Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu
However, I would question Crayon Shin Chan, as a Japanese cartoon. Rather than as an anime, because visually, it is on the same level as Spongebob. Many will retain Shin Chan as anime, based on previous points of "production in Japan" and "made for the Japanese audience". Well, out of all the "anime", Shin Chan is one of the most "cartoony".
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhl88
I just deny it with all my power.
I question Shin-chan cause it doesn't look like anime. Pokemon, Speed Racer, Robotech, Nanoha look like anime. Shin-chan looks like some amateurish cartoon, even if it is anime.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan
Could we say.. not all Japanese animation are anime?
|
But why would you do this? If that were to be the case, if anime were not just a shorthand term for Japanese animation, then may I ask, what is your definition of anime? I am curious, also to all of you guys. Also under this same definition Avatar would be considered an anime correct? Since I think you all are saying anime is a style.
I only use the word anime as shorthand for Japanese animation. Though I also call them cartoons sometimes, and when I speak Japanese of course I call anything animated anime no matter where it came from. I personally refrain from implying that anime is a style, and that anime just means animation that came from a Japanese company, that's it. For styles I prefer to get specific, like mukoku seki (sic) or realistic or highly stylized or etc.