text:
Was Lelouch the person driving the cart in the last scene of Code Geass R2?
At the ending of Code Geass R2, the last scene showed someone whose face wasn't showed riding a horse-pulling-cart with CC. I believe that it is indeed Lelouch (who was previously stabbed by Suzaku wearing Zero's uniform as part of their Code Zero plan to free Elevens), and that he had gained immortality because of his frequent usage of his Geass.
Lelouch's Geass first leveled-up the episode when he accidentally ordered his sister Euphemia to kill all Elevens. Then, his father King Charles was beaten by him and I'm thinking that King Charles' immortality was transferred to him.
If that person was really Lelouch, then, has he already gained immortality by that time?

Huh, I always thought that was just Suzaku in Zero's uniform (side-glancing the episode at a friend's place).

The one who stabbed Lelouch at the last episode was indeed Suzaku wearing Zero's uniform.

Yeah, but I also meant at the end on the cart.

The face of the one on the cart wasn't shown but I do believe that it was Lelouch with CC. That's why I want to have proofs that Lelouch is already immortal by the time he was stabbed. I want to believe that Lelouch and CC will live together, forever (literally). I think the scene in the cart hinted that he is (already immortal).

In any case, I'd rephrase the question, something like: "Who is the person in Zero's suit at the end of R2?" This way it avoids spoilers and isn't as "wish-thinking"-filled.

I don't think so. It was shown that the one who stabbed Lelouch was Suzaku in Zero's costume. But my question is different. The person I'm referring my question to is the one at the cart with CC (last scene of last episode if I'm not mistaken). The face of the one at the cart wasn't shown (to keep the audience guessing, I guess) but a lot believes that it was Lelouch (can't think of another character to better suit that scene). And if it was him, allegations of him, being an immortal arises, so I need to have proofs to support that it is indeed Lelouch, the one at the cart with CC.

I'm not sure if this question can be answered. It would all be speculation. Maybe a better question would be something like "What are the reasons both for and against Lelouch being the cart driver?" Like you said, it was probably left ambiguous to keep people guessing, but there are definitely reasons for both sides.

@user2367 That video is a clear fake. It has been confirmed by that it is not part of any dvd or blu-ray release, and the creators have officially confirmed that Lelouch's death was one of the very first things they decided about the show. The most recent confirmation was from tweets from 2 months ago, but they've been saying this for 10 years now. To find these tweets (or all other statements) go to https://www.reddit.com/user/GeassedbyLelouch/comments/8hklfr/evaluating_code_theory_main_body_index/ and then "Part 1: Lelouch Is Dead: The Tweets (May 2018)"

@Xeo moderators of anime stackexchange are similar as the moderators of movie stackexchange: They don't care that much about spoilers unlike other sites like say MAL or reddit

This seems to be a religious issue, judging by the amount of arguing I found while I was searching for the information contained in this answer. At the very least, xjshiya's answer is not universally accepted, and there are a lot of people who flat out reject that theory. In my opinion the evidence against the other theory is more compelling. I'm going to try to present said evidence as impartially as I can.

First, no official source has ever claimed that Lelouch survives at the end of R2. That alone doesn't answer the question, because it could be deliberately ambiguous. Of course, Lelouch would need to be alive to be driving the cart.
Second, several official sources list Lelouch as dead at the end of R2. Here is an interview with writer Ichiro Okouchi, taken from the Japanese magazine Continue (vol 42, Oct 2008, translated into English (I have not yet found the original so I can not confirm the accuracy of the translation). I've copied the relevant part below:

" -----Still, isn't it possible that defeating the wise ruler Schneizel, the person who was supposed to have brought order to the world, might lead to some [viewers] interpreting it as a Bad End?
Okouchi: That's true. There are probably a lot of people who think of it as a Bad End, a tragedy, considering the protagonist's, Lelouch's end as well. However, Lelouch says in the first episode: "Only those prepared to be shot are allowed to pull the trigger themselves." If you were to think of that as his pride, then I think his getting shot (killed) in the end was a logical end. Of course, I understand that not all of the viewers will accept this ending. There were people who wanted a happier ending, after all.
-----Was there a dispute among the staff members regarding the ending?
Okouchi: No. It was decided fairly naturally. During the "Code Geass" script meetings, there are many cases in which there were a number of disputes, but there were barely any when it came to the scripts for (the previous series's) episode 25 and the final episode. I think everyone felt the same when it came to the end of the character that is Lelouch.
-----Why were you so bold as to choose this ending when the viewers might see it as a Bad End?
Okouchi: Bold... yes, we were so bold as to chose this ending. Perhaps the show that is "Code Geass" ending up this way was decided the moment Director Taniguchi and I teamed up. I suppose you can call it our sense of aesthetics, or perhaps a part of our psychological makeup.
...
------I see. So Lelouch's decision was also your, Mr. Okouchi's, and Director Taniguchi's decision.
Okouchi: Which is why I think of both our and Lelouch's decision as Happy Ends. I believe that there will be better things in the tomorrow awaiting Nunnally, Kallen and the rest who have been left behind. And surely Lelouch, who was able to make this into a reality, can only be happy [about this].
...
-----Some unresolved mysteries still remain.
Okouchi: From the very beginning, [I/we] never planned on explaining everything. In fact, if you ask me, I think we might have overdone the explanations. While it's undeniable that Lelouch's story has ended with a full stop, the other characters' stories are still on-going, and it's not like the world [of Code Geass] itself has come to an end either. [I/we] didn't want to end it by closing it up for good."

