Can Americans Make Anime?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Yes. And it's likely I won't find it that good, or just annoying in general.

I tend to define anime by the origin of the animation (Japan) rather than the style, so I don't agree with identifying Korra as anime, but at the same time, I think that Korra is much better than most anime and I almost find it insulting that anime is used as the benchmark by some and say something is good enough to be an anime, when that something might be much better than most anime. In conclusion, no Americans (or anyone else for that matter) cannot make anime, but they can sure as hell make something of equal or greater value than many anime, or in this case, Korra.

Very interesting discussion - also, woah! new Escapist interface style.

Hornet0404:

maninahat:
snip

As you said "to us westerners".

That disqualifies the whole argument from the start. and wether it was legally protected or not wasn't my argument. My argument was that the creators themselves don't use it (unlike any other style or genre or whatever the hell you want to say "Anime" is besides just a word used by japanese people for animation in general).

I couldn't give two shits about what a westerner thinks or calls something if it isn't the proper nomenclature. "Anime" as a term is basically just fanon taken to the most absurd extreme (ONLY western fans use it).

I don't see how it invalidates the argument at all. Firstly, the Japanese use of the word "anime" does not invalidate our use of the word in this discussion. In this discussion, anime clearly means "Japanese cartoon"; which is the typical western definition. Secondly, arguing about the word itself does not defeat my argument. The argument is, in other words, "Can anyone outside of Japan make Japanese cartoons? No, because they aren't from Japan. At best, they can make cartoons look Japanese."

Is Korra Anime?

Erm.

Part of what makes Anime Anime to me is that it is a story told from a Japanese point of view, or aimed primarily at a Japanese audience. I like watching some Anime and not having a clue what is really going on because I don't have the same cultural knowledge as I do with North America.

So to me, Korra and Avatar aren't Anime. This isn't a statement of quality for the shows, nor a statement of worth - they're a few steps above some of the Anime that's been released in North America in the last few years, but just because I think the quality is better doesn't mean I think it's Anime.

Yes they can!*

*As long as they don't actually call it 'Anime.'

Which answer keeps M. Night Shyamalan from making another movie?

Carlos Storm:

Chris O'Brien:
Can Americans Make Anime?

I've watched Avatar and Legend of Korra

Short answer: Yes

I don't think that Legend of Korra is anime. Its style doesn't resemble anime that much. Some characters are anime-ish but most characters are more western animation-y. I'd also say that it grabs more inspiration from Chinese designs than Japanese animation. Like the towns seem inspired by a early 20Th century Chinese city.

The only reason I think many fans of anime are so adamant about the whole "Anime is from Japan" thing is because a lot of us have heard the whole "Oh you watch those Japanese Cartoons" with the implication that cartoons are inherently for children. Personally I see all animation as just that, animation. I don't care where its from only whether or not I find it entertaining. I think most fans of "Anime" have similar thoughts.

The only other thing I will mention is that the west is lagging in terms of filling multiple branches of genre with animation when compared to the east.

You know, america has been producing cartoons for nearly a century now, I have no idea where you're going with this.

Anime comes from Japan.

Everywhere else its called a "cartoon". Said cartoon may be heavily influenced by Anime, but its still a cartoon.

Also, no article/thread that mentions Legend of Korra is complete unless it contains Asami. This thread does not, I shall rectify this.

maninahat:

Hornet0404:

maninahat:
snip

As you said "to us westerners".

That disqualifies the whole argument from the start. and wether it was legally protected or not wasn't my argument. My argument was that the creators themselves don't use it (unlike any other style or genre or whatever the hell you want to say "Anime" is besides just a word used by japanese people for animation in general).

I couldn't give two shits about what a westerner thinks or calls something if it isn't the proper nomenclature. "Anime" as a term is basically just fanon taken to the most absurd extreme (ONLY western fans use it).

