Anime vs. Western Animation.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

normal slice of life stuff out there.

Most slice of life stuff is pretty much like other anime, just that they try to make it seem like normal everyday life.

[Esau of Isaac]

Western animation.

Futurama, South Park, Family Guy, Ugly Americans, Drawn Together>Almost anything anime can offer.

Since I am not allowed to utilize image macros, I would like to devote this area to expressing my disagreement regarding your statement.

[Rehab]

In terms of technical control, traditional US animation was by and large unarguably more sound, particularly in the 1950's when full animation was under about as solid technical control as it ever got. Japanese animation has its standouts like Akira, every Miyazaki film I've seen and a bunch of other more recent movies (and probably a couple of shows) I have heard are beautifully sound but have not seen myself. Even so, there's something about them that still seems to imply less control or attention to detail (does not mean they can't be beautiful IMO). Modern television cartoons everywhere are, relatively speaking, screwed tight the world over for budgets and mostly made by people without the first idea of how to respectfully use the medium (moreso in western probably), so anything that's genuinely well made is a real miracle. As far as products of animation I enjoy regardless of whether the animation is limited, weak or homogenous, I like enough products of both enough to not start too big a fight about it though I would argue the sea of crap is bigger in anime than in western.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I honestly watch whatever's good. The medium itself is not particularly important.

That being said, there tends to be more variety in anime, therefore I watch more anime, because there is more good anime.

[Narga_Rocks]

You best not be dissin' Transformers. It may be intended for kids, but it's still pretty grim at points (movie especially) and generally has great story lines.

I'm not insulting it. I love Avatar and that I said that was for kids. I was just responding to Red Fox of Fire's comment that America has the idea that Cartoons are for kids and don't generally have major story arcs. I said that some of them do have major arcs, but admitted that they are still largely targeted at a younger audience.

[Original Alear]

If we were to compare American comics to Japanese anime, it might be a tougher comparison. I don't have a whole lot of experience with American comics but I think they've got a pretty strong lineup of more mature comics to go along with the cartoons for kids.

That being said, since we're comparing animation only, I guess the focus is on the quality of the animation. The very high level western stuff (say Pixar) is IMO better than Japanese animation. But if I compare overall quality of western animation to japanese animation (factoring music, story, whatever else) I think I prefer Japanese animation. For one thing, I like having story arcs instead of simply having episodic content and japanese anime caters to that preference more often. I like this because story arcs allow each individual episode to not try and create/solve a situation, and the climax/resolution of a particular story doesn't have to be condensed to a single episode (more room for tension, and suspension of relief more easily created). I do like episodic content sometimes, but in terms of non-episodic stories Japanese media has a lot more than western media.

Although I admit that certain American shows (South Park stands out most of all) are probably IMO better than anything than Japan can offer, I think this is in part because . I think that Japanese shows (when they are really good) do a better job of achieving a good balance of comedic and dramatic material. Western cartoons turn any kind of dramatic moment into humor (nothing is allowed to be taken seriously). Even when an element of seriousness (usually in the form of a common sense lesson) is in South Park or Family Guy, there is an element of surprise/laughter/disbelief at the seriousness, and since it is usually "common sense" it also pokes holes in whatever the dominant "stupid" thing going on during the episode has been doing (that's satire!). As a result, it remains mostly funny. One thing I will say for Futurama and the Simpsons is that I think it does a good job of dodging this sometimes, and a "meaningful" moment can actually stand on two legs without getting knocked down. There is an occasional gentleness to Groening's work.

That being said, I've kind of lost interest in following anime (though I would like to catch up with One Piece sometime, and watch a few other shows).

Plot-wise, anime wins out for me too. I grew up on Asian dramas. Before you make assumptions, I was born and raised in China. And the only TV shows worth watching, for a little kid, are Detective Conan, Pokemon, Sailor Moon, and those said Asian dramas.

Even if you grew up in America it's quite possible for Japanese cartoons to be part of your childhood. My childhood cartoons were a mix of Japanese and American cartoons.

