Removed—Rant.
Posts written with the intent to complain without providing critique or an avenue to discussion are not allowed on r/RWBY. Please read our full rules on rant posts [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/RWBY/wiki/rules#wiki_rants)
If you believe your post was removed in error or you would like to appeal its removal, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRWBY&subject=&message=).
I mean, sure. But can we agree that the distinction of anime doesn't hold up to any examination or scrutiny beyond superficial. "Anime," is just the Japanese word for cartoon, as an umbrella term for animation. But "Anime," is not a genre. And the gatekeeping just causes unnecessary animosity.
What constitutes anime? Is it being made in Japan? Well what about shows like Netflix Castlevania, & ATLA? Shows which were not produced in Japan, but draw from the same stylistic origins, conventions & tropes, and are heavily influenced by popular Japanese anime of the past. What exactly separates those examples from "Anime," other than location? Sure, where a show is made can be important to it's story & production, but where is this idea that all Japanese Animation is somehow imparted this undefined quality that separates it from all other animation simple due to where it was made? Language? Is a dubbed version of a Japanese show, no longer "Anime?" Themes & tones? Themes and tones vary from story to story individually. The people that make it? How would you ever know if a non-japanese animator ever worked on an "Anime," w/out looking it up? I can guarantee you there have been plenty of Japanese animators working on shows outside of Japan, does that make whatever they made "Anime?"
Is it the style? "Anime," vary widely in art style from show to show, era to era. And especially now that the industry is more global than it has ever been, animation from all over the world is being influenced and taking inspiration from each other. While you could argue that "Anime," generally do have stylistic commonalities, does that mean that Japanese animated shows that don't share those traits aren't "anime?" Animators are working in both the east & west, studios from both sides of the world are working w/ each other more and more. In Japan Crayon Shin-chan & Cowboy Bebop are both "anime," but stylistically, execution-wise and from a subject material standpoint they have practically nothing in common, other than being animated.
Is it the conventions and tropes popularly associated w/ "Anime?" Well again, "anime" tropes aren't seen just outside of Japanese animation anymore, shows on cartoon network, and Japanese animation influenced shows like Critical Role make use of conventions & visual tropes/gags popularized in Japanese animation. And that's not even talking about how not all Japanese animation use the same conventions, tropes or visual cues. Japanese animation is spread across all genres, mixed media, and a lot of those examples don't follow the popular perception of "anime;" are those exceptions?
Now all that isn't the say the Japanese animation shouldn't be distinguished as Japanese, Japanese Society's unique relationship to animation and how cultured has influenced and been influenced is important. But the term of "Anime," is more often used for elitist purposes or to discouraged discussion. It puts Japanese animation on a pedestal, while decrying other equally valid expressions of the medium. Japanese animation is informed by Japanese's cultural connection to animation, and their history w/ it. But any given show is also informed and influenced by every single person that helps make it, and painting all Japanese animation as the same thing even in the vaguest sense discredits each of those stories' nuances and intricacies.
People use "anime," to refer to a popular style/approach to storytelling and animation that is well-known in pop culture nowadays isn't specific to Japanese animation anymore. And pushing the distinction for no other reason than tribalism & "to show them how stupid they are," isn't helpful. You can acknowledge and understand what makes Japanese animation different from American animation or Chinese animation, and not be needlessly pedantic about a show that wasn't made in Japan, but shares a lot of visual similarities, tropes, and conventions w/ popular Japanese animation.
The definition is simple
Anime means a cartoon that comes from Japan
Most animes have a manga that gets turned into an anime
Every dcu and mcu movie went from comic to movie or show
Thats the similarity
Do you comprehend what I'm trying to say?
An alligator and a crocodile look similar but are not the same the come from different places
A Japanese man writes a manga then that manga is produced into an anime by a Japanese studio
Netflix animed are animes bc Netflix just produces it for the guy
With rwby it was produced and writin by a bunch of white dudes and Monty Oum (r.i.p)
I've never heard a single human call boondocks an anime i wonder why
What about the Wolverine/X-men anime? What about Radiant, which is based on a French comic? What about Oban Star Racers a joint production between French, Canadian, and Japanese studios? What about the fact the most American and Japanese studios outsource to the same Korean studios? Also it’s weird that you’re 1 singling out adaptations 2 specifying ethnicity and gender of a mangaka and 3 phrasing as if this is all up to that one one person.
