Anime is mainstream, there is no question about that. Yet, why is there such a lack of intensity of discussion about Japanese movies that aren’t animated, with the exception of Akira Kurosawa’s films, especially Seven Samurai and Rashomon? Any thoughts on what is causing this? Feel free to add any information on Japanese cinema and animations’ reception internationally as well.
I'd remove the commentary, it removes some of the professionalism from your topic. Maybe phrase it more as why are more mainstream works the only ones we as American's value instead of here are these things, they're good but not good enough. Maybe move focus to why are these pieces mainstream, why have they gained this popularity, as opposed to these are popular do you agree. – alexpaulsen1 month ago
Based off what I've seen at the youtube channel censoredgaming the only reason western audience really follow anime now is due to the fact that it was easy to turn a profit off them. In the early nineties when networks had the Saturday morning cartoon blocks many channels would fill them with censored and poorly translated animes because they could pay the (at the time) rookie voice actors very little. So all they really had to do was pay for the licensing fees. This lead to a boom in the popularity of anime (which before that was more a subculture thing). I would say that is the main reason for the people not watching Japanese film. – Blackcat1301 week ago
I think another important aspect to add onto Blackcat130's critique) is whether or not this helped influence Japan being more recognized for its animated media? For instance, despite Japanese films being unpopular, you could look at Studio Ghibli and how internatinally renowed and respected the company is. – Mela1 week ago
I have only fairly recently discovered that Netflix now streams anime, many of which is produced by Netflix themselves. Netflix delving into anime gives me mixed feelings: does it spell the end of ‘real’, ‘pure’ anime – anime being a Japanese invention, there seems to be an unspoken rule that it can borrow as much references from the outside world without stop being ‘anime’ yet if another country attempts to create an animated work inspired by anime, such as Avatar the Last Airbender, it is not considered anime. Herein lies the confusion. Netflix is an American company yet their Original anime series seem undoubtedly ‘anime’ – looking, sounding, and feeling like anime. In this topic, I have quite a few questions: does Netflix creating, producing, and distributing anime spell the end of Anime being ‘pure’ or does it mean that Anime has finally progressed even further upon its path of global, nay, universal domination? At what point , or how much foreign involvement is needed before anime stops being anime? As many ‘Japanese’ anime outsources work from other countries especially China or Korea for in-betweening, does this mean that as long as the creative force behind the work is Japanese, the resulting work is Anime?
Well, after witnessing the recent crunchyroll anime awards and laughing spectacularly how much loss potential that the award show was, I started questioning what makes a show great, let alone to be the best. Does it have to be a show that’s critically acclaimed by not only critiques but the general audience? A show with great animation, story and music, or something that is just dumb fun to watch and yet interesting not to get bored after a few episodes? I’m curious to hear your opinions on this topic.
One of the problems a topic such as this will inevitably face is the perennial 'Best versus Favourite' debate. All anime fans have their favourite films and/or series, so by its very nature favouritism is subjective and the same applies to what is 'great' or 'the best'. We can probably all name at least half a dozen websites and countless You Tube videos that list 'The Ten Greatest Anime Shows' or similar, but those are rarely, if at all, objective in their lists. Critics and critiques alike are no different - just take a look at the variance in reviews and critiques that appear on Rotten Tomatoes; what one critic will applaud another will pan and having a degree in 'Filmology' (sic) doesn't guarantee that critic has 'good taste'. Even popularity is no guarantee of quality so perhaps the only way to truly judge a show's worth is the test of time and how our opinions about it may (or may not) change over the intervening years. Do we perceive the show differently after 10 years have passed? Does it still seem fresh or even relevant or is it so hackneyed that we cringe at thinking how we once enjoyed it so much? That's just my two-penneth worth, but I'm sure others will have equally valid opinions; still, I'm going to add my approval and I'd be interested in others' comments. – Amyus2 weeks ago
With the release of Devilman: Crybaby, many anime fans in the west were exposed to the shocking story of Devilman saga. While Devilman was known to be the classic that inspired many dark-themed manga and anime works, the series was mostly unavailable for the wider audience. Those who knew about the original story felt the same shock in different style, but many new fans were exposed to the brutal scenes and plots of Devilman.
It would be worthwhile to examine the impact of Devilman on the popular works and how they shaped the genres dealing with dark and grotesque fantasies.
Anime as a genre and a community has far outclassed those of any other form of cartoon media. What is it about the Japanese shows, which vary through all sorts of story genres and artstyles, that come together to create such an appealing platform for all ages? Why is it as popular as it is?