Plus, hot men with long hair and oversized swords for the win. *shot*

Anime seems more willing to diverge from reality in order to idealize appearances. Whereas western cartoons seems more likely to diverge from reality for the sake of humor and parody. Even Jessica Rabbit, the epitome of hotness in American cartooning, is IMO something of a parody. Not saying that's an absolute rule, just a tendency.

I haven't seen Avatar, but from what I hear, it was heavily anime-influenced anyway.

It definitely was, however the show also does a good job of being self-aware and the influence isn't just a simple adaptation of elements from anime. For instance, Avatar takes the "recap" episode present in some animes and (rather brilliantly, I thought) makes it part of the actual story. The characters watch a ridiculous play depicting major events of their adventures so far and spend much of the time complaining about how they are depicted. I won't go into any more detail, but viewed as self-inspection from the writers it's a pretty thought-provoking episode about the notions of an author's authority etc etc.

I haven't actually seen the entire series, however one of my friends was re-watching it and I sat in on some of the episodes. Although targeted at kids, like a lot of good kids shows it doesn't bash you over the head with everything it's trying to get across.

The ending also has one of the few nonviolent protagonists actually finding a good resolution to staying nonviolent, which I liked. Maybe a little too idealistic, but I've seen a number of other likeable pacifists in anime (and western literature) who IMO betray their ideals to some extent to another. The fact that they did this is usually defensible, but I still like to see it "actually work out".

[Florete]

I'm not insulting it. I love Avatar and that I said that was for kids. I was just responding to Red Fox of Fire's comment that America has the idea that Cartoons are for kids and don't generally have major story arcs. I said that some of them do have major arcs, but admitted that they are still largely targeted at a younger audience.

I haven't actually seen the entire series, however one of my friends was re-watching it and I sat in on some of the episodes. Although targeted at kids, like a lot of good kids shows it doesn't bash you over the head with everything it's trying to get across.

The ending also has one of the few nonviolent protagonists actually finding a good resolution to staying nonviolent, which I liked. Maybe a little too idealistic, but I've seen a number of other likeable pacifists in anime (and western literature) who IMO betray their ideals to some extent to another. The fact that they did this is usually defensible, but I still like to see it "actually work out".

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, neither being for kids nor being episodic is a bad thing in my mind. Both can work out fine. The Aria series (which you might recognize these four images from), for example, is both episodic and seemingly aimed at kids (I would say it's aimed at girls age 5-12) and yet (third season specifically) it is one of my all-time favorites. I also used to watch a bunch of American kids cartoons and still find some of them to be rather good (I would very likely still be watching Teen Titans if it hadn't stopped after the fifth season) even though I don't really watch them anymore.

The thing is that I find America to mostly cater to the kids and do mostly episodics, while Japan I find has a wider range of things to choose from no matter what your age and preferences are (all in regards to their animation, of course).

[Original Alear]

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, neither being for kids nor being episodic is a bad thing in my mind. Both can work out fine. The Aria series (which you might recognize these four images from), for example, is both episodic and seemingly aimed at kids (I would say it's aimed at girls age 5-12) and yet (third season specifically) it is one of my all-time favorites. I also used to watch a bunch of American kids cartoons and still find some of them to be rather good (I would very likely still be watching Teen Titans if it hadn't stopped after the fifth season) even though I don't really watch them anymore.

The thing is that I find America to mostly cater to the kids and do mostly episodics, while Japan I find has a wider range of things to choose from no matter what your age and preferences are (all in regards to their animation, of course).

Ya. I wasn't saying that you were trying to say that, and I do agree with you. (I think you're basically saying: even though kids shows are good, its good to have things in addition to kids shows) I just felt like randomly saying some things I like about Avatar (from what I saw of it).

I guess the point where I "disagreed" with you to any extent is the thing about Avatar being influenced by anime. Although I actually agree that it is in some ways, IMO it uses some of the elements it absorbs in unique ways.

[Magical CC]

Except some great old masterpieces of Disney, nowaday western cartoons are nothing more than it's former shadow.

