Things that use the anime conventions - huge eyes, funky hair colours, "action" scenes that are just a set figure (or sometimes two frames of motion) moving slightly against a motion-line background, mouths that have only two positions, generally abysmal production values, random things happening because the plot requires them, characters whose backstories drop them far into "mary sue" territory, "deep" love stories that would not be out of place in a book published by Harlequin, and raving fanboys who haven't bathed yet this decade.
In general, the more of the above you have, the more likely it is to be anime - and the more anime conventions a piece follows, the more it sucks, because the anime conventions are actively bad and make otherwise potentially decent pieces of work suck.
But they do make it really easy to mock, because they're so *easy* to satirise.
Well, if you're going to define "anime" as those things -- all of them bad -- then yes, the only good anime would be parody.
Good anime conventions include: combination of both episodic stories and multiple story-arcs; foreshadowing of future events; a strong amount of research into period and realistic backgrounds; a willingness to kill off any and all characters, up to actually ending the series (the Joe Bob Briggs Drive-In Rule); storylines about darn near anything.
But those items are neither descriptive of nor unique to anime. Those are things you'll find in any good TV.
And a show had all of those and ALSO didn't have crappy animation, stop-motion action lines, and dialog that makes Uwe Boll look like a genius, it would be *better*.
This is really a Sturgeon's Law thing goin' on here. For example:
Why is it that the only good science fiction is the stuff satirising science fiction?
You know, things that use sci-fi conventions - has-been actors, "action" scenes that are gunfights with people standing close enough to poke one another but firing crooked laser blasts from pasted-up hot glue guns or tv remotes (or sometimes laughably bad kung fun with cutaways that barely hide the stunt double), generally abysmal production values, random things happening because the plot requires them, pretty women in push-up bras who speak in breathy voices and have psionic or cybernetic powers, "deep" stories that jerk folks around for season after season letting nerds speculate on web.forums what they actually mean, and raving fanboys who haven't bathed yet in this decade.
The difference is that things with well-done animation and action scenes that aren't "character standing still with action lines, stopped moment of contact, characters standing still post-action" ARE NOT ANIME.
If you don't have big eyes, inadequate animation, and stop-motion screaming attacks, you're violating the genre's conventions, just like "sci-fi" that's set a purely historically accurate Victorian London.
And yes, Star Trek sucked ass too. That doesn't make it either good or any kind of defining criteria to measure sci-fi by.
I don't really like anime either, but if you don't think that the stuff that Hayao Miyazaki makes is good anime, then you're just wrong. If you don't consider Hayao Miyazaki anime, I'd like to know what you do consider it.
For the love of God, already, let the medium grow up.
This is like arguing that Kingdom Come isn't a comic because it doesn't have badly-separated four-colour ink on cheap newsprint, black ink delineating characters, and dialogue which reiterates in-panel actions.
The word "anime" is a term that has been broadly defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime). The problem with this debate is that it takes sweeping generalizations (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Dicto%20simpliciter) and redefines the term "anime" in a narrow way that renders debate impossible. If anime is only made of bad things, and good things are not part of anime but are of something else, then anime cannot be good.
I suppose if that style of debate works for pundits on Fox News, it can work here too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 01:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 01:40 am (UTC)In general, the more of the above you have, the more likely it is to be anime - and the more anime conventions a piece follows, the more it sucks, because the anime conventions are actively bad and make otherwise potentially decent pieces of work suck.
But they do make it really easy to mock, because they're so *easy* to satirise.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 02:02 am (UTC)cat dream?
catnip induced hallucination?
my brain didn't need that
HUH?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 02:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 04:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 04:25 am (UTC)Good anime conventions include: combination of both episodic stories and multiple story-arcs; foreshadowing of future events; a strong amount of research into period and realistic backgrounds; a willingness to kill off any and all characters, up to actually ending the series (the Joe Bob Briggs Drive-In Rule); storylines about darn near anything.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 01:26 pm (UTC)And a show had all of those and ALSO didn't have crappy animation, stop-motion action lines, and dialog that makes Uwe Boll look like a genius, it would be *better*.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 06:25 pm (UTC)Why is it that the only good science fiction is the stuff satirising science fiction?
You know, things that use sci-fi conventions - has-been actors, "action" scenes that are gunfights with people standing close enough to poke one another but firing crooked laser blasts from pasted-up hot glue guns or tv remotes (or sometimes laughably bad kung fun with cutaways that barely hide the stunt double), generally abysmal production values, random things happening because the plot requires them, pretty women in push-up bras who speak in breathy voices and have psionic or cybernetic powers, "deep" stories that jerk folks around for season after season letting nerds speculate on web.forums what they actually mean, and raving fanboys who haven't bathed yet in this decade.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-26 09:18 pm (UTC)If you don't have big eyes, inadequate animation, and stop-motion screaming attacks, you're violating the genre's conventions, just like "sci-fi" that's set a purely historically accurate Victorian London.
And yes, Star Trek sucked ass too. That doesn't make it either good or any kind of defining criteria to measure sci-fi by.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-27 12:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-27 02:49 pm (UTC)This is like arguing that Kingdom Come isn't a comic because it doesn't have badly-separated four-colour ink on cheap newsprint, black ink delineating characters, and dialogue which reiterates in-panel actions.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 01:10 pm (UTC)I suppose if that style of debate works for pundits on Fox News, it can work here too.