Anime By The Numbers
Most anime don't start as anime. Most anime start as manga, or games, or novels. Should that balance be changed around? Or is it what it is?
There was a story that I initially saw on Crunchyroll (you can see it here). It is a breakdown of the sources of the stories for anime since 2000. I won't get into any real detailed specifics. Instead I want to start at the beginning, sort of. I want to focus on the question of why this question is even out there to be answered.
The answer to that is relatively simple. The general impression that is had throughout anime culture is that there are very few anime that didn't start as something else. In other words, few anime are brand new. Virtually all major, big selling, big name, anime started out as a manga or a video game or a visual novel - or at least that is the impression that many tend to have.
And that impression is mostly right, as the data shows. Those three sources account fro a demanding 59% of all anime since 2013. In fact, manga alone is a commanding 40%. Books add another 13% or so. Another 10.5% are sequels to the stuff already done. Only about 13% of all TV anime over the last 13 years are original stories, premiering in that anime not any preceding media format.
Anime fans intuitively had an idea that this was how it broke down. They might not have been able to accurately guess the percentages and numbers, but most probably could have gotten the order right.
So arises the second question. Why is it like this?
In my opinion the source is irrelevant so long as the end product is good. Hence, originals are the biggest risk, thus why they're not too regular.
If it starts in another media, particularly the less costly options of books, novels, and manga, a story has the benefit of being tested to some degree and thereby establishing a base. Ideally this would even offer the opportunity to improve on aspects that were not as good as they could be.
On the other hand, when a story from one of these sources is tweaked at all for an anime, it's blasted as being terrible, thus intuitively suggesting fans want simple recreations, not really all new stuff, or even partially new stuff.
That is a bit much of a statement though. Fully original series do well in many instances. But the risk is very high, especially with studios that are often cash-strapped. Paying royalties to adapt someone's work costs much less than hiring a writer to craft an entirely new story. And in the end the original story runs the risk of not being well received. Having no floor, no base that will at least check it out, is a high gamble.
Which brings us back to the beginning, which is the question of whether or not this balance (or imbalance if you prefer) is alright as is or should be adjusted?
I don't really know if I have an answer. I don't necessarily think there needs to be a shift in that breakdown. As I stated, as long as the resulting story is good, its source is more or less irrelevant. That should be the first focus, the second focus, and the third focus. Okay, you might want to consider animation style or something like that for the third focus, but definitely story is number one and two.
Could we use more pure originals? It wouldn't hurt, but it's not really that big a deal.
There was a story that I initially saw on Crunchyroll (you can see it here). It is a breakdown of the sources of the stories for anime since 2000. I won't get into any real detailed specifics. Instead I want to start at the beginning, sort of. I want to focus on the question of why this question is even out there to be answered.
The answer to that is relatively simple. The general impression that is had throughout anime culture is that there are very few anime that didn't start as something else. In other words, few anime are brand new. Virtually all major, big selling, big name, anime started out as a manga or a video game or a visual novel - or at least that is the impression that many tend to have.
And that impression is mostly right, as the data shows. Those three sources account fro a demanding 59% of all anime since 2013. In fact, manga alone is a commanding 40%. Books add another 13% or so. Another 10.5% are sequels to the stuff already done. Only about 13% of all TV anime over the last 13 years are original stories, premiering in that anime not any preceding media format.
Anime fans intuitively had an idea that this was how it broke down. They might not have been able to accurately guess the percentages and numbers, but most probably could have gotten the order right.
So arises the second question. Why is it like this?
In my opinion the source is irrelevant so long as the end product is good. Hence, originals are the biggest risk, thus why they're not too regular.
If it starts in another media, particularly the less costly options of books, novels, and manga, a story has the benefit of being tested to some degree and thereby establishing a base. Ideally this would even offer the opportunity to improve on aspects that were not as good as they could be.
On the other hand, when a story from one of these sources is tweaked at all for an anime, it's blasted as being terrible, thus intuitively suggesting fans want simple recreations, not really all new stuff, or even partially new stuff.
That is a bit much of a statement though. Fully original series do well in many instances. But the risk is very high, especially with studios that are often cash-strapped. Paying royalties to adapt someone's work costs much less than hiring a writer to craft an entirely new story. And in the end the original story runs the risk of not being well received. Having no floor, no base that will at least check it out, is a high gamble.
Which brings us back to the beginning, which is the question of whether or not this balance (or imbalance if you prefer) is alright as is or should be adjusted?
I don't really know if I have an answer. I don't necessarily think there needs to be a shift in that breakdown. As I stated, as long as the resulting story is good, its source is more or less irrelevant. That should be the first focus, the second focus, and the third focus. Okay, you might want to consider animation style or something like that for the third focus, but definitely story is number one and two.
Could we use more pure originals? It wouldn't hurt, but it's not really that big a deal.
Comments
Post a Comment