I don't see how it invalidates the argument at all. Firstly, the Japanese use of the word "anime" does not invalidate our use of the word in this discussion. In this discussion, anime clearly means "Japanese cartoon"; which is the typical western definition. Secondly, arguing about the word itself does not defeat my argument. The argument is, in other words, "Can anyone outside of Japan make Japanese cartoons? No, because they aren't from Japan. At best, they can make cartoons look Japanese."

Then why not call it a JToon (just like gamers usually say something is a JRPG one could say something is a JToon)?!? Same meaning (if not a more understandable one as it means Japanese Cartoon). Why use a foreign word which doesn't even have the sought after meaning?!?

If the creators used the word you might have had a case but as it stands anime is at most a term used to describe a distinct visual style (which means that YES. Anime's can be made by an American, or a European, or an African if they so wish).

rayen020:
i think there's a stigma around western animation that comes largely from trying to capitalize on the success of Japanese animation. For every successful show you named there are 2 crap fests that we'd all rather forget. Looking back to the late 90's after the booming success of Poke'mon that brought anime mainstream, there were several shows that tried the formula and few made cut. That was when people actually began to check where it was made. America's knockoffs were instantly dismissed and the anime purists became a thing. The term Western anime still carries a stigma from that time despite the successes since then. It's basically a waiting game.

Eventually (hopefully), we'll get past this and just look for good shows.

You do realize that most of those "Nock-off" shows were probably Japanese in origin. Since you didn't meantion the "nock-offs" I'll just assume

Monster Rancher - Japanese
Fighting Foodons - Japanese
Digimon - Japanese
Magi-Nation - Canadian but not from the 90's it's only from the last 10 years
Medabots - Japanese
Bakugan Battle Brawlers - Japanese

Now if you want to find something that supports your premise then you have to go back to the 80s

Robotech - 3 Different Japanese anime Rewritten(they didn't know Japanese) and Re-Cut to make 1 series.
Transformers - Clearly influenced by Gundam and other Giant Robot Anime at the time
ThunderCats - CoDeveloped in America and Japan Rankin Bass Did a lot of work with Japanese Animation studios.

So just what are you calling American Pokemon/Anime Ripoffs?

If you call Monster Rancher, Fighting Foodons, Medabots, Digimon, or Bakugan "Western Anime" then you need to learn to read the back of those boxes better.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I think the problem is that when people refer to 'anime', they refer to a school of animation that the West simply isn't nurturing, Avatar notwithstanding.

The reason I like watching anime is because it provides shows and films that combine mature storytelling, somewhat more realistic animation and proportions, and a general willingness to be more experimental. People in the West became familiar with anime through the likes of Akira, Ghost In The Shell, Cowboy Bebop and Neon Genesis. Sure, those shows and films are not symptomatic of all anime, and I would never suggest otherwise. But they are examples of the sort of territory that Japanese animators are willing to cover, and for many people that constitutes a big part of what anime is. I'm currently working my way through Noir, having already demolished my way through Black Lagoon, Gankutsuou, Kaiba and Kemonozume. Even though those shows are all drastically different in presentation and style, they still exhibit the same wish to be taken seriously as mature narratives, not simple throwaway rubbish.

In the West, animation still falls into two firm camps: kid's stuff and comedy stuff. While kid's animation occasionally throws up some gold, like Avatar or Batman TAS, for the most part its all pretty inconsequential and doesn't offer all that much to chew on. The comedy stuff, on the other hand, may be targeted at adults, but it's all animated in an incredibly barebones, basic way, and focuses more on cheap laughs than any kind of narrative that may appeal to mature audiences. We've let western animation become defined by the likes of Family Guy, the Simpsons and South Park: entertaining, sure, but cheaply presented and focused on throwaway gags.

If I wanted to watch a Western animation that was actually aimed at adult audiences looking for a good story, the only thing that springs to mind is the HBO adaption of Spawn, and that came out in the frikkin' Nineties. We've allowed animation to become cheap, inconsequential light entertainment, and I think that's where many people see the divide. For all that the Japanese animation industry is going through massive changes, it still provides us with stuff like Paprika and Redline.

