Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

User avatar
Kireblue
Forum Admin
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kireblue » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:30 pm

ah, I see. Yeah, you could be right about that. I guess it just my turn to see how things play out :lol:

User avatar
Kionon
I ♥ the 80's
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:13 pm
Status: Ayukawa MODoka.
Location: I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo... DRIFT, DRIFT, DRIFT
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kionon » Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:56 am

I am opposed to changing our content definition. This definition is not "Japanese" (in Japan "anime" refers to western works as well, most notably Disney, and "manga" covers things like Tin Tin), but this definition is our definition. Both in the sense of coming out of a very Anglo-American-centric definition of anime as Japanese animation distinct from animation which is not Japanese, but also in the sense of how we, the Org, have defined it. In turn, our historical definition boundaries have defined us.

I have always been of the opinion that the Org is at its worst when we try to be everything to everyone. I've brought it up in our admin/mod meetings, and brought it up previously to that. We need to figure out how to preserve our identity while at the same time recognising certain fundamental changes within the hobby. For myself, I believe it's just a fact that we have to accept that the Org will be far smaller, far more insular, and far less influential than it has been in years past. And that's okay.

I'm all for finding new ways to seek out those for whom our community is a good fit, but I'm not at all for changing fundamental aspects of who we are. I think a definition change in what counts as anime, while that may seem minor, is actually an underlying foundation of what sets us apart from other remix communities. Let's be the best us we can be, let's not try to be someone else.
ImageImage
That YouTube Thing.

User avatar
Kireblue
Forum Admin
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kireblue » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:14 am

Kionon wrote:I am opposed to changing our content definition. This definition is not "Japanese" (in Japan "anime" refers to western works as well, most notably Disney, and "manga" covers things like Tin Tin), but this definition is our definition. Both in the sense of coming out of a very Anglo-American-centric definition of anime as Japanese animation distinct from animation which is not Japanese, but also in the sense of how we, the Org, have defined it. In turn, our historical definition boundaries have defined us.

I have always been of the opinion that the Org is at its worst when we try to be everything to everyone. I've brought it up in our admin/mod meetings, and brought it up previously to that. We need to figure out how to preserve our identity while at the same time recognising certain fundamental changes within the hobby. For myself, I believe it's just a fact that we have to accept that the Org will be far smaller, far more insular, and far less influential than it has been in years past. And that's okay.

I'm all for finding new ways to seek out those for whom our community is a good fit, but I'm not at all for changing fundamental aspects of who we are. I think a definition change in what counts as anime, while that may seem minor, is actually an underlying foundation of what sets us apart from other remix communities. Let's be the best us we can be, let's not try to be someone else.
I'm also opposed to changing the site definition to the Japanese definition of anime (meaning all animation). My proposal was to change it to something that allows "Voltron: Legendary Defender" to be allowed despite being produced by Netflix.

Do you also oppose maintaining the current site definition of Japanese Anime, but opening the door for a small subset of entries classified a "Non-Japanese Anime"?

User avatar
Kionon
I ♥ the 80's
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:13 pm
Status: Ayukawa MODoka.
Location: I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo... DRIFT, DRIFT, DRIFT
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kionon » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:28 am

I do.

The first two seasons of the original Voltron, much like Robotech, created a series from Japanese domestic anime sources. By removing the audio, AMV editors are dealing with Japanese source for Japanese audiences. That we call it Voltron and not Beast King Go Lion is of no consequence to the origin of the footage. Additional Voltron series were made exclusively for International markets, specifically North American. Therefore, the footage is not Japanese in origin for a Japanese domestic market and doesn't meet our definition.

As for shows like Avatar, I have from the beginning opposed their inclusion. I'm with CrackTheSky: we already allow vidders to post in a forum for that purpose. This itself was a change, and a gracious one. I think there is only negative going down this road and no positive.
ImageImage
That YouTube Thing.

User avatar
Kireblue
Forum Admin
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kireblue » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:33 am

Kionon wrote:I do.

The first two seasons of the original Voltron, much like Robotech, created a series from Japanese domestic anime sources. By removing the audio, AMV editors are dealing with Japanese source for Japanese audiences. That we call it Voltron and not Beast King Go Lion is of no consequence to the origin of the footage. Additional Voltron series were made exclusively for International markets, specifically North American. Therefore, the footage is not Japanese in origin for a Japanese domestic market and doesn't meet our definition.

As for shows like Avatar, I have from the beginning opposed their inclusion. I'm with CrackTheSky: we already allow vidders to post in a forum for that purpose. This itself was a change, and a gracious one. I think there is only negative going down this road and no positive.
Just confirming. Did you watch the video that I posted? I feel that all of the arguments that you presented were mentioned in the video and defeated with pretty sound logic. For example, part of the video talks about how shows like "Space Dandy" and "Afro Samurai" were produced in Japan, but intended for a international audience, and even premiered in America first. And then there's "Heroman", which was created by Stan Lee and even takes place in America. In that respect, RWBY isn't really that much different considering that it's now a manga series in Japan, and is currently airing and being dubbed in Japan. https://youtu.be/K2ROYyYqCl4?t=58

I personally feel that the site definition worked really well when it was first implemented, but since the anime industry has been evolving over the last decade, we should be wiling to evolve along with it. And like I said before, I'm not in favor of suddenly allowing Disney or every type of animation under the sun. I just think that it would be interesting to loosen the reigns a bit and be more flexible. It also makes it easier to make decisions about certain shows that fit into the grey area of the definition. When confirming anime in the database, I use AnimeNewsNetwork as a guide, but even they list RWBY as a U.S. Original Net Anime https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encycl ... p?id=17739

User avatar
Kionon
I ♥ the 80's
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:13 pm
Status: Ayukawa MODoka.
Location: I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo... DRIFT, DRIFT, DRIFT
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kionon » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:16 am

I'm not familiar with Space Dandy, but I was always iffy on "Afro Samurai." I do not consider RWBY to be anime. Its importation into Japan doesn't make it anime by our current definition.

