I do understand Japanese and no I didn't just learn it to watch them thankyouvermuch.  I've found its just easier to accept that not everyone will like what I like, and trying to get everyone to like what I like can just make me seem like those crazy fanboys that many people seem to think all anime fans are.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 18, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Odd thing is, I have friends that say all the American style look the same. But they're wrong. Sure, there are camps that you can lump certain styles in with the other, but certainly not ALL of them look the same. The key word is "seems". You used it and said, "The animation always seems the exact same to me". Which I don't doubt. But it isn't. There are different styles in anime.




Quite possibly. 



> _Its is comments like this that make fans of anime ask, "how much have you seen?"  Anyways, the whole thing I believe is attached to the liking and disliking of the subject matter anyways. I used to say all rap music sounded the same. But as time went on, I found it that it wasn't all the same.  But the thing that kept me from finding this out was that I didn't like the stuff to begin with. Not liking it means you're not going to invest time to "get to know" it more.
> 
> Now, because I say this, don't misunderstand and think that I'm saying you're bad for not being patient and getting to know anime more. Nothing wrong with only dabbling a little and making the decision not to go further. I too have things I've tried only a little and just moved on. Nothing wrong with that. There's only such my time in a day, one can't possibly dedicate time and concentration on fully exploring everything._




Thanks for the understanding. 



> _But anyways mojo1701, I said all that so you don't think I'm jumping down your throat and yelling "no it isn't!!.....wah wah wah"_




No, no I don't. 



> _But anyways, it isn't.   There are many different styles in anime. If I were to put together a set of "art of" books from various selected anime in front of you, you'll probably see it too. "Memories" doesn't look like "Bezerk" which doesn't look like the new cgi "Appleseed" movie which doesn't look like "Vampire Hunter D:Bloodlust" which doesn't look like "FLCL", which doesn't look like "Blood: The Last Vampire" which doesn't look like "Mazinkaiser" which doesn't look like "Spirited Away" which doesn't look like "Yukikaze" which doesn't look like "Demon City Shinjuku". _




Possibly. I haven't had too much exposure to anime, and I don't think that I've seen so little of it. I've got a little brother (only 3 years younger) who likes certain ones, too. Perhaps I might like it, perhaps I might not, but it's the cultural difference, I think, is what I don't like about it, analytically speaking. If, for example, I found a series of comic books that I could go out and change the names, for example, I might find it a bit more appealing. As it stands, though, if I want non-comedy, I turn to live-action, since the emotions are that much more easily expressible. If I want comedy, I want to turn to something that is of the same culture as me, so I'd understand it. Which is why I LOVE Family Guy, Futurama, The Simpsons, South Park et al. Even with comedy, I usually turn to live-action as well, although I haven't been watching anything as religiously as I used to. The one exception to this, is 'Arrested Development.'


----------



## Dagger75 (Feb 18, 2005)

I feel like chiming in.  I have seen my share of anime.  I know what I like and what I don't.  I watched the first 3 DVD's of Beserk, wasn't impressed.  I like Record of Lodoss Wars but just can't sit down and watch it when ever I like.  I like Ghost in the Shell, love stand alone complex, hated Akira.   Robotech and Invid invasion I love, Gundam did nothing for me.  Tried watching Trigun, saw the big stupid face with the teardrop, ruined it for me.  I don't know why that bugs me but it does.  I dislike it on Teen Titans to. Don't get me started on DragoBall Z.

 I have also ran into my fair share of people who only take Japanese language classes and culture classes because they want to "understand" anime better. They have that air about them "I know what this really means and you know nothing" attitude.

For American animation, I really don't see why everybody loves Samari Jack.  I hate the animation.  Same with the Clone War cartoons, watched them all but really hated the animation.  It looks childish and cheap.  Then again it works on Dexters Lab for me, go figure. Liked Justice League Unlimited, Batman the Animated Series and Batman Beyond.


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 18, 2005)

Heh, Samurai Jack is gorgeous. Not in the art design, exactly, but in the animation and direction.

