Anime needs a new name

[Drakmeire]

Anime= slightly engrish nickname for animation (nothing wrong with it)
If you want a new name maybe call it "Moving Art" in japanese which is "Āto o idō suru" maybe call it Aois
but it doesn't seem like your an authority for this since what you wrote made it seem like you think all anime is hentai.
It's not and most anime tells very clever and immersive stories with complex characters.
Also we are Americans, why should Japan/Korea (most animation is done in Korea) care if we don't like the name?

 

[MrNickster]

Japanimation. That's what i always call it.

 

[Tim_Buoy]

okay ill call it tiddleywinks grand moving hand drawn pictures now

 

[Drakmeire]

Cartoons That Are Not From America.

by that logic, THOSE KITTENS ARE SCREWED!!!
of if this is Elfen Lied rules, if something is a cute person they will be raped, maimed, or killed fairly quickly, if they are a cute animal they will be killed in a horrible, elongated, painful way.

 

[ckam]

Japanese Animation, I guess.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Otherwise, I think someone else mentioned that anime tended to focus on attention to detail while western animation got more fluid at its cost. There's a fundamental trade-off between image and animation quality (hell, a Spongebob episode shows that off; the detail is usually simplistic, but there'll be highly detailed stills), and on the whole, anime focuses more on the former, the results for the latter being obvious.

I've had that arguments for anime thrown at me before, and I still don't buy it.
That is, the "attention to detail/stylizing" bits.

Hate to say it, but by far, most anime that I've seen is in no way hyper-detailed, and this is coming from a detail-oriented person.
So when someone argues for the detail, I must assume they mean the setting or background, because some those actually do look quite detailed.

Perhaps then, the argument becomes that anime is trying to match the detail of the characters/objects with that of their backgrounds, to make them look less super-imposed (like cartoons do. It's very easy to see what is animated on a backdrop).
So from that perspective, I do understand the intention of inking a mobile character more directly into an environment in an attempt to make them fit in better with the picture (like inking a painting).

But most of the time, this just doesn't work for me. And when the illusion actually begins to work, they ALWAYS cut to some cheap frame repetition or alternate view where the character's mouth isn't moving even though they're monologue-ing (like we're stuck in a universe where everyone is at least a part-time ventriloquist) or yet another panning shot.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by the Warner Bros Swan-Song era (pretty much all of the 90s WB cartoons) or great cartoons like the very dark Batman cartoon, or even Gargoyles; but for every detailed "money shot" I've seen in anime, I can think of an equally compelling shot in those cartoons. Keep in mind, those are weekly shows; not feature-length cartoons.

Oh, and in those said cartoons, the animation is still better.

The best description I've been able to come up with anime's styling, at least its intent, is "Animating comic book frames" or "Semi-Animation", and thus I've come full circle.
This is based on my observations of the shows and their collaborative Manga.

I've tried to give anime a fair shake; really. Even going so far as to collaborating with my local "Japanese Culture Club" back in college; where I was exposed to an inhuman amount of anime.

And you know what? The same problems kept plaguing me over and over again as I tried to enjoy it. If you like anime or you like its style, then good. Enjoy it. I however, cannot and not for a lack of trying.

 

[halkun]

I just call them "Cartoons" or "Japanese Cartoons" I've always found the name "Anime" pretentious.

 

[A random person]

Otherwise, I think someone else mentioned that anime tended to focus on attention to detail while western animation got more fluid at its cost. There's a fundamental trade-off between image and animation quality (hell, a Spongebob episode shows that off; the detail is usually simplistic, but there'll be highly detailed stills), and on the whole, anime focuses more on the former, the results for the latter being obvious.

I've had that arguments for anime thrown at me before, and I still don't buy it.
That is, the "attention to detail/stylizing" bits.

Hate to say it, but by far, most anime that I've seen is in no way hyper-detailed, and this is coming from a detail-oriented person.
So when someone argues for the detail, I must assume they mean the setting or background, because some those actually do look quite detailed.

Perhaps then, the argument becomes that anime is trying to match the detail of the characters/objects with that of their backgrounds, to make them look less super-imposed (like cartoons do. It's very easy to see what is animated on a backdrop).
So from that perspective, I do understand the intention of inking a mobile character more directly into an environment in an attempt to make them fit in better with the picture (like inking a painting).