If Western animation was to up its game and to start catering for that same demographic looking for something a little more from their shows, then we'd probably see less hostility to the idea of conflating the terms. As it is, if animation is a medium rather than a genre, then it's almost as if the Japanese are the only ones providing us with westerns, science fiction, film-noir, mystery stories, etc, while Western animation is purely focused on comedies and kid's entertainment. When one side of the industry is so willing to ignore the vast number of genres that exist out there, and the hunger for stuff other than cheap entertainment, then you can't be surprised when fans put up a fence around the other side that does recognise that demand and caters for it.

Amen.

The best anime does not follow the typical characters or endings of the majority of anime.

The best of them like a cowboy bebop has the guts to end the thing and end it pretty final, like killing off the "hero."

Others have extremely flawed and "human" people like an evangellion.

When the west period starts to take more risks in storytelling in general, then i think we could do ok.

Hornet0404:

maninahat:

Hornet0404:

As you said "to us westerners".

That disqualifies the whole argument from the start. and wether it was legally protected or not wasn't my argument. My argument was that the creators themselves don't use it (unlike any other style or genre or whatever the hell you want to say "Anime" is besides just a word used by japanese people for animation in general).

I couldn't give two shits about what a westerner thinks or calls something if it isn't the proper nomenclature. "Anime" as a term is basically just fanon taken to the most absurd extreme (ONLY western fans use it).

I don't see how it invalidates the argument at all. Firstly, the Japanese use of the word "anime" does not invalidate our use of the word in this discussion. In this discussion, anime clearly means "Japanese cartoon"; which is the typical western definition. Secondly, arguing about the word itself does not defeat my argument. The argument is, in other words, "Can anyone outside of Japan make Japanese cartoons? No, because they aren't from Japan. At best, they can make cartoons look Japanese."

Then why not call it a JToon (just like gamers usually say something is a JRPG one could say something is a JToon)?!? Same meaning (if not a more understandable one as it means Japanese Cartoon). Why use a foreign word which doesn't even have the sought after meaning?!?

If the creators used the word you might have had a case but as it stands anime is at most a term used to describe a distinct visual style (which means that YES. Anime's can be made by an American, or a European, or an African if they so wish).

We could call it anything, but why not borrow a Japanese word to refer to a Japanese version of a thing? We've done it with katanas and the yakuza, so anime is just following the trend. Our use doesn't have to be consistent with the Japanese use, and it doesn't make things any easier by making up a brand new word to mean "Japanese sword", "Japanese gangsters" and "Japanese Cartoons".

Also, the idea that an anime is qualified by its "distinct visual style" is totally wrong. If the Japanese made a cartoon that looks nothing like a stereotypical anime, and looked every bit like an American cartoon (which, as a matter of fact, they already do), it would still be an anime. Anime can come in a whole range of aesthetic styles. It isn't the aesthetics which makes a Japanese cartoon a Japanese cartoon. It's the fact that it comes from Japan.

shadowstriker86:
who....cares?

No one... and everyone!

Anime is not a "genre," it literally is all cartoons in Japan, as the article stated, but in the West, its used to designate origin. Within those two definitions there's nothing about style or storytelling conventions that makes something an "anime" and something a "cartoon," it's just origin. Neither one is inherently better than another, and Korra isn't any less good for not being an anime, so it really doesn't matter.

Also what the hell happened to the forums?!

Scars Unseen:
Anime is only useful as a term when it describes animated works that come from Japan. Why? Because it doesn't mean something different than the word "animation." It's the same word. The only reason it is widely known outside of Japan is because Japanese animation became popular outside of Japan. If German cartoons had become wildly popular, we'd be using the German word for cartoon to describe animated works from that country.

Hell, it's only barely adequate to describe Japanese animations, because it's not like all anime are one genre. Your article doesn't even describe anime; it describes a subtype of anime known as shonen. Try to apply your description to a show like Grave of the Fireflies and you will see that you may not understand Japanese animation as much as you think you do. What about Shoujo? Where would Azamanga Daioh fit into your article? Do you think that all anime looks the same? Does Berserk look closer to Bleach than it does Batman: Year One?

