Would you consider Avatar to be an anime?

I don't have time for you and your "logic!"

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be arrogant, I just meant as a definition, an "anime"=Japanese cartoon. Or did you mean arrogant as in thinking other animation was less.

EDIT: Yeah, that is what you meant. Proving that actually reading the posts would help.
 
I think the trouble is that "anime" is an awkward term no matter how you cut it. If you use it as a shorthand for Japanese animation, then that raises two questions: one is how to classify international co-productions, the other is why Japan - and only Japan - has a widely-used word to describe its animation. So it's hardly surprising that people will be increasingly using it to describe a style, as opposed to a country of origin: it just makes more sense that way, even if it does create even more grey areas.

Really, if someone calls Avatar an "American anime", then it gets the point across, no harm done. And if someone else uses the word "anime" as a shorthand for "Japanese animation" to get their point across, then no harm done there either.

The word was clearly only imported into the English language to say "those, er, y'know, that Japanese stuff with the giant robots and the big eyes and the magical schoolgirls and whatnot". It was never meant to be picked apart on an operating table like this...
 
Curse you for putting it so simply.

My father once told me to only use as few worRAB as necessary.

I should have just said "this is a silly argument based on semantics" and left it at that.
 
Anime is just another term for japanesse animation. Animation has many different styles, but anime is not one of them. P.S. I hate it when people go " so... yeah", its one of my pet peeves, not to mention how annoying it is.
 
While there is no simple cut-and-paste "style" that defines Japanese animation, the fact is there are so many tropes associated with their works that a "anime" is often a perfectly acceptable catch-all nickname for Japanese animation.

Avatar was made in the U.S., but includes quite a few anime tropes, from certain character design aspects to some occasional bouts of FLCL-influenced animation. It's kinda telling that the creators considered FLCL mandatory watching for the animation staff.

So while it's not technically an anime, it uses enough of the tropes that it looks a fair deal like one, arguably moreso than Teen Titans or Totaly Spies. Hence why it's often mistaken for one and people split hairs over weather or not it should be considered one.
 
What a lot of people don't realize is Avatar looks more like a Chinese cartoon than Japanese.

Avatar is an American show made with the intent of including various asian culture and art styles not so unlike the 2003 Ninja Turtles which had quite a bit of asian culture in it's art style and story elements as well. Neither are "anime" nor are they "anime-style" as there is no specific style for Japanese animation regardless of what Webster's says.

Japanese studios work on American cartoons all the time and have for years including the likes of Toei, TMS and Sunrise as well as many others. But if that's outsourcing it shouldn't really be considered Japanese animation. So it matters more who the intended audience is than where it was animated. Otherwise the majority of shows would be well... Korean cartoons. But there's a grey area with that as well as sometimes shows are produced for both the US and Japan at the same time but something like IGPX would have to be considered dogu.

Anyway Avatar is not "anime" as it is most certainly not dogu.
 
No, no, no. I've seen Chinese cartoons. They look nothing like Avatar. Hell, the last time I heard this argument, they couldn't even point to any cartoon except A Chinese Ghost Story.

And even that's pushing it, since A Chinese Ghost story as a more fluid, floaty look to it's animation, for lack of a better term, particularly the fight scenes. Avatar actually more follows the Gainax and Studio 4C school of fewer, highly exaggerated frames that give the action scenes a more kinetic feel.

And while I quote Wikipedia here, the quote is sourced:


So there you have it. To keep dening the influences or pointing to cartoons you've probably never watched is kinda futile.
 
It's not an anime, and there's nothing wrong with that. Easy answer!

There also isn't an anime "style". Perhaps 90% of the market is unfortunately derivative enough to give the impression that there is, but are we in America (that's including Canada) any different? Comparing different decades, you'll see much in common within each as well as significant differences from one to another. There are, meanwhile, other artists doing things their own way all along.

There's too much common sense in this thread. I feel like I'm contributing nothing, thanks to people like you.