  I've seen a lot of cartoons, and few of them are as...visual, as that show was. No unnecessary dialogue, just lets the art tell the story. It's not a perfect show, but it's certainly striking, imo.

  Rant about Dragonball Z if you like, it can feel good to let it all out. 

"Thats it! I'm really, really mad! Twice as mad as I was last episode! So mad, I'm going to hit you with a new attack that looks just like the last one I used! Except...it takes so long to use that you won't even see until the next episode, maybe...3rd episode for sure! While I'm standing around groaning and stuff, be sure to stand in place and wait for it, no moving now! As far as any or those remaining useless henchmen of yours you always bring with you just so I can kill half of them...talk amongst yourselves. I mean, you don't matter anyway, and some inane dialogue might really help pass the next 35 minutes before my next attack."


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 19, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> Tried watching Trigun, saw the big stupid face with the teardrop, ruined it for me.  I don't know why that bugs me but it does.  I dislike it on Teen Titans to.



I'm starting to believe that they see their audience as borderline autistic (and in need of explicit emotional cues).


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 19, 2005)

You must have thought the Looney Tunes audience was virtually disfunctional, then.

  It's a sight gag. It's supposed to be funny. 

  In the case of Trigun, specifically, the technique is used sparingly throughout the series, primarily to relieve tension. (It's not exactly a happy show, on the whole)


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 20, 2005)

Two things on an unrelated note:

First, a quote from an email I sent earlier today: "Damn.  21 of the top 50 animation titles on IMDB are from Japan.  12 of the top 50 are from Studio Ghibli or [in one case -ed.] is an earlier work by Miyazaki (e.g. Lupin III: the Castle of Cagliostro).  Entirely rotoscoped animated films (Waking Life) and combinations of cel animation and live-action film (Roger Rabbit and Mary Poppins) are on the list as well."

I wish I knew how the film ratings on IMDB work better so one can't just blame those on a bunch of internet-using anime nerds.  Considering that 2 or 3 f the Ghibli films have never seen these shores... actually, I don't know what to conclude.

Second: My friend Richmond's presentation on anime that he did for his color theory class at Savannah College of Art and Design.  http://members.cox.net/penguinjoe/SCAD/presentation.swf 

And now - about the state of American Animation:
Were Don Bluth allowed more creative freedom back in the '80s, the face of American feature animation could have been completely different today.

Pixar has not made a bad film.  They are amazing.  I expect they won't make a bad film in the future.  And when their exclusive contract with Disney (or whatever it is) runs out - the world is their oyster.

If Disney let their animators do more non-market-researched labors of love like Lilo and Stitch - we'd have a hell of a lot more gorgeous films like Lilo and Stitch, and that's a good, good, good thing.

(Am I repeating Urban Legend or can someone confirm that Lilo and Stitch was essentially done in spare time/overtime and was, essentially, a "sleeper hit," as I've been lead to believe by various sources?)

And now a meta-observation - is it just me, or has this discussion been focusing primarily on TV?  I admit I've only read pages 1 and 4.  I realize that I'm not contributing to the discussion as much as I could if I were actually engaging in discourse -sorry!


So yeah - I'm optimistic about the state of American animation - and world animation.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 21, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I wish I knew how the film ratings on IMDB work better so one can't just blame those on a bunch of internet-using anime nerds. Considering that 2 or 3 f the Ghibli films have never seen these shores... actually, I don't know what to conclude.




First: IMDB is the INTERNET movie database, not the AMERICAN movie database.  Hence, the point that some of those films have never opened in the U.S. doesn't much matter, as people from all over the world can vote....but it doesn't much matter, as it IS a place for Internet nerds to vote for their favorite movies...it's not really an objective measure of anything. 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Were Don Bluth allowed more creative freedom back in the '80s, the face of American feature animation could have been completely different today.