I grew up with western cartoon but I decided to stop watching those when I was 11 years old because of boredom. Not until 7 years later, anime once again raise up my interest in cartoon. It's 4 years up until now and I still enjoy watching anime. It's enough for me to vote for anime.

[Florete]

Ya. I wasn't saying that you were trying to say that, and I do agree with you. (I think you're basically saying: even though kids shows are good, its good to have things in addition to kids shows) I just felt like randomly saying some things I like about Avatar (from what I saw of it).

It wasn't so much a response to you (or Narga) as it was a note for anyone reading this. And you're right, that is what I'm saying.

I guess the point where I "disagreed" with you to any extent is the thing about Avatar being influenced by anime. Although I actually agree that it is in some ways, IMO it uses some of the elements it absorbs in unique ways.

Well, like I said, I haven't actually seen it myself, I was going off what I've heard from others. I know some people who actually consider it to be anime. And in a topic like this, using an anime-influenced show like Avatar (even if just in some ways and not completely) for the western side of things sort of defeats the point.

[Fireman]

I like to follow the mentality of "If it's good, I'll watch it." However, that doesn't stop me from noticing differences between genres. The "cartoons are either comedies or for kids" mentality that Western animation always follows is quite annoying. It also lowers the enjoyability of the show for older audiences. 4kids can burn in hell for all the shit that they do to anime they get their slimy paws on. I'm sorry. Did I say that out loud?Another thing, Western cartoons tend to follow almost completely unrelated episodic arcs. Many anime shows at least attempt to follow an overall plot arc. Unrelated episodic arcs might work for comedy, but not for serious storytelling. And one last thing: the Japanese are much better at animating detail. As an aspiring artist, the relative lack of proper proportions, shading, or overall detail in Western animation can quite bother me at times. -_-

That's not to say there aren't plenty of bad anime series out there, but the number of good is great enough to give my vote to anime.

Now if this was American comics vs. manga, I'd be singing a different tune, but it's not.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Fireman

[Original Alear]

Unrelated episodic arcs might work for comedy, but not for serious storytelling.

I don't think that's entirely true. Although I can't think of any cartoons (from any region) off the top of my head that manage serious storytelling w/out being primarily comedy, there are a number of episodic dramas in the US that have at least achieved success in terms of large audiences and such. Although shows like House may have an overall plot from episode to episode (who is he going to choose for his new team?) I would say that most episodes I have seen generally raise issues and almost inevitably deal with all those issues in that same episode.

Personally, my experience with these shows is that this doesn't work that well for me. Because they don't tend to focus on a kind of long term, drawn out tension, and instead focus most of the attention on a particular "short-term" issue - and yet use these issues to give token "development time" to the major returning characters (i.e. give them time to reexamine their relationships with each other, their place in the group). The only exception I can think of for this is Burn Notice, because that show IMO spends enough time in each episode addressing the main plot (especially in the later seasons) that it's never really forgotten about, and sometimes the main character (michael weston) has to choose between fulfilling episodic and larger plot-arc objectives.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't think that's entirely true. Although I can't think of any cartoons (from any region) off the top of my head that manage serious storytelling w/out being primarily comedy, there are a number of episodic dramas in the US that have at least achieved success in terms of large audiences and such. Although shows like House may have an overall plot from episode to episode (who is he going to choose for his new team?) I would say that most episodes I have seen generally raise issues and almost inevitably deal with all those issues in that same episode.

But characters alter over time, and are more dynamic than the average cartoon character. While each episode is generally contained within itself, there are areas that often cater to those that have been watching the show for quite some time; references to past events, subtle jabs at previous behaviors, and so on and so forth.

Personally, my experience with these shows is that this doesn't work that well for me. Because they don't tend to focus on a kind of long term, drawn out tension, and instead focus most of the attention on a particular "short-term" issue - and yet use these issues to give token "development time" to the major returning characters (i.e. give them time to reexamine their relationships with each other, their place in the group). The only exception I can think of for this is Burn Notice, because that show IMO spends enough time in each episode addressing the main plot (especially in the later seasons) that it's never really forgotten about, and sometimes the main character (michael weston) has to choose between fulfilling episodic and larger plot-arc objectives.

