Should we consider The Boondocks or Avatar:TLA to be anime?

Ishbalan · Post by **Ishbalan** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:16 pm

No, no. I apologize. The mistake is mine. Nowhere did you say that it was an anime, nor that it deserved to be an anime. My bad.

sunwukong86 · Post by **sunwukong86** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:50 pm

requiett wrote:If you go by the official a-m-v.org rules, then Afro Samurai can't count either, because it premiered in America.

Afro Samurai was done by Gonzo, a Japanese Animation company.

The Boondocks has some episodes done by MADHOUSE, mostly Season 2.

Avatar is done by Nickelodeon Animation studios.

Gonzo is a company known for Japanese anime, therefore Afro Samurai is anime. The Boondocks started as an AMERICAN comic strip and is mostly animated in the US. Boondocks are an AMERICAN property so theyre not anime. Avatar doesnt even count, its made entirely in the US. To even consider either of those an anime is just crazy. This came up when Teen Titans was still on. Teen Titans is based on an AMERICAN property older than anime itself. Glen Murakami, who created the tv show is Japanese, therefore he's going to incorporate anime/manga stereotypes into his artwork.

kikai_saigono · Post by **kikai_saigono** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:23 pm

If we consider Avatar an anime, then we should also consider Kappa Mikey, Totally Spies, and Teen Titans an anime. :/

I think it depends more on how much of the show was produced in Japan, like The Boondocks and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Even if The Boondocks only airs in America.
Personally, I hate any show on Nickelodean. And while some members here may like Avatar, I'm betting most of them would agree it's not anime.

76 · Post by 76 » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:11 pm

kikai_saigono wrote:If we consider Avatar an anime, then we should also consider Kappa Mikey, Totally Spies, and Teen Titans an anime. :/

I think it depends more on how much of the show was produced in Japan, like The Boondocks and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Even if The Boondocks only airs in America.
Personally, I hate any show on Nickelodean. And while some members here may like Avatar, I'm betting most of them would agree it's not anime.

I completely agree.

76 · Post by 76 » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:22 pm

(sorry about the double post I'm posting using my PsP's browser)

I my self, being a fan of avatar, boondocks, teentitans and not totally spys.

can say that they are fine pieces of work, but they are not anime.

a few of those shows try to emulate anime to try and capture that audiance. but thats all it is, an emulation

period

Big Dumb Face · Post by **Big Dumb Face** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:39 am

Well, in relation to the asked question we have two votes "Yes" to nine votes "No". Plus, the law is on our side in this one.

sunwukong86 · Post by **sunwukong86** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:15 am

The fact of the matter is, the term Anime is different here than in Japan.

Japan uses "animēshon" for every form of animation. Anime only became the name for Japanese created animation when it started to be brought to America. American Anime fans are the ONLY ones who get uptight about the animation's country of origin.

Big Dumb Face · Post by **Big Dumb Face** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:37 pm

sunwukong86 wrote:The fact of the matter is, the term Anime is different here than in Japan.

Japan uses "animēshon" for every form of animation. Anime only became the name for Japanese created animation when it started to be brought to America. American Anime fans are the ONLY ones who get uptight about the animation's country of origin.

That's true, it is different here. but in regards to the question at hand "Should we consider The Boondocks or Avatar:TLA to be anime?" the answer is no, we (here at the org) don't
besides, by the japanese definition, we must consider ALL animations as anime. But that's not what people are arguing. Some people think only certain american cartoons should be considered anime because of certain aniamtion styles and conventions.
So whether you go by the american definition of anime (animation from japan) or you go by the Japanese definition of anime (ALL animation) the answer is still no.

EmilLang1000 · Post by **EmilLang1000** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:02 pm

The fun thing is, this has been an ongoing debate here on the threads for years. Funny thing is, last time a thread like this came up, it was decided that Anime CAN exist both in America and in Japan.

Now, as to the big matter about this, may I just point out one thing: noir. Not the show, the style/genre. There's a HUGE debate in film as to whether noir constitutes a genre or a style, and the funny thing is, it works as both.

Anime is, in almost every way, the same. What can be cited as legitimate excuses for it being a particular genre (coming entirely from Japan), or a style (having ORIGINATED in Japan) are both equally acceptable.