But most of the time, this just doesn't work for me. And when the illusion actually begins to work, they ALWAYS cut to some cheap frame repetition or alternate view where the character's mouth isn't moving even though they're monologue-ing (like we're stuck in a universe where everyone is at least a part-time ventriloquist) or yet another panning shot.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by the Warner Bros Swan-Song era (pretty much all of the 90s WB cartoons) or great cartoons like the very dark Batman cartoon, or even Gargoyles; but for every detailed "money shot" I've seen in anime, I can think of an equally compelling shot in those cartoons. Keep in mind, those are weekly shows; not feature-length cartoons.

Oh, and in those said cartoons, the animation is still better.

The best description I've been able to come up with anime's styling, at least its intent, is "Animating comic book frames" or "Semi-Animation", and thus I've come full circle.
This is based on my observations of the shows and their collaborative Manga.

I've tried to give anime a fair shake; really. Even going so far as to collaborating with my local "Japanese Culture Club" back in college; where I was exposed to an inhuman amount of anime.

And you know what? The same problems kept plaguing me over and over again as I tried to enjoy it. If you like anime or you like its style, then good. Enjoy it. I however, cannot and not for a lack of trying.

My understanding is that WB (and Disney, since you mentioned Gargoyles) is best-of-the-best when it comes to animation quality; of course they're gonna best the majority of anime (at least series), just as Ghibli (and possibly Bones) is gonna best the majority of western animation. A fairer comparison would be comparing a typical Nicktoon to an average anime; in that case, the Nicktoon would have smoother animation, but the anime will have more image detail (hell, John K's animation philosophy is entirely based around making good drawings, but a large chunk of anime still outdoes non-stills in Ren & Stimpy. I won't give my opinions on John K himself). I'm referring to foreground detail, of course, since backgrounds are obviously much easier to make.

The principle of image vs. animation quality still applies to WB and Disney cartoons, they just had more to work with (i.e budget), thus allowing for "money shots" while retaining higher animation quality. Most animated shows aren't so lucky, however, resulting in shows with fairly smooth animation and simply-drawn characters (your average series is closer to Spongebob than Batman: TAS, Sturgeon's law and all). Of course, there are also western animated shows with higher image detail/quality, and largely, they're still not exempt (see: a large chunk of GI Joe-esque 80's cartoons, where the characters were more detailed and shaded, but they moved stiffly and spent plenty of time standing around). So, given an anime and a western cartoon with about the same budget, and assuming they retain the tendencies we've outlined earlier, the western animated series will have smoother, more fully-moving characters with relatively simple drawing and design, and the anime is going to have more detailed drawing but take shortcuts like simplified motion and looking away from the character while they're speaking (hell, I love Evangelion, but it gets terrible about the latter).

Of course, it ultimately comes down to which side of the image-animation dichotomy you prefer. I prefer the former (and I do like how it merges with backgrounds better), and don't mind some less fully featured animation as long as it doesn't get ridiculous, and it's understandable if you prefer the latter. It's also worth noting that many people prefer manga, often for reasons well beyond animation quality (i.e the fact that pretty much every shonen series is better in its original manga form, and that there's more unique, bizarre ideas in a medium that requires less expenditure).

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Well, we can stop abbreviating and call it animation or we can call it what we call everything else like it, cartoons. But I don?t think it?s gathered such a repulsive name for itself that it mustn?t be called anime. It doesn?t bring images to me of cartoon porn but rather the cartoons I watched when I was younger. Far more people know about Pokémon as opposed to tentacle porn. Besides a new name doesn?t take away the actual porn that exists so it will still be associated with it.

 

[Premonition]

You know, there's people that think pervy things when they hear the word: "Goat". We need a new word for that too?

 

[wolfy098]

You know, there's people that think pervy things when they hear the word: "Goat". We need a new word for that too?

Seriously WTF phone the social services now...

 

[RollForInitiative]

Your useless knowledge of semantics is not needed here. One word can mean many different things, especially when it's used in a certain way by a lot of people over time.

If by "useless knowledge" you mean "education," I'm quite sure I'd rather retain it than remain ignorantly misinformed, thanks kindly.

But hey, to each their own. There's really no need to be rude about it; try growing up a little bit.

 

[delet]

Your useless knowledge of semantics is not needed here. One word can mean many different things, especially when it's used in a certain way by a lot of people over time.

If by "useless knowledge" you mean "education," I'm quite sure I'd rather retain it than remain ignorantly misinformed, thanks kindly.

But hey, to each their own. There's really no need to be rude about it; try growing up a little bit.

Yes, but knowledge of when to use your 'education' is important. When it is useless in context, there is no reason for it, thus it is useless. I've already known what 'hentai' means; I've watched enough anime to hear it used in context.