Of course, nothing is always absolutely so. The 90% rule is just a rough guideline. There's really no reason every international slice of animation should have the same ratio of gold to crud. One might as well suggest that every studio's output obeys the same law. Even if the rule tenRAB to be true for random samples, it's just not possible that every arbitrary subset will share that pattern.

There's enough of a difference between cultures for personal opinion to lean one way or the other, violating Sturgeon's Law from the individual perspective. That doesn't mean fans have to be obnoxious about their preference.

Exactly. It's a useful, informal word to the extent that others will usually know what you're talking about in context. We don't need a surgically precise definition for anyone to know what something like "The Anime Forum" is going to be about.

[line]2[/line]
...and honestly, no, I couldn't mistake Avatar for a Japanese production, at least not a "typical" one, whatever that's considered.

--Romey
 
Avatar wasn't conceived, made, produced, or originated in Japan, ergo, Avatar isn't an anime.

I've had people tell me, "Well, I consider Avatar to be an anime because it looks like an anime," to which I have to ask, "What does an anime look like?" Anime is a Western term for Japanese cartoons; it isn't an animation style. There isn't one single set drawing and animation style which is used all throughout the nation of Japan any more than there is one set drawing and animation style which is used in any other nation. So how can Avatar "look like an anime"?

I've also gotten "I consider Avatar to be an anime because it's a dramatic saga with story arcs". Again, not every anime is dramatic or has ongoing story arcs. In addition, there are plenty of USAnimated shows, Canadian shows, European shows and shows from other nations which follow in this tradition. So if having dramatic sagas and story arcs instantly makes a show an anime, then Asterix, Tintin, Justice League Unlimited, The Secret Saturdays, Winx Club and W.I.T.C.H. must also be anime.


But they aren't. And neither is Avatar.
 
You know, I just thought of something that could probably end this pointless prattling.

Do the moRAB of this forum consider Avatar to be an anime?

Cause if they do, then there is no point in arguing if it is anime here.
But if they don't, then this thread is technically not even allowed on this forum. O_o
 
Avatar was a great show, but no Avatar is not a anime. For reasons already stated, but also the lake of imagination in their openings and closings.

Besides if they wanted to be more like anime, they should have cast anime actors. Johnny Yong Bosch would have been perfect for Zuko.
 
I reject your premise. The issue of what makes an anime an anime is directly related to this question, and that is a reasonable topic for a discussion here.

It also suggests that, ideally, I could say "no, it isn't" and lock the thread. On top of being gratitutous and unnecessary, that would have been boring as hell. Instead we have a variety of answers explaining why it's not and some dialogue on other points, which is productive and interesting.

Many good points have been made. I take MonkeyFunk's point about the insignificance of semantics, but having said that there are reasons I care enough to argue the point. For starters, truth exists and worRAB mean things. Since "anime" can be applied to quite a lot as-is, I'm not inclined to see it reduced to the point where it means almost anything that a user of the word wants it to mean. Anime shouldn't be used as a kneejerk definition just because something "looks asian" to someone. At times like that, Jeff Harris' desire to just use "animation" for everything and call it a day looks very appealing.

Your average English-speaking person thinks "Japanese cartoons" when they see or hear the word "anime." That's what we've become used to. So if fans run around assigning that to Avatar, that's not good. That's liable to spread misinformation. That's part of why this thread even exists, with no disrespect intended to the creator. For some people out there it's actually a question. But Avatar was an American show produced at Nickelodeon Animation Studios in Burbank, California, and I'm a believer in credit going where it's due. There's a world of difference between creating something and influencing something. And damn it, the creators should get the praise they deserve, rather than see it passed off on the objects of their research.

Also, not everywhere is like Toon Zone. Some people are Japanaholics and don't want to give non-Japanese sources the credit they deserve. Personally, I won't play that game or cede them any ground. Quality exists on multiple fronts, and the word "cartoon" just does not deserve to be divorced from that term.
 
NOOOOOOO!
The voices are already great to begin with.

Why would you say such a terrible thing!?

You wouldn't want to change Sokka's voice too, would you?



Dang.
 
Back
Top