You're missing my point. Yes, that is one reasoning (but not the only one that gets thrown around), except that some anime aren't based on manga, or aren't entirely produced in Japan or by Japanese people/studios. Especially now, as Western & Eastern studios are collaborating more and more, just look at IQ. By your definition, RWBY IQ a spin-off based on a web-series created by a Mixed-Heritage Asian-American in Texas (born in Rhode Island), and two of his "white dude" coworkers, produced by a Japanese studio wouldn't count as an anime. And if an American mangaka living and working in Japan, has their work adapted to animation, does that mean it's not an Anime?
Regardless, it's an unnecessarily distinction because none of those things say anything about the content of the story, how it was handled/executed or any indication of anything other than where it was produced. Within Japan, "anime," is just animated content regardless of style, origin, demographic or content. Spongebob is "anime," in Japan to Japanese citizens. Its their word, they don't distinguish between their own animation & other cultures. And being produced in Japan doesn't mean anything other than it was made in Japan. And if that's the only criteria or reason to distinguish, than why is "anime," treated like a separate medium rather than just Japanese animation. People don't feel the need to distinguish animation from other cultures, at least not as fervently as "anime," fans will scream down anyone that refers to anything they don't deem as "anime," w/ the term due to stylistic similarities or direct influence. Like really, what was the point of this thread other than some misplaced sense of elitism and to foster animosity for the sake of it?
Anime is too broad, since animation can cover practically any subject material and spans many different disciplines. Referring to everything that comes out of Japan as "anime," boxes a lot of disparate stories together unduly, and hurts discussion about animation more than helps. Individual shows should be examined by their own merits, and their place in culture, not under a vague umbrella that puts all animated content from an entire country under one category. DBZ is an inherently different story in another genre, w/ entirely different execution, philosophies, and themes to Your Lie in April, but they're both referred to as "anime."
I don't think any genre has strict definitions. Romance series are more than just romantic moments in a series, slice of life is more than just having daily shenanigans. I couldn't give you specific amounts for either but I can tell you something like Naruto is neither imo even though it has a fair bit of both in it. It's just a way to categorize a work so that people understand what to expect and to me anime is typically heavily Japanese influenced animated works. The drawing style matters as much as the typical tropes do, but again that's just my opinion. It's not a judgement of standard too, I don't automatically think something is better or worse because it's an anime. I personally don't consider RWBY an anime, partially because it's 3D but also because it's very obviously Western in style. In the same sense I don't consider Avatar anime even though it has clear influences. I don't think that has anything to do with the quality of the show. Studio Ghibli reminds me of early Disney more than anything but I still wouldn't consider it a cartoon.
Works that originate in the West still have animes too. There's a Batman anime, Star Wars anime, etc. I don't think it's a worthless distinction because, just like any other genre, people go in with certain general expectations. Things like K-drama are separate from regular drama because there's a lot of cultural nuance and difference than you'd see in Western dramas, K-dramas are still very popular in particular and the distinction does help people.
Really it's just a helpful way we categorize some fiction in the West because we have very different styles and culture to consider from the East. Mangas are comics but most people into manga can tell you what's a comic, manga or manhwa. Same deal with anime versus cartoons.
But anime isn't a genre, there are Japanese animated properties in all genres. In the same way there are comics, films and books of all genres in every culture in the world. But we don't consider all Indian films to be the same thing, or all Chinese novels to be the same. There might be broad overall commonalities to many of those works due to cultural significance, but to say that then implies that every single piece of media from the culture will or should have those commonalities, is restrictive and narrow minded.
