Why cartoons/anime over real people?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Like I know it's a niche already, but from someone who's skeptical, what do things like cartoons (of all kinds) have that would make people think "I want to watch this over cinema? Like a unique appeal or trait that can't be replicated by actors or humans in general. And no I don't think just the fact it's drawn counts, it has to really be something unique to itself.

There's nearly a much animation in big budget blockbusters these days as there is in anime anyway. Just because it's more photo-realistic doesn't change the fact that it's animated.

[SirCowdog]

Seven Deadly Sins is one of my favorite animes. You couldn't create it without an astronomical CGI budget and even then a lot of scenes would require the human actors to also be animated (like in many of the Marvel films). I don't know what "adult" constitutes in fiction, but I know grown men who have teared up during some of the scenes in it. This is a short clip from the SDS movie, you can see how this would not be possible to produce only using real people.

Steven Universe is such a great series.

Hmm...I don't know that I'd use "Seven Deadly Sins" as a good example of anything but cheese. It's just one trope after another. However, what it IS a good example of is a unique style of show that would absolutely not have the same impact if live actors were used. On that I completely agree.

The same goes for Steven Universe, which would probably have a budget 10 times what it costs to produce the animation. With CGI backgrounds and scenes involving transformations costing ridiculous amounts. The other thing about "Steven Universe" is that it follows the same sort of of format as something like "Samuai Jack". By using a more simplistic art-style, it has the result of the viewer placing more attention and emphasis on the voices, the story, and the music. I'm sure there's a name for this cinematic technique, but I'm not an art student so I couldn't tell you what it is.

[Simca]

is there such a thing as a genuinely mature cartoon though? By genuine I don't mean obscenities and gross out violence just to push up the age rating. I mean like thematically meaningful and believable adult's story.

Sure, there's some. I wish there was more, though. Out of the like 20-ish new anime that come out every year, maybe 1 qualifies as genuinely mature (2 in a good year). I consider myself to an oddity amongst most anime watchers, but I dislike most anime tropes. I don't like the oversized eyes (but I tolerate them). I don't like the 'ecchi' genre or 'fanservice' in general. I don't enjoy over-the-top violence unless it serves a relevant narrative purpose. I don't enjoy narratives that don't take themselves seriously and use their setting or story to advance comedy and try to get people to laugh. I don't enjoy the "slice of life" genre, which is essentially the Japanese equivalent of a sitcom.

I watch anime because it's a place where people are more willing to test out unique ideas than live action series. A lot of this has to do with budget - anime are much cheaper to produce than live action series, especially about science fiction or fantasy concepts. Science fiction and fantasy are extremely expensive to produce as a live action series because, well, they don't exist in reality and have to be rendered via CGI or done with lots of special effects. In cartoons/anime/drawn media, these concepts cost nothing extra.

Here's the best examples of what I'm talking about from my list of favorites:

• Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
• Monster
• Psycho-Pass (Season 1)

None of these series have any comedy sections basically or any pointless nudity. They take their plots incredibly seriously and deal with complicated moral and/or philosophical issues.

Ghost in the Shell deals with issues relating to individuality in an incredibly connected futuristic society. How can somebody be an individual when nearly everything that defines a person can be replaced? Brains, hearts, limbs - in this society, all of that can be replaced with ease. The only thing left that's truly individualized and unique is human consciousness itself, and technology is encroaching even on that sacred limitation. Ghost in the Shell follows Public Security Section Nine, an elite special operatives unit consisting of cyborgs (with one exception, a veteran police detective), and they use this group as a narrative vehicle to explore some really interesting concepts. That's on top of just solving cool cases and great action scenes. It's like many different American crime dramas except set in the future and with an actual philosophical point behind it.

Monster is very interesting to me, particularly, coming from an American perspective. For us, capital punishment is nothing big. Support for capital punishment in the States is astronomically high compared to Germany (the country Monster takes place in). The protagonist of Monster is a surgeon who ignores an order to operate on the Mayor of his city because an injured little boy who was shot in the head was there first. The Mayor dies, and the boy survives. However, the boy goes on to become a vicious and violent serial killer, who leaves behind an incredibly large trail of bodies wherever he goes. The surgeon is wrongly accused of some of these murders and goes on the hunt in pursuit of the real killer. Along the way, he learns to properly use a gun and is determined to take the life of the boy he once saved. It's a very long series (64 episodes) and deals very heavily with the moral issues of taking a life and the risk of saving a life when you don't know what that person is truly like. In fact, there's an episode where literally the protagonist begins pulling the trigger to his rifle at the start of the episode and finishes pulling it at the end of the episode. That is how focused this show is on morality.

