From: gavigan@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ryan P. Gavigan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: Re: an honest answer would include .. [was: Why is Anime so popular?]
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:57:44 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Bt6I2n.1uD@CAM.ORG> emru@CAM.ORG (Emru Townsend) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.052150.14196@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> gavigan@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ryan P. Gavigan) writes:
>>>>If you want superior animation in a feature that isn't concerned
>>>>with holding down a "G" rating, you ain't gonna find it on this
>>>>continent.
>>>
>>>_Rock & Rule_.  If you want to be current, then _Bebe's Kids_' character
>>>animation is, at worst, still better than the character animation in the
>>
>>_Rock & Rule, sucks, IMHO, insipid plot with pretty much no explanation
>>of anything going on, though char animation MIGHT be considered better
>>(IT TOOK NELVANA NEARLY FOUR YEARS to do it!).  From what I've seen
>>of Bebe's Kids, the animation is very sloppy (gee, brush strokes, just like
>>MZ23 III 8-), though I like the story idea and am waiting to see it.
>
>I didn't find _R&R_ any more insipid than some anime I've seen (er, do the
>initials BGC come to mind?), and I found it very easy to understand.  I don't
>see what's so hard there.  That Nelvana took four years to do it doesn't mean
>much to me; the animation industry is different between here and there.  Hey,
>Richard William's _The Thief and the Cobbler_ has been in production for about
>a quarter of a century.  Does that mean it's no good?
>
Well, I guess I consider pretty much 99% of anything with anthropomorphic
animal characters fairly insipid anyway.  At least BGC gives somewhat of
an attempt to give scientific explanations than the space opera-ish aspects
of _R&R_.

My spin on the 4 years was that Nelvana had the time invested in order to do a
better job animation wise, not because of that , it wasn't good.

>As I said earlier, _BK_ is inconsistent in terms of animation.  But so was
>_Macross_...
>
The movie of _Macross_?  I think not.  The tv series of _macross_? _sure.  In
terms of animation style and quality, Macross:Love , Do You Remember? is one
of the best done animated films of all time.  Even though it's budget was
likely no more than about 1/10th of any new Disney film.

>>
>>>Why don't people just get with the program?  There's good and bad animation
>>>for a variety of reasons on both sides of the Pacific.
>>
>>BUT, take the numbers, you've mentioned a scant few items , spread over
>>at least ten to fifteen years.  What percentage of all american animation would 
>>anyone consider "good", compared to the percentage of Japanese animation
>>anyone would consider "good".
>>
>In sheer numbers, I'd say the Japanese win.  In percentage, I think we're about even.
>
>Think of how many anime productions were created this year.  Now compare to
>the amount that is technically superior in animation, and/or has a mature
>storyline.  Betcha the percentage is about even.
>
Take 1991, how many animations here in the US would be considered "good"?
MAybe a couple, Batb for animation quality (though 30-40 Million dollars worth
you 'd better get something good) and Ren & Stimpy for breaking new ground
in the american culture with it's stories & humor.  At BEST, others would
be considered average. TTA: booorrrring, trying to throw in stuff to make
it more Ren & stimpy-ish with less dialogue and more surprise-takes, not 
working.  The other "Nicktoons"?  Give me a break, both insipid and crudely
done  the Disney Afternoon stuff?  Better than average TV budgets, but
what do they give us, more insipid Disney plotlines with a little better 
look than some.  Beetlejuice?  Very stupid series used to build from
the movie's popularity, though it has nothing to do with it practically,
build stories around stupid puns every 5 seconds.

What a lot of people take into account with anime is the _directorial_
style.  With American animation I say, "What Direction?" people come on 
screen , talk , leave, like animated stage acting (with exceptions of course).

>>Give GAINAX $30 Million per picture and they would blow Disney out of 
>>the water.
>
>Give *me* $30 mil and I'll blow Disney out of the water.  With that kind of
>a budget, Hollywood resources, and lack of reliance on name actors, anyone
>with a good story and decent animators could do it.

The POINT IS, is that is what DISNEY ALREADY USES, $30 Million ++++ for the
films, not including the marketing for said films, Disney's ADVERTISING
budget for just the 4th quarter last year was something like $90 Million,
so total costs for say something like BatB was something like $40-50 Million.
Give Gainax $30 Million, and they'll blow ANYBODY out of the water.

Ryan Gavigan
gavigan@gn.ecn.purdue.edu