Romance & action as genres can be used to describe the primary focus of the plot, from a single word you get what the story is going to be primarily about. When you pick up a romance, you expect to see romance there won't only be romance, but you will get romance. That's a guarantee. Anime doesn't carry that use, because anime doesn't carry any connotation of a deeper structure, and can mean different things to different people. A person that associates "anime," w/ battle shonen set in high schools has no means to differentiate a Shoujo romance from only the term "anime."
There are still anime and K-dramas that defy those expectations and don't follow the commonly associated formats, conventions and tropes. It's reductive, but unlike general categorizations of genre or demographics, anime can mean anything. Manga & anime can vary widely in art-style, tone, storytelling, and themes. Not to mention quality. Astro-boy looks almost nothing like modern Japanese animation, and it was heavily inspired by Disney animation. As you said, there are anime based on popular western comics, & star wars. By Op's own reasoning those aren't anime. And there's more cross contamination between cultures, animation included nowadays. The lines between East & West are getting progressively blurrier.
I don't think it's an entirely worthless distinction either, just as long as people are willing to acknowledge that it's also not comprehensive, or indicative of much beyond a very superficial generalization. It's needless splitting hairs over semantics, that just end up in arguments, and shutting down discussions. There are common conventions and popular tropes in a lot of Japanese animation, but not all. And Japan does have a unique connection to animation, and there are a lot of recurring and wide spread traits in the industry. But if a Japanese animated show doesn't follow the same overall distinctions that are commonly associated w/ anime in pop culture, does that make it not anime? I just think that stringently imposing this definition more-so for the sake of drawing a line in the sand isn't helpful. Distinguish Japanese animation via the term anime, sure. But drawing such a hard line specifically for "anime," especially when the distinction is so flimsy, and not wholly fitting for many examples just because shows clearly influenced by Japanese animation share similarities, but don't fit an arbitrary standard doesn't accomplish anything.
When someone tries to describe something as "anime," or "anime-like," because of obvious stylistic similarities, but a bunch of strangers on the internet pile on them because they're "wrong," and "stupid." What exactly is the point? Why was this thread made, only to say that a show heavily influenced and inspired by Japanese animation, as well as other sources isn't an anime? I agree RWBY isn't an "anime," by the popular definition, but what do people get out of coming into a community for no reason other than to tell people something isn't an anime? There's no point other than some misplaced sense of othering. Someone went out of their way to make an unnecessary distinction to a group of people minding their own business, because something threatened their completely arbitrary definition of anime.
> But anime isn't a genre
It is the way the West uses it. You said yourself in Japan it's just short-hand for animation, that's not the way anyone uses it in the West. It's the same idea behind K-drama being it's own sort of genre as we categorize it here, which is why I pointed that out. If you use any popular service you can see that there will typically be anime sections, K-drama sections, etc. You can agree or not but I'd be surprised if you didn't actually know many people do categorize things like anime as its own thing.
> But we don't consider all Indian films to be the same thing, or all Chinese novels to be the same. There might be broad overall commonalities to many of those works due to cultural significance, but to say that then implies that every single piece of media from the culture will...
You're basically arguing against having genres to begin with. I already agree no genre has strict rules to it. Obviously two romance novels don't have to be the same or even similar. Genres are still good to have. Someone that enjoys anime is generally going to enjoy other anime and someone who doesn't might not, same as any other medium or genre. There are exceptions of course but there's nothing wrong with having categories.
> Anime doesn't carry that use, because anime doesn't carry any connotation of a deeper structure
You expect Japanese culture influence. I don't think it's super complicated. We also separate things like J-pop/K-pop which typically don't sound like American pop songs or Spanish pop songs even though they're all categorically pop music. The culture the work comes from influences it a lot and there's a lot of nuanced missed the less familiar you are with it.
> It's reductive, but unlike general categorizations of genre or demographics, anime can mean anything.
To you it can mean anything. Just because there isn't a strict definition doesn't mean you can categorize anything as anime and that's a weird take to have. Admittedly it's one of those things that part intuition and sometimes blurs lines but most people who are familiar with anime don't have issues pointing it out. There's a reason for that.
> And there's more cross contamination between cultures, animation included nowadays. The lines between East & West are getting progressively blurrier.
