This.


It's funny that when you were talking about american animation you found so many differences, but when it comes to Myazaki you find his films pretty similar while ignoring this:

In the end, Japanese animation comes in all kinds of genres, so that each viewer could find what he's interested in. If you want color and confusion you'll find Satoshi Kons work enjoyable, you want sci-fi or mecha you'll watch GiTS Patlabor or NGE, if you want fantasy and thriller you'll enjoy Advent Children and Spirit's Within. American animation never gave such assortment.

I don't agree with this. American animation has many different subjects that suit all.

You've got your fun family movies, from The Lion King to Treasure Planet, Aladin, 101 Dalmations and the Prince of Egypt.

You've got mature, yet all aged movies, such as Shrek, Over the Hedge and the Simpsons.

You've got strict adult animation, such as South Park.

Of course, the Japanese do have more animation, and it is hard to think off the top of my head good American films. This has a reason, however. The Japanese are not simply naturally talented at animations, they simply have a smaller country. American has much work available, and Japan does also, yet they have much less land.

So many people living in smaller apartments with fewer rural jobs available = many people either skilled at computers, or interested in electronic entertainment. Hence, the market is there to supply the demands of these people.

So perhaps Japan does have more of a variety, but it is a reasonable explanation, and when you go looking for a decent American animation movie, it is not hard to find, even if you've probably already seen it before...

Oh, but I already wrote about why I don't think these movies are all just shiny HAHA movies, so I don't feel like I need to talk about that again.

I don't see the quirky little details as something that makes one movie stand out from another. Quriky little details are something found in all films. UP had wonderful details of what a dog acts like. Finding Nemo had SO much research on sea life, and got many details on how different groups of sea life behave. The Incredibles had details on what the 1950s were like in a communist era. I think these details give much more definition than how a girl puts on her shoes - which is, by the way, something that everyone appreciates so much because Spirited Away had that little documentary at the end about it. In my opinion, that documentary glorified those small details - details that are found in many films and TV shows. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE Spirited Away.

What I can agree with is the clear cut idea og good vs. evil found in American films. Generally, I think that idea is found in American films because of the general culture. In history, American films and literature have often had a way of saying "THIS IS THE BAD GUY" and "THIS IS THE GOOD GUY." Looking at American comics, especially. However, I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing. As far as entertainment goes, I personally like a clear-cut conflict. It's nice to understand the bad guys, which is definitely something that American films do. For example, the audience understands why Buddy from The Incredibles has such a grudge; and the audience understand why the explorer in UP wants to catch the bird so badly. I think American films will say who the bad guy is, but that they also give understanding and humanity to that character, making it - in my opinion - more entertaining.

That's why I went on to say that American movies humanize the bad guy, so that we understand them and see it from their point of view. We get their side of the story. We still understand that they are the character that's causing the conflict.

I thought we were talking about the animation and not story?

Incredibles had better CGI effects.

For the whole topic? I'm talking about both story and animation.

As for today's mainstream quality animations from America, this is what is boiled up to.

http://www.memedepot.com/uploads/500...dreamworks.gif (Warning: Too big)

I've actually never seen the documentary; I had no idea it existed until you mentioned it. Have to look it up, but no, what made the quirks stand out is that you watch it and think "hey, wow, that's not just a generalized motion- that's really human." An affect that for a 2D hand-drawn animation is real talent and shows real care and attention. Anyone can do research but it takes something more to deliver a 'real' moment in a cartoon fantasy. That's why I think the quirks in asian cinema are a real boon.

I kind of disagree with your view of American film villains- I don't think they ARE humanized. Someone mentioned the villain in The Incredibles. His motive... was banal. "I'm not famous, boo hoo, I'm going to blame you and take a petty revenge", that's not an understanding or humanized that's a cookie-cutter villain who is bad for what boils down to no reason at all. It's "And I would have gotten away with it too...bah!". You're not supposed to really root for them, asides maybe to think them pitiful.

Compare that with Blue Sub 6 in which it starts off with everyone saying the 'villain' is evil, and they are the force of good, but the 'villain''s motive isn't explained at that point and it evolves over the course of the film into a very grey moral area. He wipes out half the human race but only in order to save humanity as a whole, and there you can really see both sides of the equation and your loyalty can go either way. Even the protagonist doesn't want to see him dead. He's twisted, but underneath the twisted-ness is a person who generally wants to do good, for both parties, and moreover is willing to take the punishment it warrants without complaint. "Kill me", he says sincerely, "If it will make you feel better". That is not your usual villain. Princess Monoke is another good example. The leader of Iron Town is foul to the forest spirits, but is simultaneously a philanthropist, adopting ex-prostitutes and lepers no one else would look after with open arms.

Humanizing is an essential quality of writing - not only in films, but in novels and in anything with a story that has characters. It's important to humanize a character, whether they're the one causing the conflict or not - and whether they're human or not.

I already told you my opinion on the last issue, so I don't feel like I need to repeat myself with that.

It goes beyond Buddy not being famous. It was the play on the idea of heroes working alone - a Batman and Robin kind of complex. Mr. Incredible out right rejected Buddy. Rejection is something that all humans can recognize and feel. On top of that, Buddy wanted to be special. The idea of being special is something that ran throughout the film. Violet, the daughter, didn't like that she was so special, while the son Dash wanted to show off that he was special. Buddy, on the other hand, wasn't special at all. He had to build inventions so that he could compete with heroes. There's a line in the movie where Buddy reveals that he's going to make inventions to make everyone "super" (short for superhero). He laughs and says, "And when everyone is super - no one will be." (Believe me, I've seen this film so many times that I almost have it memorized.) The fact that he wants everyone to be special, thus making everyone at the same level, is also a humanizing factor. People can recognize the feeling of wanting to be special. People understand the motives behind Buddy's "evilness" of making sure that no one will be special so that he has the fair opportunity of competing. Revenge was a part of it - something put in so that younger children can understand the movie more clearly - but there's so much more to the character of Buddy than revenge. So, in short, the humanizing of Buddy goes far beyond him being upset that he's not famous. I'm not sure if fame had anything to do with the movie.

I've seen both movies, and understand what you're saying. I also agree with you. I just don't think that humanized characters are only found in Japanese films.