do Japanese people watch American cartoons? - Page 3

On September 07 2009 07:58 Chuiu wrote:
I'm sure they watched the new Speed Racer to laugh at how fucking horrible most new age American cartoons have become.

On September 07 2009 10:19 Cobalt wrote:
Anyway I just wrote about 1700 words on the differences between American animation and Japanese animation and the sheer patheticalness of that makes me worry for myself enough that I need food.

On September 07 2009 10:19 fanatacist wrote:

lol! so good

On September 07 2009 07:17 esla_sol wrote:
the cartoons that are popular here (south park, simpsons, etc) probably lose their hilarity due to cultural changes.

On September 07 2009 09:09 hifriend wrote:

lol, where can I find more of these?

On September 07 2009 10:19 Cobalt wrote:
Anyway I just wrote about 1700 words on the differences between American animation and Japanese animation and the sheer patheticalness of that makes me worry for myself enough that I need food.

Although from what I understand, this is a fairly accurate (if satirical and exaggerated) portrayal of Japanese fans of American cartoons

On September 07 2009 11:12 Jibba wrote:

It should, especially since you understood the comic entirely backward.

It's directed at American fans of Japanese cartoons. Frames 2-4 should be pretty obvious. :/

On September 07 2009 10:06 Humbug wrote:
What about other popular American shows? Like uhh...House, or CSI, or 24 or Heroes or w/e (I don't really watch them >_> ) are those shows popular elsewhere around the world?

On September 07 2009 11:20 29 fps wrote:


people do know about 24 and jack bauer, but not the other ones, i think.

On September 07 2009 10:06 Humbug wrote:
What about other popular American shows? Like uhh...House, or CSI, or 24 or Heroes or w/e (I don't really watch them >_> ) are those shows popular elsewhere around the world?

On September 07 2009 10:19 Cobalt wrote:


Although from what I understand, this is a fairly accurate (if satirical and exaggerated) portrayal of Japanese fans of American cartoons, I think it's important to distinguish between the target audiences of various Japanese anime and American cartoons.

For instance, although they are both cartoons, Spongebob and, say, Death Note, aren't really comparable. Cartoons in America are targeted at a much younger audience than most Japanese anime. If I had to hazard a guess, I would figure that Spongebob is aimed at an audience of 4-12 year olds, even if its rating is Y7. Death Note, on the other hand, is part of a subset of anime traditionally regarded as targeting 7-17 year olds, particularly males. Even then, you have to wonder just how many children age 7-10 would be able to enjoy the show.

Similarly, compare The Fairly Oddparents and Paranoia Agent. The former is supposed to be a childish fantastical cartoon with slapstick humor, while the latter has had full analyses of its symbolism, mystery, social commentary, and remarks on various psychological phenomena.

Regardless of culture, American cartoons and Japanese cartoons are going to appeal to different people, simply because their content is intended to be enjoyed for completely different reasons. Though I guess that isn't really being fair. Granted there definitely exist cartoons that aren't full of ridiculous slapstick. Take Scooby Doo for example, which even used laugh tracks in its episodes the same way sitcoms do because of the similar humor. And there are definitely anime that are as full of crude and "low-level" humor as Spongebob. The biggest difference, I think, lies in the fact that American cartoons are seen as explicitly for younger children (around age 12 is where the shift to live-action shows like Ned's Declassified, Zoey 101, and Drake & Josh begins), whereas the "acceptable" age range for Japanese cartoons is a lot wider.

Because of that, American cartoons are made with the idea of appealing to elementary-school kids in mind, who traditionally enjoy seeing people comically zapped into dust. Japanese cartoons, however, often have the option of doing things like Paranoia Agent, making hidden meanings such as biting social commentary one of the main focuses of the show. Younger children can still enjoy these for their humor, but older children can appreciate their subtleties. Similar tactics are sometimes employed in American children's productions (for instance, Bee Movie's use of what I seem to remember being a parody of David Letterman, which the target audience wouldn't appreciate), but usually they are a side story for the amusement of parents, rather than an underlying focus.

Because of these differences in culture, and in the sort of connotation that anime has in these different cultures, it would seem to me that American cartoons and Japanese cartoons aren't really comparable. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they're animated--and since there are things that can be done only in animation that can't be properly replicated in live action, I would assert that "animation = kids' stuff" doesn't necessarily -have- to be true.

It does make sense that that line of thinking is the current truth, however. Although there are things that can be done in animation that can't be done in live action, the sort of content that would necessitate the use of animation traditionally isn't the sort of content an adult viewer would enjoy. Take the old Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons, for example. An implausible anthropomorphic hedgehog that runs miles in the blink of an eye and whose running animation consists of a continuous circle most definitely would not work in live action. However, what adult would want to see this, when they can see the Miami CSI department investigating a mysterious murder in the real world, with realistic characters, all in live-action? The latter would work in animation, but it isn't necessary. And since live-action work adds a sense of realism that animation simply cannot have, there is literally no benefit to using animation over live action for such a show.