How do you mean?  Do you mean if Disney had allowed him more control when he was there?  Because Bluth started his own studio, and did just fine for himself...but not gangbusters.  Let's not forget, Disney in the late 80s produced some of it's most acclaimed material in the studios history.  It was Bluth's own choice to keep producing Land Before Time movies, All Dogs go to Heaven sequels and the like.  I think Bluth is a true pioneer, but I don't think he would have changed animation that dramatically, either way.



			
				zoatebix said:
			
		

> Pixar has not made a bad film. They are amazing. I expect they won't make a bad film in the future. And when their exclusive contract with Disney (or whatever it is) runs out - the world is their oyster.



They are amazing...but Jobs' desire to stick it to Eisner could bite them on the butt.  They may have lost the chance for the best possible deal from a desperate Disney.  How that'll effect them in the long run is anyone's guess.  I do know that the field is no longer exclusively theirs (as I'm sure they're aware).  Personally, Cars is the first movie of theirs that I'm not wild about, from the previews...but it's far too early to tell.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> (Am I repeating Urban Legend or can someone confirm that Lilo and Stitch was essentially done in spare time/overtime and was, essentially, a "sleeper hit," as I've been lead to believe by various sources?)




Well, I've never heard that legend.  I can say that Lilo and Stitch was budgeted at around 80 MILLION DOLLARS.  I think it's a pretty hard idea to swallow that it was a pet project that Disney didn't get behind.  It was more successful than was expected, by a big margin, but it wasn't a "sleeper hit" by any margin, with an agressive marketing campaign, toy tie-ins at McDonalds and a big summer release.  A Disney sleeper hit was "Emperor's New Groove" , which was not promoted by Disney and expected to be something of a loss.  It wasn't a blockbuster, but it made a profit...something Treasure Planet sure couldn't say.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> And now a meta-observation - is it just me, or has this discussion been focusing primarily on TV? I admit I've only read pages 1 and 4. I realize that I'm not contributing to the discussion as much as I could if I were actually engaging in discourse -sorry!




I'm guessing that it has more to do with the fact that there's a lot more TV animation than feature animation...but you've missed a lot of discussion of films like Titan A.E. and other U.S. movies, as well.


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 21, 2005)

I think I underrepresented how much of this thread that I read, but I went back and read more and re-read other stuff, just to get a better idea of what's going on.

Post 58 by Takyris was awesome, especially the last paragraph:


> It's okay to like Amelie and not There's Something About Mary. It's okay to like There's Something About Mary and not Amelie. It's okay to like both. It's okay to like neither. But it's obvious to most people that they come from different countries, and carry different cultural assumptions with them. And that difference is a valid reason to like or dislike either of them. It's subjective as heck, but it's valid.



I'm all over that.

Post 60, Chain Lightning mentions how the Iron Giant and The Incredibles are made somehow differently than other American animation.  Aren't they both Brad Bird films?  What's he do that's so different?  Am I a bad person for still liking both of Brad Bird's features (and the two Simpson's episodes he directed?) despite my personal political misgivings about his first feature?

In response to Mojo1701 and Thanee:


> Originally Posted by Thanee
> Dunno, when I think of animation these days, I immediately think of Shrek, Nemo or Incredibles. I don't think there is any japanese anime, which can even get close to such coolness.
> 
> And Simpsons and Futurama? That's a class of its own, well ahead of all that anime stuff.
> ...



 So the fact that the executive producer of 2/3rds of those movies (Nemo and Incredibles) and the director of 3 earlier Pixar features and lots of earlier shorts is quite possibly the world's 2nd biggest Miyazaki fans, the fact that Lasseter routinely has his animators watch Miyazaki flicks and that the creative team behind Lilo and Stitch wathced hella-myazaki, especially Porco Rosso; Miyazaki and his work being awarded the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, the best animated feature Oscar, and will be receivign the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement award at the Venice International Film Festival this August - this is all - lip service?  Intellectual Snobbery?  Maybe - just maybe - there's some coolness going on in Japan...
(Note - the preceding paragraph uses the tone of indignation for effect only and does not accurately portray the writer's beliefs nor what the writer feels Thanee and Mojo were actually trying to say.)