^^^THIS^^^

There are several different genres of Anime. Someone will post the chart of the hundreds of different styles. Shoehorning every "Anime" into the category of "What people in the U.S. may have watched at some point" is incorrect at best.

Even if it isn't anime, the Avatar series is much better than most of the crap anime the makes it to the states.

I feel like the writer of this article needs a better understanding of not only anime in general, but the western community surrounding it.

Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, are not anime, simply because of the very definition of the word. This doesn't make either show bad, in fact both are pretty good.

Furthermore, I don't think I've ever heard a western person shun Avatar for it being western and not Japanese. I've heard people correct others when they call it anime, but I feel that a large portion of the western community does indeed enjoy both series.

You can't define anime as a style or genre, because it is neither. Anime is strictly animation that's made in japan. Anime is just the name the west uses for it. It's a simple word, rolls off the tongue nicely and when mentioned people know exactly what it is.

Missing SHODAN:

Rack:
In theory yes. In practise, no. So far American companies have managed to copy the very basic stylistic components of Japanese Anime, but haven't got anywhere in emulating the deeper themes and cultural impact. Western anime, as opposed to the better Western Animation just comes across as feeling soulless. A good American Animation might take on themes and elements from Japanese Anime but it will retain its own distinct style. The world isn't so homogeneous yet that you can wholly transfer an art form from place to place.

Oh yes, I remember the first time I ran into "Legend of the Overfiend," I had to adjust my top hat and monocle in order to maximally ponder the deep themes and cultural impact.

The animated ladies involved certainly experienced some deep themes, if you know what I mean, and they seemed to be getting impacted in quite the cultural fashion.

...seriously, Last Airbender is a pretty good show, and there's plenty of terrible anime that is objectively worse than it.

So, because Hentai exists... no Anime can have deeper cultural meaning or relevance?

I personally think Avatar can't have lasting meaning or relevance because Heavy Metal exists.

image
See how that works?

As far as I'm concerned the question of "Can country X make Anime" is more or less just a matter of semantics, if it's not made in Japan it's not anime. It's not a question of quality, content, animation style, genre or anything else like that, just place of origin.

To use the article's example, for me anime is simply a short hand term for "This is an animated work that was made in Japan" in the same way scotch is short hand for "This is a whiskey that was made in Scotland." It's not that nobody else could ever make a whiskey that's tastes exactly the same as scotch, it's that unless they did it in Scotland, they didn't make scotch.

Except maybe that comparison is a bit restricted, since to have something be considered whiskey and therefore scotch it has to meet several differnt criteria, while with Anime, really the only qualifyer is "Animated work made in Japan."

And here I'd thought the definition of Anime was that it was short for Japanimation, which is animation from Japan.

So can Americans make anime? No. Can they copy it? Avatar proves they can at least try. Personally I thought it was crap, but that's just me. You can still tell it's American animation, the animators of Avatar managed to make things look asian, but not anime-ish.

Missing SHODAN:

Rack:
In theory yes. In practise, no. So far American companies have managed to copy the very basic stylistic components of Japanese Anime, but haven't got anywhere in emulating the deeper themes and cultural impact. Western anime, as opposed to the better Western Animation just comes across as feeling soulless. A good American Animation might take on themes and elements from Japanese Anime but it will retain its own distinct style. The world isn't so homogeneous yet that you can wholly transfer an art form from place to place.

Oh yes, I remember the first time I ran into "Legend of the Overfiend," I had to adjust my top hat and monocle in order to maximally ponder the deep themes and cultural impact.

The animated ladies involved certainly experienced some deep themes, if you know what I mean, and they seemed to be getting impacted in quite the cultural fashion.

...seriously, Last Airbender is a pretty good show, and there's plenty of terrible anime that is objectively worse than it.