Essentially, animation is ideal for the use the ridiculous and implausible. However, as people grow, they tend to appreciate these things less and less, so they tend toward live action. This leaves children as the only demographic for which using animation is the best idea. A curious exception to this rule is the recent trend of superhero and comic book movies, all of which, as ridiculous as they are, appear to be blockbusters. A potential reason for this is the fact that the comic books being recreated in live action are the same books that would have been read by today's adults: Spiderman, The Fantastic Four, Batman, Superman, etc. Hell, The Dark Knight won how many awards, two of them Oscars? Obviously this would not have been the case had these movies been animated. I guess that the level of realism added by the live action aspect offsets the inherent ridiculousness of a comic book, or perhaps even complements it. After all, apart from the ridiculous outfits and gadgets, Batman isn't too far removed from a potential reality.

My point is that the American cultural belief in the fact that animation is to be reserved for kids' material makes sense, and in fact, it is curious why animation is accepted so much more in Japan. They even have a specific term for anime aimed at men 18 and higher (not due to pornography or other traditional restrictions, but for the fact that only men 18 and higher would probably enjoy it): "seinen." And although the general rule of animation allowing the use of the ridiculous follows in both cultures, "the ridiculous" is different in each one. In the case of America, animators exploit their medium to create slapstick humor and hilariously unrealistic characters, settings, and plot. In Japan, although the unrealistic characters, settings, and plot are retained, they are not generally done so for crude hilarity. In the case of Paranoia Agent, the disturbance factor is greatly increased when things that -should- be ridiculous in-universe can appear the same as the "real" world. Due to things like this, it is apparent that the Japanese are getting full use out of animation to show concepts in a method that live action is unfriendly to. On the other hand, American media often relays the same messages, but in a form more suitable to live action.

If you were to compare these two methods of getting the same message across, do they have the same validity? Are they equal in quality? I would argue that they are not. Realism is an exceptionally important factor when trying to explore a theme or teach a lesson, which leaves live action as a much better method of doing so. Animation is used when the content is too ridiculous for live action to tolerate, and the farther removed from reality the content is, the less effective it is at exploring mature issues. But then, what happens when you want to watch something more mature than Spongebob yet light-hearted enough to be entertaining without having to think? That is where I believe anime has its place, at least in American culture.

Shows like Death Note and Eureka Seven can be watched with either a critical eye or a lazy one, and are enjoyable both ways. Obviously Death Note doesn't explore the human ego and the consequences of giving it godlike power as well as certain novels or live-action TV, and there are things much better than Eureka Seven at delving into problems such as global militarism, reverence for the planet, and persecution of religion. But both of these shows are rife with literary techniques and devices normally reserved for actual literature. Eureka Seven, for example, is pretty much a direct homage to Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough (which makes repeated appearances in the show itself), exploring the marriage of the sun god and the earth goddess, the sacrificial king, and other concepts Frazer himself explores. Shows like these are ideal for people who want a little ridiculousness in their media, while retaining dignity. American cartoons, on the other hand, have virtually no appeal to these people.

Because of this, I believe in the validity of anime as a respectable type of media, insofar as it is the only media that serves the purpose it does: telling a more mature story than American cartoons while retaining some of the ridiculousness characteristic of the animated medium. It is not necessary, however, for anime to be the only media to work in this role. It is entirely possible to create a Western-style cartoon that serves the same purpose (sadly, Avatar is the only one I can think of). And live action can do something very similar, though not quite the same, as it has been doing with superhero and comic book movies. If I had to compare live action, anime, and Western animation on an arbitrary quality scale, I would rank anime in the middle, with live action on top and Western animation on the bottom. I am not so blind as to suggest that anime is equally respectable as live action work, but I do believe it has its place.

TLDR:
In short, anime and American cartoons aren't comparable because of the difference in their intended purpose. American cartoons are targeted at younger children and are animated because the ridiculous slapstick humor and implausible violence (getting zapped into a talking pile of dust, for example) necessary to entertain these younger children aren't usable in live action. Anime, on the other hand, is targeted at a much wider range of people and has a much wider variety of content. There are anime comparable to Spongebob, and there are anime that act as social commentary while exploring psychological issues. Both Western cartoons and Japanese cartoons are animated because their content is far too unrealistic to properly convey in live action, but their differences lead me to believe that anime has its place, and deserves at least some recognition, though most definitely not the same recognition live action work deserves.

Anyway I just wrote about 1700 words on the differences between American animation and Japanese animation and the sheer patheticalness of that makes me worry for myself enough that I need food.