what anime should I start collecting?

[jdavis]

Point taken. But Project A-KO sounds good from what I've heard of it. I think I saw it(can't remember if it was the DVD or not though) in the local comic shop, and I might buy it.

There is three or four versions of it, they take the same characters and re-imagine them in different settings. They are all from the late'80s and were fairly popular so they should be out there.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=61

Project A-ko (movie)
Project A-ko 3: Cinderella Rhapsody (OAV)
Project A-Ko 4: Final (OAV)
Project A-Ko: The Plot of the Daitokuji Corporation (OAV)
Project A-Ko: Vs (OAV)
(Ok so there were 5 versions)

 

[Alzrius]

I wouldn't call it informative so much as a developed opinion.

Point taken, but I still find it informative in that it clearly lays out a good way of expressing the sentiment enough that it can be debated.

Note that I'm not saying I agree with him, since I see some validity in your point below...

IMO, however, Anime and Manga are just terms to define a style of art/animation, the same as impressionism or expressionism. Take Megatokyo, for instance. It's not produced by a Japanese person (Fred Gallagher is American), and it's not aimed at Japanese people (it's a web comic, so it's aimed at everyone), but given it's style (some strips now are even in vertical 4-koma Japanese format), I'd still call it an online Manga.

This is a valid point, in that there are manga-style comics around. The problem though is that this line blurs all too easily. Fred Perry's Gold Digger comic is done in manga-style now, but what about when it first started (it looked much different then)? What about the webcomic Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki, or even just Irritability? "Manga" may have a style to it, but saying that style is distinctive enough that it can be reproduced to the effect that anyone can "draw manga-style comics" is a bold statement to make.

If it was made into an animated format, I'd call it an Anime. Going by AnimeNation's criteria, if Scooby Doo had been made by a Japanese company, and wass aimed at Japanese people, it'd be an Anime. I think that no matter where it was made, or who it was aimed at, I could never call something with the art style of Scooby Doo "Anime".

You don't seem to take into account that such a show would have had a vastly different style of art and different plot progression if it had been made in Japan for domestic release there. It would have been a Scooby Doo anime. You can't just change the origin and release and not realize that would change the product itself also.

To me, Anime is a cartoon medium drawn in a style used mainly in Japan.

That just brings up the same problem though. There is no truly over-arching "style" in anime used in Japan...even moreso than manga. Crayon Shin-chan looks absolutely nothing like Gundam Wing, but both are undeniably anime.

 

[Sixchan]

This is a valid point, in that there are manga-style comics around. The problem though is that this line blurs all too easily. Fred Perry's Gold Digger comic is done in manga-style now, but what about when it first started (it looked much different then)?

I've never read it, but going from your description I'd say it's a Manga now, but it wasn't at the start. *shrugs*

What about the webcomic Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki,

Looking at the first few pages, it looks like a manga to me.

or even just Irritability?

*picks a few strips at random* Yep, looks like Manga.

"Manga" may have a style to it, but saying that style is distinctive enough that it can be reproduced to the effect that anyone can "draw manga-style comics" is a bold statement to make.

I'm not saying that Anyone can "draw manga-style comics". I can't draw anything that doesn't involve a lot of straight lines. I know someone who can't even do that. There'll be plenty of Japanese people who can't draw, either. But some Americans, some Britons, some Spaniards, some whoevers can draw in that style, and just because of where they live, it isn't Manga?

You don't seem to take into account that such a show would have had a vastly different style of art and different plot progression if it had been made in Japan for domestic release there. It would have been a Scooby Doo anime. You can't just change the origin and release and not realize that would change the product itself also.

They could have been trying to introduce American styles into the Japanese market. The product might change, but the Art Style can stay the same.

That just brings up the same problem though. There is no truly over-arching "style" in anime used in Japan...even moreso than manga. Crayon Shin-chan looks absolutely nothing like Gundam Wing, but both are undeniably anime.

But you know, don't you? When you see an Anime, you can say "That's Anime", even if it looks different from other ones you've seen. You can tell. Both are undeniably Anime, not because of where they are made, or who made them, it's something else, even if it isn't the style, that lets you know, and that can be created by anyone with the talent, and that talent can't possibly exist only in Japan, can it?

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not saying that Anyone can "draw manga-style comics". I can't draw anything that doesn't involve a lot of straight lines. I know someone who can't even do that. There'll be plenty of Japanese people who can't draw, either. But some Americans, some Britons, some Spaniards, some whoevers can draw in that style, and just because of where they live, it isn't Manga?

I didn't make my point clear; I didn't mean "anyone" in that sense of anyone who can lift a pencil - what I meant is, when you say "can draw in that style", what style is that? Just calling it "manga" isn't enough, it needs to be broken down exactly what that style is like.

They could have been trying to introduce American styles into the Japanese market. The product might change, but the Art Style can stay the same.

Could have but wouldn't. This part of the debate is quickly becoming too abstract to talk about - we can't debate the specifics of an example that didn't actually happen because we don't know how it would have turned out.

But you know, don't you? When you see an Anime, you can say "That's Anime", even if it looks different from other ones you've seen. You can tell. Both are undeniably Anime, not because of where they are made, or who made them, it's something else, even if it isn't the style, that lets you know, and that can be created by anyone with the talent, and that talent can't possibly exist only in Japan, can it?

Actually, that isn't always true. I know some people who would have dismissed some of the works I listed above as being real "manga". A similar style perhaps, but not the same.

The ultimate question here is whether or not anime/manga is "merely" a technical style of drawing/animation, or if there is something more fundamental to it that is only found in the Japanese creations.