Shrek (and Shrek 2), Nemo, and the Incredibles top the IMDB list I mentioned in my last post along with Disney greats, Studio Ghibli films, a few other Japanese productions by studio Mad House and Production IG and others, and the more independant Western animations like the stop-action greats Chicken Run and Wallace and Grommit and the French Les Triplettes de Belleville (which I really freakin' want to see!).

Mah.  This post is really disjointed.

To WizarDru about Bluth: Okay, so I really don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to Bluth.  Maybe if I said "Had financial reality allowed Bluth more creative freedom," it would be vague and truthful enough to belong in this discussion, but I was really just channeling the indignation of a friend without doing any research (which I've started to rectify).  

...and on the validity of the IMDB:  At least they keep the scheme they use for weighting their averages secret, and the list rankings are based only on the votes of people who vote on the IMDB a LOT.  There's at least some value to numbers and rankings that's greater than tyrrany by fans or random numbers.

...and on Lilo:  You really know how to Cramp a man's (feigned) optimism with "facts" and "figures" .  On an interesting note - the cost you cite for Lilo and Stich is 4 times as expensive as Princess Monoke.  Anyone know where we can get a cel count on both films so we can see how close to the mark Chain Lightning's accusations of inefficiency are?  I guess subtracting marketing costs and other non-production stuff would probably be beneficial, too.


So, the central questions -- that's only been touched on briefly and tangentially in posts like #102 by reanjr:


> There's many productions I would like to see like this, but the truth of the matter is, they would be economic disasters even at their lowered cost. Animated films lose something (unless we're talking top-notch CG like Shreck or something like Gollum) of the "actor"'s personalities. I just don't think you can get an American audience to come back to an animated show again and again.



(for those of you who don't remember) -- are these: 

Why would a creator want to make animation that doesn't pretend to be live-action (as so much coputer-generated animation is used today)?  
Why would an audience want to see animation instead of live-action?

Part of the answer -and I have no idea how big or small this part is- comes straight from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics," chapter 2.  The fewer details you have in a depiction of a face, the more people will relate to that face and character.  A photograph of an actor is obviously not you, but two dots and a curved line  is recognizable as a face to just anyone the world over - _and_ it's easier to 'fill-in the blanks' of that face with yourself.  The same is true for anything that can be depicted on film.  Not only are you conveying information in a different way, but you can convey different kinds of information using drawings or even cartoons than you can with photos or photo-realism.

What that all means is a matter of theory and personal preference.  Reanjr doesn't think cerain kinds of things will work as well in animation as it would in live-action.  I happen to think that the possibilities for both media have barely been realized and that his is a premature judgement.  Neither of us have any proof, and I kind of like things that way.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 21, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> So the fact that the executive producer of 2/3rds of those movies (Nemo and Incredibles) and the director of 3 earlier Pixar features and lots of earlier shorts is quite possibly the world's 2nd biggest Miyazaki fans, the fact that Lasseter routinely has his animators watch Miyazaki flicks and that the creative team behind Lilo and Stitch wathced hella-myazaki, especially Porco Ross; Miyazaki and his work being awarded the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, the best animated feature Oscar, and will be receivign the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement award at the Venice International Film Festival this August - this is all - lip service?  Intellectual Snobbery?  Maybe - just maybe - there's some coolness going on in Japan...



Miyazaki's works are hardly typical anime though, and most Americans, even animation fans, aren't necessarily familiar with them.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 22, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Miyazaki's works are hardly typical anime though, and most Americans, even animation fans, aren't necessarily familiar with them.




After sitting down this weekend to watch "Great Detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple", "Gantz", "Kaze no Yojimbo", "Turn A Gundam" and "Gankutsuo"...I'm not sure I know what 'typical' anime is.

I'd also hazard that a lot more Americans are familiar with Miyazaki (although not necessarily concsiously aware of it) than you might think.  I'd hazard that they're at least as famaliar with Miyazaki as someone like Wim Wenders, for example.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> ...and on Lilo:  You really know how to Cramp a man's (feigned) optimism with "facts" and "figures" . On an interesting note - the cost you cite for Lilo and Stich is 4 times as expensive as Princess Monoke. Anyone know where we can get a cel count on both films so we can see how close to the mark Chain Lightning's accusations of inefficiency are? I guess subtracting marketing costs and other non-production stuff would probably be beneficial, too.