However, I'm more on the idea of a "style" perspective. Before you bite my head off for this, keep in mind that when I say style, I'm not saying that all anime look the same or follow the same conventions. HOWEVER, there are still over-arching commonalities of anime that distiguishes it from American cartoons. They include:

1. A vastly different color palette than typically used in traditional cartoons (i.e., compare the color palettes of Spongebob and Rugrats to those of Princess Mononoke and Steamboy)

2. An over-all greater sense of detail, as opposed to the more traditional simple-as-possible style of traditional animation (again, compare Aladdin to Spirited Away - the characters in Miyazaki's work, while simplistic, have a greater feeling of detail and proportionate realism than the characters in Disney's work, though both are equally as well done)

3. A much wider range of intended audiences, and commonly addresses much more mature themes and ideas than traditional cartoons (Gatchaman vs. The Superfriends)

These are just a few, but as you can see, visually, their is a distinctive look and feel to anime that cannot be denied, far beyond the stereotypes of Big-Eyes-Small-Mouth.

Here's the thing most of you don't get (and I'm not insulting you on this, most people don't understand this without actually studying and learning this), but anime is NOT a genre, by definition. Remember that Anime is a sub-category of films, and film genre is a very well-established and well grounded idea.

Wikipedia's definition of film genre: "In film theory, genre refers to the primary method of film categorization. A "genre" generally refers to films that share similarities in the narrative elements from which they are constructed."

Wikipedia's definition of film style: "A film's style concerns the choices made about cinematography, editing, and sound, and a particular style can be applied to any genre. Whereas film genres identify the manifest content of film, film styles identify the manner by which any given film's genre(s) is/are rendered for the screen."

Given that some of you will not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, I also present the definition as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"[Genre:] a distinctive type or category of literary composition, such as the epic, tragedy, comedy, novel, and short story."

Also, while on the subject of the Encyclopedia Britannica, we can see that there definition of anime is: "Style of animation popular in Japanese films... Animé films are meant primarily for the Japanese market and, as such, employ many cultural references unique to Japan. For example, the large eyes of animé characters are commonly perceived in Japan as multifaceted “windows to the soul.”

While I admit that this is somewhat damning, as it DOES say they are 'meant primarily for the Japanese market," it does however state outright that it is a style, and as is the case with any style, it can be used BROADLY.

Again, while most animes, especially these days, do not follow the convention of "big-eyes-small-mouth," etc, there are distinct visual commonalities that exist across the broad spectrum of anime. This is indicative of style.

If you still don't believe me, may I pose this idea: Hare & Guu vs. Fist of the North Star. You cannot argue that they are of the same genre AT ALL. One is a slapstick, screwball comedy, and the other is a post-apocalyptic martial-arts action show.

Genre is catagorized by common literary themes and conventions, such as story structure, character archetypes, etc., without any regard as to how it is presented visually. Style, on the other hand, is based SOLELY on how a story is presented visually, following common conventions of cinematography, editing, lighting, etc. depending on the style. The only thing that Hare & Guu and Fist of the North Star have in common are a similar, distinctively "anime" appearance, which separates them from traditional cartoons. Thus, anime is not a genre, anime is a style.

______________________

Now, as to whether Avatar and The Boondocks are animes. Are they anime by the definition of style, YES. Resoundingly so. HOWEVER, are they Anime by the layman's definition, that being a term interchangeable with that of Japanimation, then no.

As has been said before, this site is called Anime Music Videos almost solely for the reason that it sounds better than "Japanimation Music Videos). The confusion that arises between anime as a style and Anime as a subcategory of specific movies, films, and books (compare Western to Spaghetti Western), is that Japanimation for most otaku is a taboo term.

Japanimation is, to many of us, synonymous with the stereotypes of old anime shows and movies (poor animation quality, speed-racer-style speech, stock footage and formulaic plots c.o. Voltron and Sailor Moon, and the B.E.S.M. syndrome found in many anime of the past), and so we don't like to use the term, rather referring to it as Anime (this is similar to distinguishing between "movies" and "films," because "film" carries a much weightier idea to it.

So, is Avatar Japanimation? Well, considering it was made in America almost entirely, no. But what about The Boondocks or Afro Samurai? The fun comes when you consider things like Gen 1 Transformers, The Big-O II, the Animatrix, Little Nemo, and the second Yu-Gi-Oh movie were all funded by American companies, but all produced in Japan; you also have fun when you consider that Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust was funded by a Japanese company but (how's this?) produced in AMERICA. So then, should Vampire Hunter D be allowed on a-m-v.org? Should Gen-1 Transformers, Big-O season 2, Little Nemo, or the Animatrix? And is it really fair that a show as well-written as Avatar is not allowed on AMV, but a show as god-awful as Bo-Bobo is? Buddha only knows...

EmilLang1000 · Post by **EmilLang1000** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:10 pm

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's the antithesis to your argument, as posed a little over a year ago:

http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... c&start=60