My personal belief is that currently, the two are mixed together (style and source), simply due to the fact that no other country takes these art forms as seriously as they are in Japan. America still places too much in the idea that the only true art is done for art's sake, and does not appeal to the masses. Hence, anime and manga, which are commercial almost my definition, since they're entertainment, have simply never been able to be created outside of Japan due to environment.

Of course, that is finally beginning to change now, so the definition is having to be rewritten, and that's always difficult.

 

[Sixchan]

Actually, that isn't always true. I know some people who would have dismissed some of the works I listed above as being real "manga". A similar style perhaps, but not the same.

Ah, but if those comics were written and Japanese, and the author happened to live in Japan (thus made in Japan and aimed at Japanese people), then would they be Manga? As far as I can tell, it would fit Animenation's criteria.

 

[Alzrius]

Ah, but if those comics were written and Japanese, and the author happened to live in Japan (thus made in Japan and aimed at Japanese people), then would they be Manga? As far as I can tell, it would fit Animenation's criteria.

Well, we aren't discussing Animenation's criteria so much as the definition of "anime" and "manga" in general, but I'll play along anyway.

In essence, yes, anything produced in Japan for domestic consumption that is a comic is manga. As I said above, that is because there are currently two clashing ways of defining what manga and anime are - one is the above definition (anything made there for local release), and the other is that its a distinct style that can be reproduced and done abroad, nothing inherently Japanese about it.

There are lots of different comics produced in Japan, many of which have no visual similarity, and no one says they aren't manga. Likewise, many comics of a divergant artistic style are made in America, and no one says they are manga. So clearly location does have some major role in the definition. At the same time, there are so-called "manga" produced in America (such as Marvel's Mangaverse, which includes artists such as Benn Dunn). It is still unclear what the definition of the term is, and probably won't be any clearer for a long while to come.

 

[Sixchan]

Well, we aren't discussing Animenation's criteria so much as the definition of "anime" and "manga" in general, but I'll play along anyway.

In essence, yes, anything produced in Japan for domestic consumption that is a comic is manga. As I said above, that is because there are currently two clashing ways of defining what manga and anime are - one is the above definition (anything made there for local release), and the other is that its a distinct style that can be reproduced and done abroad, nothing inherently Japanese about it.

There are lots of different comics produced in Japan, many of which have no visual similarity, and no one says they aren't manga. Likewise, many comics of a divergant artistic style are made in America, and no one says they are manga. So clearly location does have some major role in the definition. At the same time, there are so-called "manga" produced in America (such as Marvel's Mangaverse, which includes artists such as Benn Dunn). It is still unclear what the definition of the term is, and probably won't be any clearer for a long while to come.

Perhaps, then, all that is required to be Manga is to call it "Manga"? Within reason, of course.

Or alternatively, when dealing with Out Of Japan "Manga", any comic in which Japanese culture (this includes all aspects, from art to television) played a significant part in influencing is "Manga"?

Or a combination, where the author if makes reference to "manga-style" and/or Japanese culture in regards to the comic, then it is Manga?


*shrugs* I dunno, but the last one sounds about right to me.

 

[Alzrius]

Perhaps, then, all that is required to be Manga is to call it "Manga"? Within reason, of course.

Which brings us back to square one. The limits of "within reason" are different for everyone, so a definition becomes necessary...and we start all over again.

Or alternatively, when dealing with Out Of Japan "Manga", any comic in which Japanese culture (this includes all aspects, from art to television) played a significant part in influencing is "Manga"?

Or a combination, where the author if makes reference to "manga-style" and/or Japanese culture in regards to the comic, then it is Manga?

This has its own problems though. Could a particular style of art by itself just be called distinctive to Japanese culture? Especially when nothing else even suggests a Japanese basis for anything in the comic? You said that the webcomic Irritability, that I linked to above, was a manga...how much reference to anything Japan-related does that have?

*shrugs* I dunno, but the last one sounds about right to me.

It's still a very loose definition though, and leaves plenty of room for arguement over whether certain comics would be "manga" or not.

I'm not saying all this to be contrary, I'm just pointing out that so far, we don't have any particular set definition for what these terms actually mean. It's currently, as you noted, more along the lines of "you know it when you see it".

 

[Sixchan]

Which brings us back to square one. The limits of "within reason" are different for everyone, so a definition becomes necessary...and we start all over again.

When I said "Within reason", I was more talking along the lines of taking a carrot and calling it manga.

This has its own problems though. Could a particular style of art by itself just be called distinctive to Japanese culture? Especially when nothing else even suggests a Japanese basis for anything in the comic? You said that the webcomic Irritability, that I linked to above, was a manga...how much reference to anything Japan-related does that have?

Hmm...okay, poor wording on my part. Does the author call it Manga? If so, it is, if not, it isn't.

It's still a very loose definition though, and leaves plenty of room for arguement over whether certain comics would be "manga" or not.

I'm not saying all this to be contrary, I'm just pointing out that so far, we don't have any particular set definition for what these terms actually mean. It's currently, as you noted, more along the lines of "you know it when you see it".

Well, if we go with my (re-worded) definition, then there's no real room for argument.


Perhaps the main problem here is the very fact that we're trying to define a very abstract concept?

 

[frankthedm]

Why ask Why?
Just watch UY!

Urusei Yatsura is a wonderful anime from the Golden age of anime. The main fansite is http://www.furinkan.com/tomobiki/uy/

Released by
www.animeigo.com
They have some great deals on the DVD box sets and
VHS tapes

The manga was released By VIZ. But since they don't have the anime rights, they stopped 1/3 way through. They MIGHT restart now that the Ranma flagship has sailed.

A fan group is picking up the slack http://www.projectilm.com/