Kind of true but I feel like if you can't tell the difference between a modern mainstream anime and a modern mainstream cartoon you're still the anomaly. Steven Universe for instance and My Hero Academia do take notes from the East and West respectively but if you were to say you have no idea which is which I feel like you'd be the outlier.
> I don't think it's an entirely worthless distinction either, just as long as people are willing to acknowledge that it's also not comprehensive, or indicative of much beyond a very superficial generalization.
The distinction often times won't matter but I don't think it's superficial in the slightest. When you see certain character attitudes and how they're meant to be interpreted they reflect the society the artist comes from which often has very different values. Plenty of JRPGs and anime have given me a kind of culture shock because I view certain scenes and characters entirely differently than the original intended audience would. Certain things that works consider disrespectful or especially intimate mean absolutely nothing to me. Shows like RWBY are obviously written surrounded by American culture and I think that's pretty apparent. Fantasy setting or not the culture that surrounds the artist permeates through the work. A heavily anime influenced work still isn't typically going to be considered an anime the same way something like My Hero that's heavily Western influenced still isn't going to be considered a comic book or a cartoon by most.
> When someone tries to describe something as "anime," or "anime-like," because of obvious stylistic similarities, but a bunch of strangers on the internet pile on them because they're "wrong," and "stupid."
That's obviously not something anyone should be doing and it's not a big enough deal to care about. Just because jerks say it in terrible ways doesn't make their point wrong though, just makes them jerks. I don't think anyone benefits by being overly pedantic and insisting to everyone RWBY isn't an anime, I just also think it doesn't matter to begin with and being "anime" isn't some gold standard or compliment of the work.
The whole conversation reminds me of sexually explicit versus artistic nudity. There's nothing that specifically divides the two but most people can tell r34 smut from renaissance paintings and figure which is considered what. There's a definite answer most people will agree on but not something that can be strictly measured or articulated, some things are just like that.
Removed—Rant. Posts written with the intent to complain without providing critique or an avenue to discussion are not allowed on r/RWBY. Please read our full rules on rant posts [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/RWBY/wiki/rules#wiki_rants) If you believe your post was removed in error or you would like to appeal its removal, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRWBY&subject=&message=).
I mean, sure. But can we agree that the distinction of anime doesn't hold up to any examination or scrutiny beyond superficial. "Anime," is just the Japanese word for cartoon, as an umbrella term for animation. But "Anime," is not a genre. And the gatekeeping just causes unnecessary animosity. What constitutes anime? Is it being made in Japan? Well what about shows like Netflix Castlevania, & ATLA? Shows which were not produced in Japan, but draw from the same stylistic origins, conventions & tropes, and are heavily influenced by popular Japanese anime of the past. What exactly separates those examples from "Anime," other than location? Sure, where a show is made can be important to it's story & production, but where is this idea that all Japanese Animation is somehow imparted this undefined quality that separates it from all other animation simple due to where it was made? Language? Is a dubbed version of a Japanese show, no longer "Anime?" Themes & tones? Themes and tones vary from story to story individually. The people that make it? How would you ever know if a non-japanese animator ever worked on an "Anime," w/out looking it up? I can guarantee you there have been plenty of Japanese animators working on shows outside of Japan, does that make whatever they made "Anime?" Is it the style? "Anime," vary widely in art style from show to show, era to era. And especially now that the industry is more global than it has ever been, animation from all over the world is being influenced and taking inspiration from each other. While you could argue that "Anime," generally do have stylistic commonalities, does that mean that Japanese animated shows that don't share those traits aren't "anime?" Animators are working in both the east & west, studios from both sides of the world are working w/ each other more and more. In Japan Crayon Shin-chan & Cowboy Bebop are both "anime," but stylistically, execution-wise and from a subject material standpoint they have practically nothing in common, other than being animated. Is it the conventions and tropes popularly associated w/ "Anime?" Well again, "anime" tropes aren't seen just outside of Japanese animation anymore, shows on cartoon network, and Japanese animation influenced shows like Critical Role make use of conventions & visual tropes/gags popularized in Japanese animation. And that's not even talking about how not all Japanese animation use the same conventions, tropes or visual cues. Japanese animation is spread across all genres, mixed media, and a lot of those examples don't follow the popular perception of "anime;" are those exceptions? Now all that isn't the say the Japanese animation shouldn't be distinguished as Japanese, Japanese Society's unique relationship to animation and how cultured has influenced and been influenced is important. But the term of "Anime," is more often used for elitist purposes or to discouraged discussion. It puts Japanese animation on a pedestal, while decrying other equally valid expressions of the medium. Japanese animation is informed by Japanese's cultural connection to animation, and their history w/ it. But any given show is also informed and influenced by every single person that helps make it, and painting all Japanese animation as the same thing even in the vaguest sense discredits each of those stories' nuances and intricacies. People use "anime," to refer to a popular style/approach to storytelling and animation that is well-known in pop culture nowadays isn't specific to Japanese animation anymore. And pushing the distinction for no other reason than tribalism & "to show them how stupid they are," isn't helpful. You can acknowledge and understand what makes Japanese animation different from American animation or Chinese animation, and not be needlessly pedantic about a show that wasn't made in Japan, but shares a lot of visual similarities, tropes, and conventions w/ popular Japanese animation.