Where the argument you posted completely lost me was the claim that traditional children's anime, being for children, is not anime. Anpanman and Sazae-san are significant cultural touchstones in Japan, as is Chibi-Maruko-chan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I7H2qspqo8), that's obviously anime. Equally, a lot of Pre-Cure is completely atrocious (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9qXB6H4PU), but I would never entertain the idea that it isn't anime. Then there's 12歳(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FjEofXPZVE), which I am a HUGE fan of (and have written about in Anime Series Discussion), even though it is clearly directed at maybe 3rd or 4th graders in elementary school. There's no possible way you could argue its intended audience makes it not anime.

Sounds to me like we have the classic "obscenity" issue: I can't tell you what anime is (or isn't), but I know it when I see it. Both for our videoblogger and for myself.
ImageImage
That YouTube Thing.

User avatar
XStylus
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 12:11 pm
Status: Fondly enjoying the salty air.
Location: A quaint little village.
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by XStylus » Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:32 am

For the longest time, I used to be a bit of a purist regarding what constitutes an AMV. In the previous decade when Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts AMVs were rampant, I took issue with the fact that they were even permissible. Those are not anime. Fight me.

When I started running AMV competitions, I had plans to eventually start cracking down on that, but that plan actually got turned around in part because of the changing currents of the organization I volunteer for. I.e., SPJA just changed its mission statement, declaring its mission as being for "the promotion of Anime and Manga as well as arts that influence or are influenced by them."

The more I thought about it, the more I found myself okay with that. So, to that end, I relaxed AX's AMV rules regarding what's considered anime. Basically, if it looks like typical Japanese anime and is styled like typical Japanese anime, we won't split hairs about its origins. This explicitly includes Avatar, Korra, Voltron (new and old), and Boondocks. This wouldn't include My Little Pony.

I could foresee people rules-lawyering me by posing the bigger question of what "typical Japanese anime" should look like. After all, there's been several examples of where anime departed from its typical stereotypical norms, such as Panty & Stocking. I could see someone using that as a reason for Samurai Jack, Steven Universe, or Teen Titans to be accepted. To that, I would answer that P&S is not a typical anime, and therefore is an invalid example for comparison. SJ, SU, and TT don't even remotely have a typical anime look to it, and therefore I would not accept them.


TL;DR, my position is that if it looks like typical anime, then fine, but if the desire is to go even further by accepting things that share nothing in common with anime aside from being animated, then the site to me will have lost its core focus. You'd basically be opening the door to nearly anything that that point.
Sakura Con 2013-2019 - AMV something something of something.
Anime Expo 2012-2018 - Emeritus AMV Coordinator

“Understanding is a three-edged sword.” -J. Michael Straczynski

User avatar
Kionon
I ♥ the 80's
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:13 pm
Status: Ayukawa MODoka.
Location: I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo... DRIFT, DRIFT, DRIFT
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kionon » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:15 am

The Org has always been explicitly INCLUSIVE of Japanese produced video games, such as SquareEnix, from the founding. These were quite common pre-ORG on the AMV mailing list and on the con circuit. Therefore, while I concur they are not anime under our definition, they have always been included in what is allowed in the catalog. We're discussing an expansion of our current allowances, but the video games you cite were not a previous expansion. Their inclusion existed from day one.

I, personally, haven't owned a console since the Sega Genesis, and the only video game footage I ever worked with was the cut scenes and fight scenes from the Sega Saturn Utena game, which is anime by anyone's definition. See Quu's Particle Dance.
ImageImage
That YouTube Thing.

User avatar
XStylus
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 12:11 pm
Status: Fondly enjoying the salty air.
Location: A quaint little village.
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by XStylus » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:54 am

Kionon wrote:We're discussing an expansion of our current allowances, but the video games you cite were not a previous expansion. Their inclusion existed from day one.
Indeed, I'm aware, but nevertheless, it is neither anime styled nor based on any anime. Medium aside, it is not anime. The only reason it's allowed on the org is because, as you say, it was prevalent in the community at the time, so therefore it was grandfathered in. Have there been any new non-anime video game sources admitted into the org database since then?
Sakura Con 2013-2019 - AMV something something of something.
Anime Expo 2012-2018 - Emeritus AMV Coordinator

“Understanding is a three-edged sword.” -J. Michael Straczynski

User avatar
Kionon
I ♥ the 80's
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:13 pm
Status: Ayukawa MODoka.
Location: I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo... DRIFT, DRIFT, DRIFT
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Potential Change to the Site Definition of Anime

Post by Kionon » Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:07 am

I was just stating a fact, not necessarily defending it. I can't say what, beyond maybe subsequent Final Fantasy games, newer games may have been included. I don't have a dog in the fight over video game inclusion, as I don't use any video games, but I would rather remove previously included video game music videos than include sources like Avatar/Korra, the new Voltron, etc. I think you can make a stronger case for their exclusion than you can for the source inclusion that kireblue has discussed here.

The legal issues aside, I don't believe our participation problems are best solved by putting our focus here. I feel there are a number of other more important changes we could implement that would lead to greater participation.
ImageImage
That YouTube Thing.

Locked

Return to “Site Announcements”