The primary problem that I have with many episodic events is that they destroy any suspense that may exist; we know that if Johnny wins the lottery at the beginning of the episode, he will some way lose all of it by the end. This is a facet that is predominant in western animation, because it is generally tailored towards a more packaged experience --and as noted earlier-- often for children; simple morals, simple events per episode. One of the things that I originally found so amazing about Japanese animation was that it seemed to gravitate towards a persistent, linear storyline, with a definable beginning, middle, and end.

[sunshineYON]

I hardly see how these two mediums can be compared in a way in which one is preferred over the other. They are very different in terms of the audience they want to reach, their objectives, and overall role in pop culture. Western animation falls under two categories, purely for adults with lewd humor, or at least humor that is inappropriate for a young person to see (like South Park, and other Adult Swim shows), or purely for children, with slapstick humor like Dexter's Laboratory, etc. (can't come up with a more contemporary example because I've grown out of those shows.) One thing is for certain though, all they are is some form of comedy, which shows the lack of flexibility when it comes to western animation. There is no attempt at over arcing plots, drama, probing the human psyche, etc. Then there are the Pixar/

Disney animations that are aimed at the whole family. These movies can have some form of message, drama, themes that are higher than the objective of trying to make you laugh one way or another. But then again, there is really no true fandom for these type of movies, as there is with anime.

This brings me to the true difference between anime and western animation. Anime, unlike western animation, is a pop culture phenomenon. Fans devote their lives into the characters, worlds, and stories that anime provide. Anime's influence and reach is absurdly huge, and not all of it is positive, as the fandom can grow out of control, as seen by some people who've entered too deep into the otaku culture, and are suffering in real life issues because of it. Basically, the scope of anime is so huge that it is very difficult to compare it with western animation on the same scale.

When I watch anime, I certainly don't think to myself, "I'd much rather watch this than its Western equivalent," because there really isn't one, and if there was, it would definitely not be Western Animation.

The idea of comparing these to mediums in this sense just doesn't seem right to me. Simply noticing that they are both animated, and jumping to the gun that they must have some sort of rival relationship with each other.

[Original Alear]

So, you agree that there are differences between anime and western animation, and as a result conclude that they cannot be compared?

To me, your post is a comparison of anime and western animation.

I think you might reasonably argue that the comparison of western animation and anime isn't very "useful" or "interesting" (although I would disagree) but I don't see how you could argue that one can't prefer the other.

When I watch anime, I certainly don't think to myself, "I'd much rather watch this than its Western equivalent," because there really isn't one, and if there was, it would definitely not be Western Animation.

When you watch a mech show, do you say "I'd much rather watch this than its whacky high school drama equivalent"? Probably not. Such outlandish comparisons wouldn't even occur to most people (though there may be some very interesting ones), except when one of the two shows parodies or contains elements of the other. (for instance, Full Metal Panic has both high school drama and mech fighting)

I mean, what exactly would be the point in watching "the western equivalent of japanese animation" over watching japanese animation? They'd be equivalents, so there's no point in distinguishing between the two. The way to watch the equivalent of Dragon Ball Z is to watch Dragon Ball Z.

There's no such thing as a comparison between equivalents. Comparison only exists where there are differences. The fact that anime and western animation have different general tendencies allows comparison.

The idea of comparing these to mediums in this sense just doesn't seem right to me. Simply noticing that they are both animated, and jumping to the gun that they must have some sort of rival relationship with each other.

Since there are viewers who jump to comparing the two as though they are rivals, they do have a rival relationship. That seems pretty evident to me.

The "rival relationship" isn't based entirely (maybe isn't even based mostly) on some kind of pre-existing relationship. They are based on the viewers who come to these mediums and see comparisons. The rival relationship does exist as long as people see it as existing.