Psycho-Pass is also set in a futuristic city. The closest comparison to Psycho-Pass is probably the movie Minority Report (which I loved, by the way). Instead of using precognitive powers as the way to stop crime though, the Psycho-Pass system implemented in the city in the show actively scans the brains of all persons who get near a Psycho-Pass scanner. Their violent thoughts get distilled into a single 'Crime Coefficient' - or the likelihood that they are going to commit a violent crime in the future. The opening episode hooks viewers incredibly quickly with a really interesting dilemma. A drug user whose Psycho-Pass has reached a dangerous level kidnaps and sexually assaults a woman in response to getting a bad psych evaluation. This criminal is killed, but the woman who was sexually assaulted is scanned by the officers of the Public Safety Bureau and is determined to have a Psycho-Pass that is entering dangerous levels also. This is because the trauma of being sexually assaulted is deeply disruptive (obviously), and it's especially damaging to people in this city because they live lives that are so completely isolated from crime. Criminal events are so incredibly uncommon and unlikely that it has caused people to be highly sensitive to them when they do actually happen. Anyway, that's just the premise of the initial episode, and I found this series' take on both morality and future potential technology to be utterly captivating.

Something I didn't mention is that Steins;Gate is probably my favorite anime of all-time, but it slightly deviates from what I usually want out of an anime so I left it off that list. It has a bit of fanservice, a bit of comedy, and there's a bit of "slice of life" in there as well. I make exceptions for it because it does all of that with an ulterior motive: it sets up the series from that context and then halfway through it flips everything on its head and suddenly it's an incredibly complex and interesting time travel plot where restoring the status quo requires sacrifice that goes against everything that was built up so far. Basically, it does things I don't like in order to set up an even better payoff later.

The reason these series are unique to the medium of anime is not really because they're stories that only Japanese minds can produce, but it's because creating something of this scope in a live action format would be too expensive for an unproven concept. Maybe the right showrunner could get something like this started from scratch in the West (I mean the West has things like Dollhouse, Twin Peaks, and Firefly - it's not like it's devoid of talent at all), but the amount of people with the right level of pull to do something like that could be counted on your fingers. Basically, anime can be considered another outlet for interesting ideas. I continue to simultaneously keep a close watch on interesting series that come from both places. If it's got an interesting premise that hasn't been explored too frequently before, then it's off to a fantastic start in my opinion.

[Sughs]

I enjoy both. Anime has really cool moments that would be hard to replicate in movies with real people.

[Simca]

I have honestly never seen an animation convey the emotion a human being can. I don't understand people who suggest animation can be more emotive or display the range of real, human actors.

Animation exists in the same space CGI does, imo: to exaggerate and embellish plot/action in ways that real people couldn't hope to achieve themselves. It is an extension of the visual arts, but I don't know that I've ever seen "the best animation" outdo "the best acting," at least on the emotional/character side of things.

And I don't take seriously the people who think drawn characters can match the expressiveness of real (good) actors. At best they can match the dialogue of one - but never the expression.

I don't really care that much about the quality of acting and never have. If it's at least like a 4/10 or 5/10 acting job, it's good enough for me.

Acting is just a delivery method for the narrative. Delivery is something - acting isn't pointless, but it's a minor point. If the narrative is conveyed to the viewer without the audience taking exception to unusually bad acting, then the actors have accomplished their jobs.

I can be touched by incredibly good acting and it can sometimes redeem aspects of a narrative, but I've found this to be equally true of good voice acting and animation. Overall, I still think acting generally takes a heavy backseat to narrative. It's why I don't bother to learn the names of actors either. Might as well name them things like 'mostly competent actor A'.

[Lane]

Hmm...I don't know that I'd use "Seven Deadly Sins" as a good example of anything but cheese. It's just one trope after another.

Can you give examples? I'm not an anime connoisseur, in fact, I disliked it for many years because all the ones I saw I thought sucked, including Cowboy Bebop. I don't personally find SDS cheesy at all, but maybe that's subjective.

The other thing about "Steven Universe" is that it follows the same sort of of format as something like "Samuai Jack". By using a more simplistic art-style, it has the result of the viewer placing more attention and emphasis on the voices, the story, and the music.

Based solely on SU's art style I didn't expect to like it, but the writing for the most part has been engrossing.

[SirCowdog]

Can you give examples? I'm not an anime connoisseur, in fact, I disliked it for many years because all the ones I saw I thought sucked, including Cowboy Bebop. I don't personally find SDS cheesy at all, but maybe that's subjective.

It's absolutely subjective. Although that you didn't enjoy Cowboy Bebop means you just have bad taste! XD

As for examples, I don't even know where to start. It's got almost every anime trope that's ever existed. Shirtless cool edgelords, timid big breasted princess, pervy hero, overpowered secret abilities, transformations, tragic histories, etc, etc, ad infinitum. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. But it's definitely riding the high end of the cheese scale. So much of it is eye-rolling over the top that it's hard to stomach sometimes.

Based solely on SU's art style I didn't expect to like it, but the writing for the most part has been engrossing.

Now imagine SU live, with mediocre teenage actors. Scratch that. Imagine it with GOOD live actors and it still wouldn't carry the same effect.

[eschatological]

I don't really care that much about the quality of acting and never have. If it's at least like a 4/10 or 5/10 acting job, it's good enough for me.

Acting is just a delivery method for the narrative. Delivery is something - acting isn't pointless, but it's a minor point. If the narrative is conveyed to the viewer without the audience taking exception to unusually bad acting, then the actors have accomplished their jobs.