The pedant in me wants to point out Legend of the Overfiend is just a random episode in a series, but that isn't really the point. It's not enough to be better than the bad stuff, you have to be as good as the good stuff, otherwise why bother? Airbender is alright, but it's hollow. It doesn't know what it wants to be, other than like that thing that made a ton of money. Plenty of Japanese Anime will fall into this category too but it;'s still not where the target is.

[/quote]

Velimirius:
whoever decides on making animes they just dont make those like Wolfs Rain,Berserk,Cowboy Bebop or Gungrave anymore, every year is worse, only decent i saw lately was Steins Gate.

That's a yet to be named Syndrome, you're comparing every anime until now with anime from now. Probably because when you started to watch anime you could choose any anime you wanted, now you've already watched those and you have to stick with the new ones.

One way to know if the quality is indeed decreasing is looking by years, let's see the year of 98 and 99 Berserk and cowboy bebop years. Just going to name some of the good ones by most people, besides the two already mentioned we had the ending of Legend of Galactic Heroes and the ending of Rurouni Kenshin, Rurouni Kenshin Tsuiokhuen, Initial D, Lain, Trigun, Great Teacher Onizuka, HunterxHunter and Now and Then Here and There.
Compare with the last 2 years, 2010 and 2011, we had the ending of FMA: Brotherhood, ending of Cross game, Black Lagoon Roberta's Bloody trail, Darker than Black OVA's, Eve no jikan, Angel Beats, Trigun movie, Suzumiya Haruhi movie, Rainbow, Nodame Cantabile:Finale, Shiki, Usagi Drop, Steins Gate, Madoka Magika, beggining of Fate/Zero and HunterxHunter 2011, (not as good as 99 series, but still a good shounen).

I do agree that today's anime the character design is unoriginal and boring most of the time and I miss drawing quality like Lain, but overall quality it's pretty much the same, the best decade was probably de 00's.

There is a reason why people keep arguing about this seemingly semantic difference.

To anyone who watched more anime than a handful of shonen fighters, the writer's premise, that anime is an art style, and a specific type of plot, is clueless at best and offensive at worst.

Cluelessness is acceptable, it's just like grandma calling the PSP "a nintendo". She just doesn't pay attention to details, so she calls everything that is held in hands like a gameboy "a nintendo". Likewise, some people don't pay attention to the genres of anime, just see a few minutes of Naruto, and assume that Avatar must be the same thing.

But continuing to ARGUE that the anime fans are the ones who got it wrong, and making up theories about their snobbery, or whatever, instead of just accepting that anime fans know more about what is and isn't anime than random people, is arrogance.

It's a bit like telling to console gamers Diablo III should be called a console game, because it's so simple that even if it's technically released on the PC, it's much more similar to console games.

It wouldn't just incredibly dismissive against console gaming (assuming that all PC games are inherently more complex than them BY DEFINITION), reducing it to crude stereotypes, but also inaccurate.

The article author's claimed goal is just laughable, he is trying to save anime fans from "narrowing down" their medium, while his own understanding of the medium is ridiculously narrow. He would add Avatar to his definition of anime, while at the same time, exclude Baccano, Usagi Drop, Haruhi, Welcome to the NHK!, Kimi ni Todoke, Nichijou, School Days, and Bakemonogatari from it.

It's a bit like warning a frenchman to the dangers of French couisine, on the account that humans need other nutriments than frog meat, so recommend them to eat more hamburgers:
you are not helping, your own stereotypes are creating the problems that you are trying to solve.

Rabid Chipmunk:

Revolutionaryloser:
Meanwhile, Avatar has very pronounced western sensibilities. Prince Tsuko's character development is somewhat of an exception and the story arc of how he must learn to channel his energy not from his anger, but from his love of life feels distinctly anime-like. However, there are several telling moments where it is clear that the narrative of Avatar is based on western tradition:
1. When Aang unlocks his ultimate form, it isn't because of an epiphany, it isn't beacause he stayed true to his values or anything remotely thematic. He unlocked the final Avatar state because of a Deus ex Machina that otherwise had no emotional weight.
2. Similarly, when Korra masters airbending and again when she manages to become a completed Avatar, there is no thematic meaning to it. It just happens. Maybe there is an explanation for it, but there is an obvious thematic dissonance.
3. Tsuko and Azula's last fight: If anime rules applied, Tsuko would definitely win, hands down. He doesn't win though. That kind of cynical twist of events is grounded in very western sensibilities.