Most of what you talked about in the difference between anime and wesetern animation is based on the fandom and the pop-culture surroundings, as well as the extent to which it affects peoples' lives. You're not even necessarily talking about any particular characteristics of anime in the part of your section on anime, despite the fact that some japanese animation is similar to some of the kinds of western animation you talked about above.

I would respond by saying that all these things can in fact be part of the comparison. For instance, one reason I really love The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (a fantasy series) is that I found a really excellent forum of fans of the series which is pretty active, and I've found I've learned a lot through discussions there. The "fanbase" of an individual work (or a genre) can in fact be a factor in how much we enjoy that work. This is especially true for the "hardcore" western, non-japanese speaking anime fan who will be reliant on the view of japanese speaking fans to translate the anime for him.

All that being the case, I could similarly say that I prefer anime because I hang out with people who like anime and talk with them about anime (actually, this isn't true in my case, none of my friends like more than a couple anime and we barely ever discuss them, but it is probably true for others given the tendency to form fanclubs for things we like). What exactly is problematic about ANY reason for prefering one medium over the other?

If we simply say "they are not equivalent therefore why compare them?" we will not be comparing anything anymore, including our differing viewpoints on whether anime and western cartoons can be "viably compared". You might as well say people shouldn't talk about how music can affect them in different ways than visuals can. The fact remains that similarities almost always exist between things that have differences and differences almost always exist between things that have similarities.

As I pointed out before, there are lots of animes that can't be compared to each other all that easily.

The idea of comparing these to mediums in this sense just doesn't seem right to me. Simply noticing that they are both animated, and jumping to the gun that they must have some sort of rival relationship with each other.

I would argue that the comparisons people make between things tend to be based a lot on cultural context. For many american viewers (such as myself) anime was featured a lot on stations that were also showing western cartoons, and my early experiences with japanese anime was bound to draw out comparisons with western animation. Similarly, I'm under the impression that japanese manga are often sold alongside american comics in comic stores.

Also, I think that attempting to tell a story (which I think nearly all televised animation that falls under "western animation" and "japanese anime" do attempt to do) through artistic, often 2-dimensional visuals is a pretty important formal choice. It might be useful to ask why the works that fall into these two categories both made this formal choice.

Edited March 25, 2010 by SeverIan

[Rewjeo]

It's tough. Honestly, both have a lot of crap, but both have their standouts, too. I'm really not sure.

[sunshineYON]

I think you might reasonably argue that the comparison of western animation and anime isn't very "useful" or "interesting" (although I would disagree) but I don't see how you could argue that one can't prefer the other.

Yes, that was my intent, which renders a bulk of your argument not relevant to my original.

In no way am I forcefully dictating if some should not prefer something over another thing.

When you watch a mech show, do you say "I'd much rather watch this than its whacky high school drama equivalent"? Probably not. Such outlandish comparisons wouldn't even occur to most people (though there may be some very interesting ones), except when one of the two shows parodies or contains elements of the other. (for instance, Full Metal Panic has both high school drama and mech fighting)

I mean, what exactly would be the point in watching "the western equivalent of japanese animation" over watching japanese animation? They'd be equivalents, so there's no point in distinguishing between the two. The way to watch the equivalent of Dragon Ball Z is to watch Dragon Ball Z.

There's no such thing as a comparison between equivalents. Comparison only exists where there are differences. The fact that anime and western animation have different general tendencies allows comparison.

Totally agree, though that is not the issue. A chair can be compared to a some guy's face, because they're different, but the comparison itself is nonsensical and has no meaning. A chair is different from a sofa, which allows for comparison, but they are related enough that the comparison has some form of meaning, intellectual rigor, etc. Now, I'm not saying anime and western animation is so far off that it is like comparing a chair to a person's face, but I believe they are different enough that a direct comparison/ a direct preference over one and the dislike for the other due to that preference to the first one holds little meaning.

Since there are viewers who jump to comparing the two as though they are rivals, they do have a rival relationship. That seems pretty evident to me.