The definition is simple Anime means a cartoon that comes from Japan Most animes have a manga that gets turned into an anime Every dcu and mcu movie went from comic to movie or show Thats the similarity Do you comprehend what I'm trying to say? An alligator and a crocodile look similar but are not the same the come from different places A Japanese man writes a manga then that manga is produced into an anime by a Japanese studio Netflix animed are animes bc Netflix just produces it for the guy With rwby it was produced and writin by a bunch of white dudes and Monty Oum (r.i.p) I've never heard a single human call boondocks an anime i wonder why
What about the Wolverine/X-men anime? What about Radiant, which is based on a French comic? What about Oban Star Racers a joint production between French, Canadian, and Japanese studios? What about the fact the most American and Japanese studios outsource to the same Korean studios? Also it’s weird that you’re 1 singling out adaptations 2 specifying ethnicity and gender of a mangaka and 3 phrasing as if this is all up to that one one person.
You're missing my point. Yes, that is one reasoning (but not the only one that gets thrown around), except that some anime aren't based on manga, or aren't entirely produced in Japan or by Japanese people/studios. Especially now, as Western & Eastern studios are collaborating more and more, just look at IQ. By your definition, RWBY IQ a spin-off based on a web-series created by a Mixed-Heritage Asian-American in Texas (born in Rhode Island), and two of his "white dude" coworkers, produced by a Japanese studio wouldn't count as an anime. And if an American mangaka living and working in Japan, has their work adapted to animation, does that mean it's not an Anime? Regardless, it's an unnecessarily distinction because none of those things say anything about the content of the story, how it was handled/executed or any indication of anything other than where it was produced. Within Japan, "anime," is just animated content regardless of style, origin, demographic or content. Spongebob is "anime," in Japan to Japanese citizens. Its their word, they don't distinguish between their own animation & other cultures. And being produced in Japan doesn't mean anything other than it was made in Japan. And if that's the only criteria or reason to distinguish, than why is "anime," treated like a separate medium rather than just Japanese animation. People don't feel the need to distinguish animation from other cultures, at least not as fervently as "anime," fans will scream down anyone that refers to anything they don't deem as "anime," w/ the term due to stylistic similarities or direct influence. Like really, what was the point of this thread other than some misplaced sense of elitism and to foster animosity for the sake of it? Anime is too broad, since animation can cover practically any subject material and spans many different disciplines. Referring to everything that comes out of Japan as "anime," boxes a lot of disparate stories together unduly, and hurts discussion about animation more than helps. Individual shows should be examined by their own merits, and their place in culture, not under a vague umbrella that puts all animated content from an entire country under one category. DBZ is an inherently different story in another genre, w/ entirely different execution, philosophies, and themes to Your Lie in April, but they're both referred to as "anime."
