Technical question because i am curious

It's just animation. A regional dividing line doesn't really mean anything.

Fuck off your obliquities, faggot.

Naw. Live action. If you want to get technical, you could say it's like Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

The dividing line is simply what language the original audio track was in. Granted, there are still some cases where that definition doesn't work, like series without audio or cases like Ultimate Muscle season 2 where the Japanese version is a dub of the English version.

It literally does user, that's exactly what the word means in Japan.

Anime and cartoons are just 2 words used to differentiate where Cartoons are created from. In the end of a day, an anime is a Japanese Cartoon and a cartoon is an American Anime. All that really matters is where its released or televised, and thats generally what its called, or, who it was developed by. But its all semantics.

the cgi rules are just like the puppet rules
it's Cred Forums if the cgi or animatronics are meant to represent a character that isn't convincingly real, but a literal puppet on someone's hand, or like you know you're watching animation
if you are meant to forget what you're watching is being simulated, then it becomes Cred Forums

It's a cartoon as long as it's video footage where drawn (or 3D-modeled) pictures move. If it's done by Japanese people, then it's a Japanese cartoon and can also be called anime.

As for the separation between anime and Western cartoons, sometimes I'm not all that sure. As a kid I used to watch a lot of stuff that I just saw as normal cartoons, but later learned they were actually anime series (for example Moomins, Nils Holgersson, Alfred J Kwak, Maya the Honey Bee, etc). The stories were European works but the animation was done by the Japanese. I always feel a bit uncertain about whether discussion of these works should belong on Cred Forums or Cred Forums.

Oh, that's actually a pretty good way to make the distinction.

>The dividing line is simply what language the original audio track was in.

That would make Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust a cartoon and not an anime, which I don't think anyone would agree with you on.

Anime is art.

Cartoons are product.

Where is this idea of cartoon meaning western coming from? In my day we said anime has cartoons and non-cartoons (say, dr. slump and dragon ball z) just as western shit has cartoons and 'animated series' (freakazoid and btas, if you like). even though those examples have the same artist

by characteristics:

Anime= mature, attractive and serious.

Cartoon= kiddy, ugly and comedic

Also, by origin: not all non japanese animation are cartoons but all japanese original Animation is Anime.

why do western cartoons need to be ugly though

Because they are cartoons, they are supposed to be unattractive ib order to be funny and kid-friendly, though most people seem to use this as an excuse to be lazy.

As long as it's not 100% jap it counts, otherwise it would just exclude too much.
Also I'm pretty this summons the Famicom.

So BTAS is Cred Forums?

Anime is literally the jap term for cartoon. Tom & Jerry is considered anime in Japan.

So Waltz with Bashir is anime?

>animated by a japanese studio
Yes.

Anime is cartoons, but not all cartoons are anime. If it's from Japan, it's anime. Avatar: The Last Airbender is a cartoon that looks like an anime.
There, that was easy.

Ur dumb.

That's literally how it works.
Anything animated by TMS, Mook Animation, or any other Japanese studio for a western production is, by definition, also an anime.

It's literally your criteria. There's no fundamental difference between Western cartoons animated in Korea or in Japan. Hell some shows switch during production.

You had this thread on Cred Forums, OP.

...

Definately not, anime purist even claim that 3dcg animations from Japan are NOT anime, even less an Israeli one.

Is not a cartoon either, not all non Japanese Animations are cartoons, CARTOON IS NOT A SYNONIM OF ANIMATION, that movie you talk abut is just an animated feature, but is neither Anime or cartoon, Anime has a very specific sets of visuals it must have to be considered anime on top of its Japanese Origin.

Yeah, he is just bitter his childhood movie is not Anime.

I can never tell if these are clever baiting or honestly clueless retards

Like I said, there are odd exceptions where that definition doesn't work, but they're pretty few and far between.

FYI

Japan outsources all of its in-betweening to South Korea and even much of its key frame animation.

So by the criteria of you weebs, most anime doesn't even qualify as anime since they're made in South Korea, not Japan.

But it has anime designs, OP's pic looks odd because it has ugly western designs, even when technically correct, western artist do not like or even FEAR of making atractive characters so they dont be deemed as "vulgar" or """""""""""sexist"""""""""""""""

Honestly I don't think is as simple as looking at where it's actually animated, as the manual labour bulk isn't really the crucial factor; the art direction, producing, creating the show and the setting and the themes and the script etc etc are more important.

So if it's truly made in Japan, it's no doubt anime, but when it's thought up, planned, scripted and designed by westerners who only commission the mindless labour execution part from a japanese studio, it's not anime. especially if the style is not typically Japanese and they're expected to strictly adhere to the foreign style, like with Moomin.

It's a pointless definition game that's even more frustrating as animation becomes more international.

Honestly, the divide annoys me and makes it more difficult to find the good stuff between countries.

All key-frames are still done in house you retard.

A cartoon is an animated caricature, roughly speaking. Other terms like anime refer to cartoons from specific origins.

In general, when people make distinctions between eastern/western or U.S./European cartoons, they are making the distinction of where it was developed and the concept put together. An American cartoon or a French cartoon is considered American or French, respectively, even though the majority of the animation frames might've been drawn in Korea. A big reason for this is probably because the animation itself is not as relevant as the art style choice, the story, the pacing, or the tone and theme of an animation. All those are handled by the original development studio, whereas shipping off the grunt work to another studio means their input is mostly drawing panels which fit well enough in between the rest.

Why? Probably because the general public are more concerned about the characters and the story than the specific animation quality - much like, how in a movie, people care more about the actors and what is going on over the specific choices of camera angles. I'm sure that a part of this is intentionally ignoring or avoiding the topic of foreign involvement - people thinking about U.S. cartoons and U.S. movies probably don't want to think of them being made in Korea, so they focus more on the designers over the bulk animators.

>All key-frames are still done in house you retard.

Oh, at The Anime Studio; the singular animation studio in Japan where all anime comes from?

I HAD NO IDEA!

An animated cartoon or cartoon is an animation relying on drawn images, and not puppets or clay or such. It doesn't have to be a caricature, it just often ends up being more or less simplified because it's easier to animate like that.

You joke around but The Anime Studio is actually the name of an anime studio.

Are you kidding me right now? Go look at shows from every decade, 40s,50s, 60s, etc. to now made from america vs japan or any other country, and if you can still sit there and tell ME they look the same, you're a disingenuous moron who should have their eyes checked and brain examined for mental deficiencies.

The tricky part with that definition is that CG animations are considered cartoons, which are clearly not drawn images. There's also the tricky part where, if you are drawing (or more commonly, using CGI) over a real life object or person, then it isn't generally considered a cartoon. Most people would call Frozen a cartoon movie, but most people would not call Planet of the Apes one - despite using similar computer generated imagery to create the apes' appearances.

The line drawn is simply "How much of this is animated?", I think. Take Who Framed Roger Rabbit. So much of it takes place in a live action world that you could refrain from calling it an animated movie and have something of a leg to stand on.

because cartoons are weird looking and deformed duh.

>Vampire Hunter D

Holy shit, it's been too long

Aren't they suppose to be releasing a tv show like Berserk or something?

Hopefully it's not too terrible

>A cartoon is an animated caricature, roughly speaking.

I just want to point out that "cartoon" does not necessarily imply animation. Family Circus is a cartoon. Same with Far Side. Gary Larson is a cartoonist. Cartooning is really about exaggeration and/or simplification of drawn subjects (in other words, not being completely photorealistic), whether they be animated or not.