That seems to pretty strongly confirm that at least Okouchi believes Lelouch dies in the end. Of course, Okouchi, being a writer, doesn't have the final say. The director is the one whose word we should ultimately be looking for, but director Gorō Taniguchi has not said anything definitive either way. He did say something ambiguous, to the effect that he "prefers to see the end as a happy one," but Okouchi also claims it's a happy ending despite Lelouch dying. Okouchi also didn't seem to have any difficulty speaking for the whole team, and no one came out to correct him, so this seems reasonable.
The link above has a couple other relevant quotes which I will not repeat here. I believe that this establishes that there's a pretty strong opinion that Lelouch is, in some form or another, dead.
Here's a further confirmation of this. This image lists people who died in R2. I've boxed the relevant entry for Lelouch.

The above was taken from the same issue of the magazine. This is an official image. I don't think this really adds anything to the above except removing some ambiguity.
There's some further evidence here (I haven't really checked this translation but by a cursory skim it seems to be accurate).

C.C.’s profile has also been updated, and the final part of it now says: “Knowing that Lelouch does not hate her for giving him the Geass, she is now able to show her true feelings. With the realization of “Zero Requiem”, her time with Lelouch, who was able to forgive and accept her, came to an end, but the memories created with him has, without doubt, saved her from eternal loneliness.”

Given that the "Lelouch = Cart Driver" theory requires that Lelouch and C.C. aren't separated at the end, this piece of information just doesn't make sense unless we reject that theory.
So we've confirmed that Lelouch is pretty dead at the end of R2, and that the fan theory that he is the cart driver really isn't supported by the official statements. There are a couple of ways to get around all of these facts. I don't really regard them as anything but conspiracy theories and other ways fans are trying to deal with the ending that isn't quite as happy as they were hoping for.

Lelouch has at least two identities. Perhaps Lelouch vi Britannia died, but Lelouch Lamperouge lived on? Or maybe Lelouch abandoned his name, but he's still alive, and the sources list him as dead because his identity as Lelouch vi Britannia is dead? I can't really argue against the possibility of this, but there is no evidence supporting it at all. It doesn't really make sense in light of the C.C. bio either.
While several people have confirmed that they believe Lelouch dies, director Taniguchi has been notably silent. Perhaps there was some disagreement among those in charge, and Taniguchi actually thinks Lelouch is alive? We can't ever know for certain what happened when they were writing the ending, but it seems reasonable to expect that if there were disagreements, Okouchi wouldn't have claimed that there were none, and if the disagreements were major someone else probably would have spoken up.

Again, I regard those as little more than conspiracy theories by disgruntled fans who think the ending is somehow "unfair". There is no evidence supporting either of them.
While the theories proposed in the other answer are good speculation, they just don't fit with facts released later. The consensus of the production team is that Lelouch is dead and not driving a cart at the end of Code Geass R2. The cart driver is probably just some random guy. If this seems unfair to you, then it's worth remembering that many other characters with far fewer crimes died in the series, so in some sense it's poetic justice for Lelouch to also die. And the interviews with everyone including the director do confirm that in dying, he was successful at his goal of starting the world down a better path.
Again, this seems to be something people view religiously. I'm not claiming that the speculations that Lelouch survives are bad in-universe, but there's simply no evidence for them either from the producers and a lot of evidence to the contrary, so the better answer in this case is that Lelouch is dead.

So, I can assume that they release the pull-cart scene for fans to have false hopes? They have officially declared that Lelouch died but why would they release the pull cart scene? I guess to have other fans have wishful thinking of the opposite. Oh well, this is convincing enough. Got my heart broke though (as Lelouch's fan). Nice answer btw, thanks.

@xjshiya I'm honestly not totally sure why they put that scene in. It makes the ending of the anime very ambiguous. I'll admit that your explanation seems to fit that scene a bit better, but it just isn't consistent with everything that the producers said outside of the anime. Maybe they wanted to officially kill off Lelouch but let fans have their own theories, or something like that.

Also sorry for "breaking your heart", that wasn't my intention, but on our Reddit thread http://www.reddit.com/r/anime/comments/1890ko/looking_of_a_canonical_answer_to_a_question_about/ someone pointed out that there were official comments to the effect that "Lelouch is dead" and I felt that it would be problematic to leave this question as-is without representing that side.

Rewatching the show for the n-th time some months ago, there are actually several scenes where Lelouch hints that he is planning his death - this is probably part of why there was agreement among the staff for Lelouch's fate (they had probably made the decision months before the final episode was ready).