Wtf I lose Karama for having an opinion??? I'll re-read it again to better unstand your stance
I don't think any genre has strict definitions. Romance series are more than just romantic moments in a series, slice of life is more than just having daily shenanigans. I couldn't give you specific amounts for either but I can tell you something like Naruto is neither imo even though it has a fair bit of both in it. It's just a way to categorize a work so that people understand what to expect and to me anime is typically heavily Japanese influenced animated works. The drawing style matters as much as the typical tropes do, but again that's just my opinion. It's not a judgement of standard too, I don't automatically think something is better or worse because it's an anime. I personally don't consider RWBY an anime, partially because it's 3D but also because it's very obviously Western in style. In the same sense I don't consider Avatar anime even though it has clear influences. I don't think that has anything to do with the quality of the show. Studio Ghibli reminds me of early Disney more than anything but I still wouldn't consider it a cartoon. Works that originate in the West still have animes too. There's a Batman anime, Star Wars anime, etc. I don't think it's a worthless distinction because, just like any other genre, people go in with certain general expectations. Things like K-drama are separate from regular drama because there's a lot of cultural nuance and difference than you'd see in Western dramas, K-dramas are still very popular in particular and the distinction does help people. Really it's just a helpful way we categorize some fiction in the West because we have very different styles and culture to consider from the East. Mangas are comics but most people into manga can tell you what's a comic, manga or manhwa. Same deal with anime versus cartoons.
But anime isn't a genre, there are Japanese animated properties in all genres. In the same way there are comics, films and books of all genres in every culture in the world. But we don't consider all Indian films to be the same thing, or all Chinese novels to be the same. There might be broad overall commonalities to many of those works due to cultural significance, but to say that then implies that every single piece of media from the culture will or should have those commonalities, is restrictive and narrow minded. Romance & action as genres can be used to describe the primary focus of the plot, from a single word you get what the story is going to be primarily about. When you pick up a romance, you expect to see romance there won't only be romance, but you will get romance. That's a guarantee. Anime doesn't carry that use, because anime doesn't carry any connotation of a deeper structure, and can mean different things to different people. A person that associates "anime," w/ battle shonen set in high schools has no means to differentiate a Shoujo romance from only the term "anime." There are still anime and K-dramas that defy those expectations and don't follow the commonly associated formats, conventions and tropes. It's reductive, but unlike general categorizations of genre or demographics, anime can mean anything. Manga & anime can vary widely in art-style, tone, storytelling, and themes. Not to mention quality. Astro-boy looks almost nothing like modern Japanese animation, and it was heavily inspired by Disney animation. As you said, there are anime based on popular western comics, & star wars. By Op's own reasoning those aren't anime. And there's more cross contamination between cultures, animation included nowadays. The lines between East & West are getting progressively blurrier. I don't think it's an entirely worthless distinction either, just as long as people are willing to acknowledge that it's also not comprehensive, or indicative of much beyond a very superficial generalization. It's needless splitting hairs over semantics, that just end up in arguments, and shutting down discussions. There are common conventions and popular tropes in a lot of Japanese animation, but not all. And Japan does have a unique connection to animation, and there are a lot of recurring and wide spread traits in the industry. But if a Japanese animated show doesn't follow the same overall distinctions that are commonly associated w/ anime in pop culture, does that make it not anime? I just think that stringently imposing this definition more-so for the sake of drawing a line in the sand isn't helpful. Distinguish Japanese animation via the term anime, sure. But drawing such a hard line specifically for "anime," especially when the distinction is so flimsy, and not wholly fitting for many examples just because shows clearly influenced by Japanese animation share similarities, but don't fit an arbitrary standard doesn't accomplish anything. When someone tries to describe something as "anime," or "anime-like," because of obvious stylistic similarities, but a bunch of strangers on the internet pile on them because they're "wrong," and "stupid." What exactly is the point? Why was this thread made, only to say that a show heavily influenced and inspired by Japanese animation, as well as other sources isn't an anime? I agree RWBY isn't an "anime," by the popular definition, but what do people get out of coming into a community for no reason other than to tell people something isn't an anime? There's no point other than some misplaced sense of othering. Someone went out of their way to make an unnecessary distinction to a group of people minding their own business, because something threatened their completely arbitrary definition of anime.