I like the premise of this, but I'd point out that there are so many forms of Anime this may be a hard topic to tackle. Maybe try to pinpoint a particular genre or style of anime and look at it's popularity, versus anime as a whole. Yes they are all Japanese animation, but it's all so diverse it may not be possible to view it as a whole. – alexpaulsen1 month ago
I think one of the most appealing things about anime is how different and fresh it feels. I know a common argument most people will bring now is that the anime industry has been milked out and all the interesting essence to it died off in anime's golden age at the late 90s and the early 2000s, but anime still does one thing that most mainstream series or movie blockbusters fail to accomplish, it has the ability to make an audience feel and understand the emotions and feelings of a character and thus comprehend the amount of weight each one of their actions will bring not only to the furtherance of the plot but towards them, their relationships with the people around them. It allows us the viewers to not just view the story, but be a part of it. That's what makes anime so damn appealing and enjoying as an advocate anime fan. – Yao2 weeks ago
In anime there are many stereotypes which deviate from Western views. For instance, the boy in school with glasses and straight A’s may be worshipped in Japan but oppressed in Western nations. I would love it if someone could research the value of these stereotypes in different cultures!
Sugata and Tomoki from Heaven's Lost Property would be good to compare and contrast with a similar duo from American culture because of how respected Sugata is compared to Tomoki despite having similar intentions and for lack of better word interests. – alexpaulsen4 weeks ago
A look at a few anime tropes that might make the genre inaccessible for newcomers and ones give the genre the reputation of being for teens and adolescents. Are there good examples of Anime that avoid these tropes, or anime that subvert the tropes?
Fantastic topic because I think it opens up discussion about what preconceptions about anime newcomers often find to be true through repetition of these tropes and how they are avoided. – AdilYoosuf4 months ago
I agree with AdilYoosuf, though I have to admit to having a bias in favour of anime as a storytelling medium. I've often found that when trying to explain the reasons why I enjoyed the Haruhi Suzumiya anime series and film (subtitled not dubbed) that as soon as I mention the words 'teenager' and 'school' the shutters descend. I think one of the problems is that westerners in particular tend to have grown up watching cartoons on TV so presume anime is no different and won't give it a chance. As for good examples that subvert, or even invert, tropes then I would have to suggest Satoshi Kon's excellent series 'Paranoia Agent' and Kyoto Animation's 'The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya' (to name but a few) as both subvert genres and tropes whilst demanding the viewer thinks for him/herself. Anyway, you have my approval for your suggested topic. – Amyus4 months ago
With the release of the live-action version of the popular anime based off a popular manga, and the negative reviews already flooding out, should we judge remakes off originals, treat them separately, or perhaps a little bit of both?
You could expand your suggestion for this topic to include a few examples (I'm sure you must have one or two in mind) and perhaps also include references to any particular genre (or genres), as we can't really place all anime features based on mangas in the same basket. One size doesn't necessarily fit all. It would also be worth considering what a live action remake might bring to the original story and whether some elements might indeed work better in a live action setting. There's also the sensitive subject of 'whitewashing' characters for a Western audience, such as Scarlett Johansson's casting as Major Kusanagi in the recent (and in my opinion, very poor) live action remake of G.I.T.S.. Compare this to the casting of Mana Ashida in the live action remake of 'Usagi Drop' (2011), which had been deliberately adapted to remove certain questionable elements in the original manga story. I mention these two remakes (or adaptations) particularly for the different approaches used by their directors - the former was heavilly scripted, whereas the latter had a loose script that permitted a certain amount of experimentation and ad-libbing from the actors, creating a more natural feel to the developing relationships. – Amyus7 months ago
I'm not sure if this is a case of "should we." People are going to judge remakes by originals, adaptations by books, and so on. It's human nature. I think the actual question, as you mentioned here, is *how* to best judge. – Stephanie M.7 months ago
I think I agree a lot with Stephanie. My main focus for this question I posed revolved around the idea that people deliberately shy away from remakes if they are fans of the original. Different art forms allow for very different ways of telling stories, and I think a lot of the time (if not nearly all), remakes do do a poor job of retelling stories due to not finding the right balance of keeping original content and creating new content. Is it up to the audience to be open to new ideas in an already created universe or up to the creators to develop and expand on that same universe. – Zoinks7 months ago
We should because that is what it is based on. There are a lot of movies who do sequels and cant follow the original movie because of copyright laws. They should name it something different. – seniorhomecare6 months ago
I think for a viewer, it comes down to how they watch a film/show. Some people might not be familiar with the original property and will be unbiased going in while others who have seen it will have an expectation (maybe they want to see something that aligns with the original or a new take on it). I think for the viewer it's all subjective. For the creator of the new property, they need to know going in that this is a known story with strong supporters so justice needs to be done to the material (whether they take it in a new direction or not). I think this is most successful when the new creator has a connection with the source material, so they are the best one to be in the driver's seat. – jonj6 months ago
I believe that remakes should be compared to their originals to answer the fundamental question of "Is this necessary?' For instance, a remake can (and often times should) be poorly received if it simply repeats the same beats, messages, tropes, etc. as the original without adding anything new to the conversation or reducing the impact of the original's intent. – Ian Miculan2 months ago