Watching Glitter Force on Netflix (Glitter Force 2 I believe) I immediately noticed that the work was outsourced to some studio from Japan.

When the role of the rich girl was introduced I wondered: why in most animes rich people seem like they deserve to be rich (from all angles) while in most Western shows most characters in this role are all the opposite?

Or maybe that just the kind of shows I did happen to pick, by my luck.

This is not a 100% rule, but statistically it seems that way. With around 70+% in favor of rich people being the bad guys in Western shows while they are the good guys or at least super cool in Eastern shows.

Update: whatever the story behind Glitter Force production, I'm counting it as anime, with rich people being useful supporting characters and without any spot of evil in their heart.

  • 4
    Quick note: Glitter Force isn't an American series that was animated by a Japanese studio, it's a Japanese series (Pretty Cure, to be precise) that was taken apart and put back together again, much like Robotech or Power Rangers. – F1Krazy Jun 13 '18 at 11:24
  • 1
    @F1Krazy OK, thank you, I got wrong that one, but the thing is still about rich people roles. – Hatoru Hansou Jun 13 '18 at 12:23
  • 1
    This may be an unanswerable question that's based on your own perception. Several animes feature the opposite trend as well(Sword Art Online actually has 2 rich/powerful bad guys in the first season). If the hero is up against against a large, greedy, rich, or powerful individual or company, it makes the story more dramatic/compelling. Likewise, there are many 'Western' shows where the 'negative' trend is bucked, with the good guys being rich or powerful in order to realistically oppose the rich 'bad guys'. Marvel and DC's richest characters are both heroes, who fund superhero teams. – AAlig Jun 14 '18 at 13:56
  • @AAlig so the answer would be that its only a coincide that I ended with such perception. That there is only storytelling needs and no special bias toward that role from west or east. – Hatoru Hansou Jun 15 '18 at 1:24

Socialism. Nah just kidding. But actually no. Being part of society and contributing to it well being is a very important part of western morality. Look at this Thai ads for soberness Almost 1/3 of it is focusing on how better you can contribute to others. In eastern culture (by eastern I mean USA one) richness is point in itself. You need to be rich for the sake of being rich. You try to have more money at the cost of other people having less money. While western philosophy is that at some point you have so much money you can give it back into society.

The most notable examples would be Green Arrow and Batman. Both are wealthy men who spend money on their fun of ending crimes instead of helping "thugs from the projects" get better education, dental plan or hot soup once a day.

On the other scale you have Robert E. O. Speedwagon form JoJo's Bizzare adventure who established Speedwagon Foundation that sole purpose is medical research and environmental conservation.

In real life example you have Trumps who denied black people to live in their buildings in 1970's versus Jack Ma who's saying that "You're Supposed to Spend Money on Your People".

  • 2
    I'm sure there's a proper answer in there but I can't see it. – Paulie_D Jun 13 '18 at 13:50
  • I like this answer and feel it has been unjustly down-voted. Political views on money are staggeringly different in europe (earnings are capped, there are guaranteed minimal incomes for the poor...) and in the USA (huge gap between rich and poor, people walking with $1500 phones while people beg on the same sidewalk). The answer to the original question seems obvious to me “personal gain can help the world” versus “socially-oriented laws can help the world” – MicroMachine Jun 13 '18 at 20:23
  • (2) the second paragraph of this answer is the most relevant I think. There is a worldview saying “what are you going to do, crime will always be there” which benefits capitalism, inequality and arms trade, and a world view which aims at reducing inequalities in society because “change is possible”. These two views oppose everywhere... even in ficion – MicroMachine Jun 13 '18 at 20:27
  • Voting to remove downvote. Note to all readers: answer are expected to be with some reasoning, let's give some space. I'm sure there must be a concise way to answer this too. I will wait for more answers for a while. (Note: I had Bruce Wayne as one of the cool ones. Never thought about how he spends before, interesting example) – Hatoru Hansou Jun 14 '18 at 0:58
  • So, to make it into a concise answer: the explanation is in eastern culture of "think in society too (don't sure if "first")" vs "every man for himself" model? (I don't sure if such a culture exists or it is an anime trope) – Hatoru Hansou Jun 14 '18 at 1:02

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .