06-22-2004, 12:06 AM
Well, late in to this discussion, but here goes:
I do not think a Digimon series in which the digimon only fight human criminals would work. It might make a nice side-story, or maybe you could findanother way of working it out, where some of the criminals have digimon too, and maybe some of them ARE Digimon. Maybe you build up to the point where it's a sort of mafia with a Digimon like Vandemon (but not Vandemon himself) as the top, so ultimately it does boil down to fighting Digimon.
Now I'll address some of the other things brought up later on...
I am polite, but I am not politically correct. Political correctness leads to the inability to accept negative comments, such as insults or jokes, in a positive manner. But, there are certain policies I agree with in the world of Amrican animation and dubbing, at least concerning what gets televised. Is it wrong to teach children that violence is not the answer? Is it wrong to teach them that there are BETTER ways to handle people than jut fighting and killing them? I don't think it is wrong to do that.
However, I don't think it is right to shield children and say that violence is NEVER the answer. Some enemies, some threats, must be treated with respect and dealt with by their own measure -- murderers must be killed, for example. Many anime have suffered under the modern restrictions of what can be aired, shows like Tenchi Muyo (at least the videos and DVDs weren't edited) and Dragon Ball (original and Z -- I can't say about GT as I've yet to see more than parts of an episode of it). Others have suffered needlessly to be "politically correct", such as Cardcaptor Sakura and Rockman EXE.
Now to address some more... sensitive issues. The children depicted in anime are not REAL children. They are children viewed through the eyes of adults, and as such are often considerably more mature and intelligent (by several years at least) than a real child of comparable age. Even in Japan. A fourth grader, fifth grader, sixth grader... these children, in a real-world situation, are not of the maturity to truly handle the realities of fighting for ones life or killing. Anime children adapt to these situations far better than any of us would IF WE WERE THAT AGE.
You mention Batman and Spiderman. Probably two of the best vengeance-driven heroes out there, each views it a different way. Batman was young when he saw his parents killed, yes. However he didn't immediately begin fighting crime as Batboy after that -- he spent years learning how to fight, learning how to read evidence and clues, and learning how to BE the world's best normal crimefighter. He was an ADULT before he donned the cape and cowl and became the Batman.
Spiderman, on the other hand... Peter parker was in high school when he gained his powers. Physically he was an adult, and he was a science "geek" at that. He initially used his powers to earn money, not to fight crime, and his reaction when asked to stop a single mugger was "Why is it my concern?". If you know anything about Spiderman, you know that the answer bit him in the ass before he started fighting crime as Spiderman: That mugger killed his uncle. But guess what: Spiderman didn't go out and kill the mugger, though he wanted to. In the end he turned the mugger over to the police. A better solution, and one he has applied to every villain where it was possible.
You want to look at other young heroes? Maybe Robin? Robin (the first Robin) was driven by vengeance, but Batman wouldn't let him kill over it. In addition he had the benefit of years of trainign as an acrobat before Bruce Wayne adopted him, and several years of schooling before he began fighting crime with the Batman. Power Pack (Marvel comics, their series lasted about 4 years) were young too, but they didn't go out killing the criminals and supervillains they fought. Does this make them "bad" superheroes or bad role models for kids, because they don't kill? I really doubt it.
There is still the issue of the morality of using Digimon as tools of crime fighting -- if the Digimon has free will, what if they don't AGREE with being used to fight crime. What if the digimon themselves are unwilling to fight human criminals because they know it would be unfair? Digimon partners aren't slaves or objects to simply be told how to act or behave, they have their own unique personality.
Grabjuri:
Maybe you need to look at both sides of the fence before you decide that one side is flawed while the other is perfect. You'll probably see that the flaws on one side are matched on the other, and that it's fine as it is. Try looking at reality instead of fiction -- most children don't feel too much push for independence until junior high school, not upper grammar school.
The reason many anime are not brought to the United States of America is not because they are "offensive," but because nobody is willing to pay the licensing fees to bring them over and the costs to have the script translated, the lines matched to the lip-motions, and to pay voice-actors for the ADR process. If you were right, we would no more have gotten Evangelion than Pokemon -- indeed we'd probably have gotten some other "harmless" show like Doraemon instead of Evangelion.
The bootom line on why many anime are not dubbed is this: Companies usually need to know that they will make back their investment before they undertake a project, and most anime aren't worth it because is spite of the community, there isn't enough reliability in the sales of the "lesser known" series. Sad, but true.
I do not think a Digimon series in which the digimon only fight human criminals would work. It might make a nice side-story, or maybe you could findanother way of working it out, where some of the criminals have digimon too, and maybe some of them ARE Digimon. Maybe you build up to the point where it's a sort of mafia with a Digimon like Vandemon (but not Vandemon himself) as the top, so ultimately it does boil down to fighting Digimon.
Now I'll address some of the other things brought up later on...
I am polite, but I am not politically correct. Political correctness leads to the inability to accept negative comments, such as insults or jokes, in a positive manner. But, there are certain policies I agree with in the world of Amrican animation and dubbing, at least concerning what gets televised. Is it wrong to teach children that violence is not the answer? Is it wrong to teach them that there are BETTER ways to handle people than jut fighting and killing them? I don't think it is wrong to do that.
However, I don't think it is right to shield children and say that violence is NEVER the answer. Some enemies, some threats, must be treated with respect and dealt with by their own measure -- murderers must be killed, for example. Many anime have suffered under the modern restrictions of what can be aired, shows like Tenchi Muyo (at least the videos and DVDs weren't edited) and Dragon Ball (original and Z -- I can't say about GT as I've yet to see more than parts of an episode of it). Others have suffered needlessly to be "politically correct", such as Cardcaptor Sakura and Rockman EXE.
Now to address some more... sensitive issues. The children depicted in anime are not REAL children. They are children viewed through the eyes of adults, and as such are often considerably more mature and intelligent (by several years at least) than a real child of comparable age. Even in Japan. A fourth grader, fifth grader, sixth grader... these children, in a real-world situation, are not of the maturity to truly handle the realities of fighting for ones life or killing. Anime children adapt to these situations far better than any of us would IF WE WERE THAT AGE.
You mention Batman and Spiderman. Probably two of the best vengeance-driven heroes out there, each views it a different way. Batman was young when he saw his parents killed, yes. However he didn't immediately begin fighting crime as Batboy after that -- he spent years learning how to fight, learning how to read evidence and clues, and learning how to BE the world's best normal crimefighter. He was an ADULT before he donned the cape and cowl and became the Batman.
Spiderman, on the other hand... Peter parker was in high school when he gained his powers. Physically he was an adult, and he was a science "geek" at that. He initially used his powers to earn money, not to fight crime, and his reaction when asked to stop a single mugger was "Why is it my concern?". If you know anything about Spiderman, you know that the answer bit him in the ass before he started fighting crime as Spiderman: That mugger killed his uncle. But guess what: Spiderman didn't go out and kill the mugger, though he wanted to. In the end he turned the mugger over to the police. A better solution, and one he has applied to every villain where it was possible.
You want to look at other young heroes? Maybe Robin? Robin (the first Robin) was driven by vengeance, but Batman wouldn't let him kill over it. In addition he had the benefit of years of trainign as an acrobat before Bruce Wayne adopted him, and several years of schooling before he began fighting crime with the Batman. Power Pack (Marvel comics, their series lasted about 4 years) were young too, but they didn't go out killing the criminals and supervillains they fought. Does this make them "bad" superheroes or bad role models for kids, because they don't kill? I really doubt it.
There is still the issue of the morality of using Digimon as tools of crime fighting -- if the Digimon has free will, what if they don't AGREE with being used to fight crime. What if the digimon themselves are unwilling to fight human criminals because they know it would be unfair? Digimon partners aren't slaves or objects to simply be told how to act or behave, they have their own unique personality.
Grabjuri:
Maybe you need to look at both sides of the fence before you decide that one side is flawed while the other is perfect. You'll probably see that the flaws on one side are matched on the other, and that it's fine as it is. Try looking at reality instead of fiction -- most children don't feel too much push for independence until junior high school, not upper grammar school.
The reason many anime are not brought to the United States of America is not because they are "offensive," but because nobody is willing to pay the licensing fees to bring them over and the costs to have the script translated, the lines matched to the lip-motions, and to pay voice-actors for the ADR process. If you were right, we would no more have gotten Evangelion than Pokemon -- indeed we'd probably have gotten some other "harmless" show like Doraemon instead of Evangelion.
The bootom line on why many anime are not dubbed is this: Companies usually need to know that they will make back their investment before they undertake a project, and most anime aren't worth it because is spite of the community, there isn't enough reliability in the sales of the "lesser known" series. Sad, but true.