I felt the need to respond to this part of your post, because you seem to be implying that Deus ex Machina is a strictly American theatrical tool that does not exist inside of Japan. So just to make a point, have you ever seen Bleach? Deus ex Machina out the ass.

OT: I generally consider anime to strictly refer to "animated cartoons made inside Japan," but I still believe that it's possible to make good western cartoons with animation influenced by Japanese anime. When I discuss Avatar or The Legend of Korra, I describe it as "like an anime," because that's what it is to me. It has many anime-like qualities, but it was not made in Japan, so I don't consider it truly "anime." However, as I discuss this, it becomes increasingly apparent just how meaningless the distinction "anime" truly is.

I wasn't trying to imply that Deus ex Machina was a solely western tool. As you've brought up Bleach, I'll use that as a great example of how traditionally in anime Deus ex Machina is tied in to a detailed thematic development that is usually represented as some sort of sort of spiritual stuff. So Bleach, you must have watched this scenario roll out about 10 times. Ichigo is fighting somebody he can't possibly beat. He's going to die. On the verge of death, time stops, he enters his subconscious. Once there he is presented with a choice or a test he must pass in order to receive to power he needs to defeat his enemies. He succeeds. He wins the fight.

This kind of thing is immensely common in anime. For Ichigo, it's about accepting himself and using his darkness as his strength. However, in Dragon Ball, you get a similar development when someone is struck with grief or determination. In any case, you get a Deus ex Machina where some thematic element manifests itself as a physical reality. If you think about it, in real life being sad over the death of a loved one isn't going to make you ten times stronger and accepting who you are isn't going to make you an unbeatable swordsman. That's how logic in Avatar works. Emotions and themes don't affect the reality of any situation. Aang doesn't defeat the Fire Lord because he reached a higher state of consciousness, he beat him because a boulder hit his spine and released his seventh chakra. The first would be a typical eastern philosophy development, the latter a western philosophical development.

In eastern philosophy, what we experience within ourselves is just as real (if not more) than what we experience outside. In western philosophy, reality is what we experience with our senses. I think that is the true difference between eastern and western stories.

If I'm completely honest. I don't like to think of anime as a solid term. I prefer to look at everything as gradients. If you look at the things that have traditionally been considered anime, Avatar lays on the opposite side of the scale to that. Boondocks for example, is much closer to the anime end of the spectrum. Emotions and ideas become weapons and laws of physics. On the other hand, Dogtanian and the Muskehounds, while having being made in Japan, feels much more western.

BTW, I'm really against the idea of "anime is whatever is made in Japan" because the majority of animation created for any country in the world is being made in cheap labour countries like Korea anyway.

So, we're considering Samurai jack, Star Wars: Clone Wars, and the Powerpuff Girls anime now? Because if that's the case, then I'd like to say that the only animes I've ever liked have been the non-japanese ones. I'd even add Avatar to the list. So I think that these shows either have something or are missing something, and that makes them something altogether different from japanese anime. Maybe we can just call it Ameri-me, or Westime or something like that, an the determining factor is if I like it or not.

I say yes because stuff like "megas xlr and Samurai Jack" were influence by anime, so avatar is the result of the anime-love. Even though anime was its strongest in the 90s and early 2000s it seems people still like it

Simple answer is 'no'.
Americans can make cartoons which resemble Anime. (Avatar etc.)

I also don't see why you'd want to use the term Anime for American cartoons. It's just a name (a name which literally means Japanese animated cartoon). Why would you want to call it: American Japanese Animated Cartoon? Doesn't make sense.
It's not going to change the quality of anything.

dantoddd:
You can call korra what ever you want to but it clearly draws alot of inspiration from a lot of popular Anime. Korra for example might as well be from a miyazaki movie.