The "rival relationship" isn't based entirely (maybe isn't even based mostly) on some kind of pre-existing relationship. They are based on the viewers who come to these mediums and see comparisons. The rival relationship does exist as long as people see it as existing.

Can't argue with that. If people feel the need to do something, or feel like something exists, then sure, then it will exist, especially when we are talking about ideas, modes of thought, etc. stuff that aren't concrete and exists solely in an individual or society. My argument is simply that this mindset is silly, not that it doesn't exist. Sure, compare the two all you want, I'm merely pointing out that, again, it holds little meaning.

Most of what you talked about in the difference between anime and wesetern animation is based on the fandom and the pop-culture surroundings, as well as the extent to which it affects peoples' lives. You're not even necessarily talking about any particular characteristics of anime in the part of your section on anime, despite the fact that some japanese animation is similar to some of the kinds of western animation you talked about above.

I would respond by saying that all these things can in fact be part of the comparison. For instance, one reason I really love The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (a fantasy series) is that I found a really excellent forum of fans of the series which is pretty active, and I've found I've learned a lot through discussions there. The "fanbase" of an individual work (or a genre) can in fact be a factor in how much we enjoy that work. This is especially true for the "hardcore" western, non-japanese speaking anime fan who will be reliant on the view of japanese speaking fans to translate the anime for him.

All that being the case, I could similarly say that I prefer anime because I hang out with people who like anime and talk with them about anime (actually, this isn't true in my case, none of my friends like more than a couple anime and we barely ever discuss them, but it is probably true for others given the tendency to form fanclubs for things we like). What exactly is problematic about ANY reason for prefering one medium over the other?

If we simply say "they are not equivalent therefore why compare them?" we will not be comparing anything anymore, including our differing viewpoints on whether anime and western cartoons can be "viably compared". You might as well say people shouldn't talk about how music can affect them in different ways than visuals can. The fact remains that similarities almost always exist between things that have differences and differences almost always exist between things that have similarities.

As I pointed out before, there are lots of animes that can't be compared to each other all that easily.

I would argue that the comparisons people make between things tend to be based a lot on cultural context. For many american viewers (such as myself) anime was featured a lot on stations that were also showing western cartoons, and my early experiences with japanese anime was bound to draw out comparisons with western animation. Similarly, I'm under the impression that japanese manga are often sold alongside american comics in comic stores.

Also, I think that attempting to tell a story (which I think nearly all televised animation that falls under "western animation" and "japanese anime" do attempt to do) through artistic, often 2-dimensional visuals is a pretty important formal choice. It might be useful to ask why the works that fall into these two categories both made this formal choice.

Eh, I was just stating some differences between the two on the top of my head, didn't really structure it and research it extensively like I would a college paper or anything, as this isn't a college paper, it was just for me to state my opinion.

On a final note, lets just say one were to ask a person in his 20s or something if he watches anime or not. His most likely answer would be something like "I don't watch cartoons", or "Yes, I love anime", not "no, I preferz my Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Bravo", as such reply would be really strange. Now ask the same person whether he liked "Basketball", his reply might be, "No, but I watch football" or "Yeah, I love basketball" or "yeah, I like bball, but I also enjoy tennis, baseball, etc."

Now those are categories that can be compared in a way in which a intellectual and fruitful conversation can come afoot. Comparing anime and western animation, I'll say it for the last time, is just not the same.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Deretsun

[Fireman]

I don't think that's entirely true. Although I can't think of any cartoons (from any region) off the top of my head that manage serious storytelling w/out being primarily comedy, there are a number of episodic dramas in the US that have at least achieved success in terms of large audiences and such. Although shows like House may have an overall plot from episode to episode (who is he going to choose for his new team?) I would say that most episodes I have seen generally raise issues and almost inevitably deal with all those issues in that same episode.

Well, yes. As what may appear contrary to what I actually typed, I didn't meant to say that episodic formats were completely bad. Depending on the writing, it can be "put to good work."

Hm. Now I feel like I'm just kicking a dead horse.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Fireman