Those didn't include marketing and non-production costs, which would have driven the loss from movies like Treasure Planet much higher, for example.  Lilo and Stitch was made in the U.S. five years after Mononoke, and didn't feature CGI effects.  Spirited Away _did_, but was also estimated to have a lower budget.  What that means, I'm not sure.

However, some food for thought is this: much anime is done for little money domestically, and for even less in Korea.  This is becoming increasingly more true in the U.S., as well.  Paying an employee more then 12,000/year isn't necesaarily inefficiency.  By the same token, anime has formulated lots of techniques, story-telling-wise, to make their work more economical.  Long pregnant pauses aren't just thoughtful or artistic, they're cheaper, too.


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 22, 2005)

eek!  Gantz looks creepy.  Of course, I've just started two rather creepy horror anime - "Requiem from the Darkness" and "Lunar Legend Tsukihime" - so I'm not sure why the Gantz previews are a turn-off for me.

Oh for Anime and stills.  Whenever I get tired of it, there's always live-action to get me through the slump, espeically Kurosawa's great use of blocking and camera movement to change composition and emphasize tension or isolation in High and Low.  Or Amelie's skipping stone shot.  Yum.  Good-god I should pick that up on DVD.  On the other hand, Berserk is really-low budget and uses still-paintings really, really well for the most part.

I feel a bout of pessimism coming on: And the above is why I should never post at 5 in the morning.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 22, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> eek! Gantz looks creepy. Of course, I've just started two rather creepy horror anime - "Requiem from the Darkness" and "Lunar Legend Tsukihime" - so I'm not sure why the Gantz previews are a turn-off for me.




Gantz isn't horror...it's very dark Sci-Fi....as bleak and unsettling as Beserk! is, at points.  The difference is that Gantz is chock-full of modern social commentary on the state of Japanese society in a tone very different from the sunshine folks might be expecting, except perhaps for the works of Satoshi Kon (he of "Tokyo Godfathers", "Paranoia Agent" and "Millenium Actress" fame). 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Berserk is really-low budget and uses still-paintings really, really well for the most part.




Beserk, like Hokuto no Ken, features some fairly detailed art that would be very hard to animate on a reasonable budget.  Kentaro Miura is like George Perez or Geoff Darrow in that regard.  Their art styles are hyper-detailed, and very hard to reproduce in animated form.  Beserk settled on a compromise approach, I think.


Now, on another note, I'd like to offer up an opinion as to why someone might choose to do animation rather than live-action for anything other than things that would be prohibitively expensive to reproduce (such as super-heroes, sci-fi and the like).  That reason is _style_.  Look at the upcoming movie, Sin City.  It looks fantastic...and it also looks like they'll be spending a large amount of effort to reproduce the distinctive graphic look and feel of the original comic.

Consider that animation allows for camera angles, visual styles and artistic choices that can't be reproduced anywhere else except for a prohibitive budget...or possibly at all, in some cases.  This is one reason that Samurai Jack is so highly lauded: it's LOOK is so polished and delivers what the animator intended.  Another classic example is Batman: The Animated Series.  Done on black backgrounds, it had a very distinctive, sometimes surreal visual quality.  Compare the character designs on the first couple of seasons of B:TAS with the Gotham Knights versions (as seen in World's Finest, for example) and then with the Justice League version.  Contrast with the Batman Beyond and The Batman versions.

I'm not saying that animation is the ideal for some stories, possibly many or most stories.  What I am saying is that it's a tad short-sighted to paint animation as inferior simply because it _can_ be done live-action, in the same way as it would be foolish, IMHO, to say that there was no longer a need for painted art once photography was invented.


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 22, 2005)

Dah!  You played the "compare it to Satoshi Kon" card.  I guess I'll have to convince the Anime co-op to go for Gantz, since I'm broke after rocking out a bunch of feature films, Read or Die (OAV and TV), Last Exile, etc. on my own money.  I _wish_ I could regret my purchases, but I picked up some rather good stuff.