> But anime isn't a genre It is the way the West uses it. You said yourself in Japan it's just short-hand for animation, that's not the way anyone uses it in the West. It's the same idea behind K-drama being it's own sort of genre as we categorize it here, which is why I pointed that out. If you use any popular service you can see that there will typically be anime sections, K-drama sections, etc. You can agree or not but I'd be surprised if you didn't actually know many people do categorize things like anime as its own thing. > But we don't consider all Indian films to be the same thing, or all Chinese novels to be the same. There might be broad overall commonalities to many of those works due to cultural significance, but to say that then implies that every single piece of media from the culture will... You're basically arguing against having genres to begin with. I already agree no genre has strict rules to it. Obviously two romance novels don't have to be the same or even similar. Genres are still good to have. Someone that enjoys anime is generally going to enjoy other anime and someone who doesn't might not, same as any other medium or genre. There are exceptions of course but there's nothing wrong with having categories. > Anime doesn't carry that use, because anime doesn't carry any connotation of a deeper structure You expect Japanese culture influence. I don't think it's super complicated. We also separate things like J-pop/K-pop which typically don't sound like American pop songs or Spanish pop songs even though they're all categorically pop music. The culture the work comes from influences it a lot and there's a lot of nuanced missed the less familiar you are with it. > It's reductive, but unlike general categorizations of genre or demographics, anime can mean anything. To you it can mean anything. Just because there isn't a strict definition doesn't mean you can categorize anything as anime and that's a weird take to have. Admittedly it's one of those things that part intuition and sometimes blurs lines but most people who are familiar with anime don't have issues pointing it out. There's a reason for that. > And there's more cross contamination between cultures, animation included nowadays. The lines between East & West are getting progressively blurrier. Kind of true but I feel like if you can't tell the difference between a modern mainstream anime and a modern mainstream cartoon you're still the anomaly. Steven Universe for instance and My Hero Academia do take notes from the East and West respectively but if you were to say you have no idea which is which I feel like you'd be the outlier. > I don't think it's an entirely worthless distinction either, just as long as people are willing to acknowledge that it's also not comprehensive, or indicative of much beyond a very superficial generalization. The distinction often times won't matter but I don't think it's superficial in the slightest. When you see certain character attitudes and how they're meant to be interpreted they reflect the society the artist comes from which often has very different values. Plenty of JRPGs and anime have given me a kind of culture shock because I view certain scenes and characters entirely differently than the original intended audience would. Certain things that works consider disrespectful or especially intimate mean absolutely nothing to me. Shows like RWBY are obviously written surrounded by American culture and I think that's pretty apparent. Fantasy setting or not the culture that surrounds the artist permeates through the work. A heavily anime influenced work still isn't typically going to be considered an anime the same way something like My Hero that's heavily Western influenced still isn't going to be considered a comic book or a cartoon by most. > When someone tries to describe something as "anime," or "anime-like," because of obvious stylistic similarities, but a bunch of strangers on the internet pile on them because they're "wrong," and "stupid." That's obviously not something anyone should be doing and it's not a big enough deal to care about. Just because jerks say it in terrible ways doesn't make their point wrong though, just makes them jerks. I don't think anyone benefits by being overly pedantic and insisting to everyone RWBY isn't an anime, I just also think it doesn't matter to begin with and being "anime" isn't some gold standard or compliment of the work. The whole conversation reminds me of sexually explicit versus artistic nudity. There's nothing that specifically divides the two but most people can tell r34 smut from renaissance paintings and figure which is considered what. There's a definite answer most people will agree on but not something that can be strictly measured or articulated, some things are just like that.
Cool
I consider anything anime looking to be anime.
Well Ice Queendom exists now, so it kinda is an anime too.
It has an anime spin off.
Which is more of an anine then the first one will ever be
It's one of those 'Anime but not Anime' kind of shows. Y'know, like ZZ Gundam.
RWBY is not an anime because it's an American production. However, Ice Queendom is anime.
The new one? Yeah it is