I can be touched by incredibly good acting and it can sometimes redeem aspects of a narrative, but I've found this to be equally true of good voice acting and animation. Overall, I still think acting generally takes a heavy backseat to narrative. It's why I don't bother to learn the names of actors either. Might as well name them things like 'mostly competent actor A'.

I disagree strongly, but it's of course, all opinion. To me, characters are the interesting, driving force of a piece of work, narrative secondary. For me, that's true in literature as well - I love Dostoevsky, considered a largely psychological writer, who wrote 800 pages books whose plot I could summarize in less than 2 pages.

Even a series like LOST, I liked the ending because I loved those characters, and was never really caught up in the mystery of the island or what the smoke monster was, etc. I just loved all these broken people who found themselves starting over on the island, and what each one of them did with it.

I could watch character studies all day. That's why I love shows like Better Call Saul.

[Jotaux]

I don't even think its the visuals or what you can do with a smaller budget, a good story is a good story. With animation, creators just seem more willing to take risks. I would love to see a Diablo animated series similar to Castlevania.

[TheRainman]

so why does Hollywood and social media deem it all kids shit then?

Yep. We should all use Hollywood and social media as the barometer as to how we judge things for ourselves.

[vindicatorx]

Like I know it's a niche already, but from someone who's skeptical, what do things like cartoons (of all kinds) have that would make people think "I want to watch this over cinema? Like a unique appeal or trait that can't be replicated by actors or humans in general. And no I don't think just the fact it's drawn counts, it has to really be something unique to itself.

Why? I like it mainly. For the most part anime is cheaper to produce than a live action show. I enjoy Eastern storytelling as it is usually different than what we see in the US. I don't need an explosion or cheesy special effects to keep my attention.

[Loveliest]

Animations are a medium like any other to tell a story. Don't generalize based on the limited information you have in your country. For example, in my country I only know of Mickey Mouse comic books that are meant for kids - that doesn't mean there aren't many more genres out there for comics, loads of them dedicated to adults and touching on all sorts of subjects.
Same with animations - they're widely known in some countries as "cartoons for kids", but that doesn't mean you don't have entire animated series with serious subjects. Or any number of genres.

The advantage with animation is that it isn't as limited as using real people and settings. For example high fantasy characters and settings work a lot better being animated than trying to recreate with people. And I bet they're also a lot cheaper to make - and because of this there's probably a bigger offer out there than with series and movies.
Even in movies nowadays a lot of things are computer-generated, only they look realistic so you don't realize it's fake. Yet somehow, because of the culture of the country you live in, watching something like Jungle Book live action seems "superior" to watching a cartoon.

I'll give you another example - an older friend of mine tried watching Game of Thrones and dismissed it because of the dragons, calling it silly and meant for kids. It's a misconception because seeing fantasy animated creature equals "for kids" in his mind. As do "cartoons" for a lot of people. Probably no one here will be able to make you think or see any different, it takes a lot to open your mind and actually accepting different cultures and views on something that's ingrained in you because of the environment you grew up in.

[Addiena]

Like I know it's a niche already, but from someone who's skeptical, what do things like cartoons (of all kinds) have that would make people think "I want to watch this over cinema? Like a unique appeal or trait that can't be replicated by actors or humans in general. And no I don't think just the fact it's drawn counts, it has to really be something unique to itself.

Im honestly bored to shit with Humans and their boring petty stories, id rather watch Anime movies where there isnt any real world bullshit present and anything can happen.

If I could be any other sentient race than Human, I would be.

[spalernTJ]

I grew up with "The Magic of Disney." And it is that same type of magic I seek out in media to this date. The animated medium, in my opinion, will always be superior in that regard to live-action, because the animated medium is not limited in terms of imagination. You can show me all the live action movies, shows and series in the world, but it will never capture the kind of magic, imagination and raw emotion I gain from animation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzQ6gRAEoy0

https://youtu.be/MWV4lvmBs9Q

Animation also allows something which live action will never be able to truly replicate; speed. Some of the most fun and creative comedies I've seen were animated, and it is most likely because the visuals were able to keep up with the gags.

It's not just anime though, I also find slapstick to be infinitely more fun in animated fun. The original Tom and Jerry are widely renowned as one of the kings when it comes to slapstick humor, and I do not think you could captivate the sense of pain, surrealism and humor in watching a cat getting smacked by mouse, with a giant frying pan, and delivering some of the best screams ever.

Live action can be fine, I don't mind it. But from my own personal perspective and subjective opinion, animated movies, shows and series will always have huge advantages over live action, and will capture my attention and emotion a lot more. You need only compare the songs between the old and new Aladdin; A friend like me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Op1TaXmCw (Old)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1at7kKzBYxI (New)

The visuals in the old, in my opinion, are so much more lively, entertaining and just interesting to look at. The new one feels slower, more cumbersome to me, it's just not what I enjoy.

[Halicia]

From a purely technical standpoint, humans are transient beings and will often age out of roles and a few series/franchises have been cancelled or ruined due to the death of major actors. Animation allows the actor to fit whatever cosmetic appearance the role demands of it, and replacing a voice is usually easier than replacing the whole actor.