I really like your opinion on style (and I've got a gang of people around here itching for Sin City to come out).  Animation -hand-drawn, computer generated, and however the two shall meet- greatly expands the catalogue of film techniques available to a film maker, combining live-action and animation adds even more, and surely there are techniques still in animation and photography that have yet to be discovered.

Technique alone isn't going to make a great movie, and for every technique that exists there are (I'm guessing) immeasurably more ways to use and combine them poorly than there are effective and artistic uses.  And you can do _a lot_ in film with a very limited range of film devices.  But sometimes it's nice to have an awful lot of tools in your toolbox.


----------



## Zoatebix (Mar 3, 2005)

Just because I can't let a good thread die:







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that it's a tad short-sighted to paint animation as inferior simply because it _can_ be done live-action, in the same way as it would be foolish, IMHO, to say that there was no longer a need for painted art once photography was invented.



It's interesting that you mention painted art after photography.  I'm no art history buff, but film theorist Siegfried Krakauer thought that photography freed painting from the constraints of realism and representation and allowed it to become more of a purely aesthetic art form.  I also know that there's been a lot of painting and graphic art made specifically in reaction to photography examining and imitating its capabilities and limitations.  

I can't find an example on the internet (my google-fu has failed!), but I've seen a painting or two (or perhaps they were some kind of metal-plate print like Intaglio) that imitated the effect of shallow focus on a portrait.  The face is in photorealistic detail but the "further away" parts of the figure and especially the edges of the head and figure are blurred just as they would be if the light from the those parts of the figure were hitting film diffusely.  There are paintings that imitate chemical film-processing effects out there, too, if I recall correctly.  There are also "painterly" photographs and photographers out there which use long exposure times to get brush-like effects on film.

I'm not exactly sure how all this furthers my cause of defending filmed animation.  I guess I'm just throwing more fuel on the fire for my "neither photographic, computer generated, nor hand-drawn cinema have been exhausted yet as media" argument.  Heck - there's probably still stuff to be said for stop-action animation - did you see how well they smoothed up the tauntauns on the new Empire DVD?  Ye gods!

Anywho, I'm out for now.
-George


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 4, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Just because I can't let a good thread die:It's interesting that you mention painted art after photography. I'm no art history buff, but film theorist Siegfried Krakauer thought that photography freed painting from the constraints of realism and representation and allowed it to become more of a purely aesthetic art form. I also know that there's been a lot of painting and graphic art made specifically in reaction to photography examining and imitating its capabilities and limitations.




Well, I'm a firm believer in options.  Krakauer's probably right: once photography came along, the need for painting to represent actual events as a tool for chronocling history was dramatically lessened.  I mean, portrait painting was once a prestigious and important profession.  The most famous pictures of the 18th century are best remembered by their portaits...portraits painted by professionals who travelled from Europe to do the job, since America had not developed it's own.  While there was clearly alternative artistic styles long before photography was invented, they became much more prevalent after, I think.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that movies should be made animated solely for the purpose of being animated.  What I am saying is that animation, by it's nature, can do some things that live action just can't...without lots of work.  Character designs, for example, can allow an artistic vision that is difficult or impossible to reproduce as live action.  Compare the live-action Hellboy to the comic-form: equally good, but in different ways, IMHO.  Mignola's artwork is an integral part of Hellboy...and while watching other artists emulate it is interesting, it's not always successful (as seen in the 'weird' anthologies).

Another example would be Dilbert.  Yes, almost everything in the animated Dilbert could have been done as a live action show: but it was Adam's designs that make the strip and the animated series what they are.  In Adams' case, it's borne as much out of his artistic limitations as not, but the point still stands, I think.  Is Kiki's Delkivery Service's message of self-reliance and decency less effective because it's animated?  I don't think so.  Is Ghost in the Shell's questions about the nature of humanity less evocative because it's conveyed in the animated form?  Again, I don't think so.

The more options an artist has for delivering a vision, the better.  I merely would like to see animation added to the palette of colors available.


----------