No similarity whatsoever between Korra and Miyazaki movies except the fact it's a female protagonist.

I wouldn't say Americans can make Anime. A cartoon with a similar style to cartoons from Japan can be undoubtly be made anywhere, but I also use Anime as a synonim to Japanese cartoons.

I don't see the problem either. I prefer things like Avatar and Thundercats much more than most Anime because they are different.

While the style is very similar to anime I prefer the way the plot is conceived and how the characters behave. There's something that annoys me about Anime, but I can't point my finger exactly what it is. Maybe it's a cultural thing. While I agree that they are well made, sometimes the plot is tedious or overly ambitious. Sometimes the pace is wrong, sometimes the jokes are unfunny, sometimes the characters are hateful... There's something that's totally off-putting in Anime for me and I don't know what. As much as I try to like them, there's something that feels off... Let me put an example, Dragon Ball Z is funny and entertaining at times, but the characters are retarded, the fights last for 20 episodes and then a new baddie is even more powerful, more training for Goku... Wow! Craaaap! Most of the criticism can be said for Naruto as well. Evangelion while deep at times was nonsensical most of the times, making it seem pretentious. And so, there are many examples.

I don't hate anime, I'm just saying that mostly Anime for TV is crap and shouldn't be an standard that all should follow. I can't say the same for movies like Paprika, Totoro and Summer Wars, which are simply brilliant.

When I started watching Avatar at first I didn't know it wasn't Japanese and I immediately liked it. Why? Not because of the animation style, but because of the way the story is told and because of the characters.

So, there's really no reason to make Anime in USA as it's as nonsensical as making Spanish French movies, German Bollywood movies or Australian Spagghetti Westerns... Well, you can imitate the style, but it will never be the real thing. Besides that Americans can make much better Anime-style cartoons if they want to and Avatar is a good example.

Can I also add an excerpt from a review for Anime movie Redline?

"For a start, Redline looks like nothing you've seen before. It's easy to see that Koike is a huge fan of western graphic art, and has been influenced as much by French comic artist Jean 'Moebius' Giraud (possibly best known for his design work on The Fifth Element), the US animated film Heavy Metal, cult UK sci-fi comic 2000 AD, and even the Star Wars movies as much as he has by the likes of Katsuhiro Otomo, Hiroyuki Imaishi or Leiji Matsumoto. Not that Redline feels or looks like a mash-up of different styles - somewhere in the visual chaos it unrelentingly throws at its audience it becomes something that is far more than the mere sum of parts, a unique piece of animation that at times doesn't even feel like anime in the traditional sense.

Read more at http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/redline#Wv2aAAu0cxubpari.99"

Well, what's the problem of being influenced by foreign creators if it's going to be for making better animation for us? We all win and we shouldn't be limited by a simple term.

Captcha: baby boomer

Depends on your definition of "Anime".

In Japan, all animation is anime. it's their word to define the medium as a whole. So yes, to the Japanese, Americans can make anime. In fact, Transformers Prime is airing in Japan now, and Tom & Jerry is considered one of the top 50 anime of all time.

Outside of Japan, "Anime" means animation specifically coming from Japan. Produced and written (and sometime even animated) in the Land of the Rising Sun. By this definition, no. An American cannot make Anime unless he were to directly work for or with Sunrise or another Japanese animation studio.

Not that it's impossible. Check out Afro Samurai, which had Americans like Samuel L. Jackson and the RZA working from the get-go (simply dubbing doesn't count).

Now, if you're asking if an American company can make a series with an anime-like style, oh sure. One is usually made every three to five years or so. Hell, France makes shows like that all the time, and many of them come over here (but not Wakfu, sadly).

Seriously, if you like Animation, Action, and Fantasy, check out Wakfu.

Now if you mean a show using a lot of tropes, storylines and characters often associated with Anime (and sometimes a level of quality/maturity associated with the better anime series'), then again, Americans can and have done this many times. Just ask Aang and Korra, the Justice League, and J.T. Marsh.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here