@LoganM, it's fine. I think Lelouch's death as an end is a very good way to end a very wonderful anime. But it wouldn't be that bad to think that he can be (forever) alive with C.C. It depends on how the viewer would want to look at it. It's a good move to officially declare that Lelouch died though. Thanks for the answer again. :)

i think Lelouch is both dead and alive, the Code is Absolute like Geass, something "God" could not destroy, if so when how did Charles and V.V get so close to destroying it, yet Charles was still destroyed which could indicate that Lelouch took the code from Charles (symbol in other eye when he gave his command to "God") which allowed "God" to then destroy Charles and Lelouch doesn't have to be there for C.C to be talking to him, remember, she was talking to Marian through the series without knowing she was inside Anya (her surprise when she was Anya inside her mind)

also, i think in the subed version of the last episode, there is a slight few seconds where you see the face of the driver and it shows lelouch but the artists could have just been lazy, also, even if Lelouch is Dead in Code Geass, he's still alive here http://vndb.org/v945, check out the screen shot of the class

The official statements might not be lying, Lelouch Vi Britannia stopped being a human. This does not contradict him becoming immortal.

I have heard they are doing a new season, and Leleuch is the main character again. It seems to hint he lived.

Would it be possible that they put the cart scene to accommodate the possible of having continuity to the series?

To supplment this answer, in 2018 an one of the writers tweeted (as part of an interview question) that Lelouch was basically written to die, and it was decided from the start. Reddit thread with links here.

Lelouch is really the cart driver at the end of Code Geass R2.
Quoting from this blog post:

The most obvious reason would be CC calling to Lelouch in the closing scene of the episode. As we can assume CC to be still sane, she must be talking to someone, and that someone would most probably be the driver of the cart: Lelouch would have to be alive.
Second, however, and this is where the others have thought things through, Lelouch is alive because he got his dad's code. He beckoned the World of C to lend him its powers, and he took Charles's code before Charles passed on. The reason why Lelouch still has his Geass is because he didn't take the Code from the same person who gave him his Geass: he took his Geass from CC, and he took his Code from Charles. Thus, he now possesses both immortality and a Geass. This is also a reason that the title is Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion.
To further corroborate this, however, remember that when Nunnally held Lelouch's hand he transferred his memories to her. CC also did it when Lelouch touched her accidentally back then, so it could be assumed that people with Codes are indeliberate telepaths. This leaves us with both immortals traversing the world for the rest of eternity.
[...]
Additional evidences:

Charles grabbed Lelouch with his right hand, which had the Geass sigil.
Lelouch needed the fully evolved Geass to transfer a code.
The code doesn't appear to activate until someone dies. Hence, why C.C. was wounded when she first inherited her code. Same happened with Charles in the World of C.
When Lelouch touched Nunnally, Nunnally got a flash of his memories. This ONLY happens when a high potential Geass user touches someone with the fully evolved Geass.
The title of the series is "R2″, which is similar to how "C.C" is pronounced. So Lelouch would be "R.R." which is Engrish (I presume) for L.L., Lelouch Lamprouge.
When C.C. is talking on the wagon, she says "the power of Geass brings loneliness…that's not quite right is it, Lelouch?" and nods her head in the direction of the wagon driver.

[Furthermore,] Orange knew of Lelouch's and Suzaku's plan and helped them out by ordering his men not to fire on Zero, he even smiled when Zero (Suzaku) jumped on his shoulder.
Now would Orange, a man who devoted himself entirely to Lelouche and threw away everything without a second thought be OK with a plan where the sole person he wants to protect in life is actually killed? The answer to that is NO, not even if Lelouch ordered him to accept the plan: he would not go along with it and would protect him with his life. There is only one way that Orange would be OK with a plan like that and that's if he knew about Lelouch's immortality, which I assume he did as he worked with V.V. in the Geass research base. Orange was OK with this plan as he knew Lelouch would come to no harm and would be able to start a new peaceful life with the woman he loves in a world which he himself had made peaceful.
Even at the end, we see Orange on his orange plantation, completely content with the way things have panned out, he definitely could not be that happy had Lelouch actually died.

So Lelouch and CC lived happily ever after, literally.

Point #5 under "Additional evidences [sic]" makes no linguistic sense; the author's presumption that "R.R." could refer to Lelouch is simply wrong.

@senshin "L" and "R" are basically the same in Japanese; that's one of the big things that causes Engrish

@Izkata Lelouch's name was officially romanized as "Lelouch" even in promotional materials from before the show aired. While it is true that Japanese has a single phoneme /r/ that lives somewhere between(ish) English /r/ and /l/, that's not really relevant here.

I have to disagree. About your 4th point, I don't think C.C. nods towards the driver at all. But that's not the main point anyway. When Suzaku appears as Zero to kill Lelouch, C.C. is shown in a church. She is crying as she comments on the price he's going to pay for using the Geass. It makes no sense at all if Lelouch wasn't going to die. Why would she cry if it was all just a drama. And what would be the price Lelouch was paying?

@Alchemist That's immortality. Immortality brings loneliness. That's the price Lelouch would have to pay for. Knowing that he will live on while everyone he know gets old and die. Including his beloved little sister Nunally.

@AyaseEri Yes, C.C. did tell Lelouch that Geass brings a life a of solitude when she made the contract with him. But in the last episode, C.C. actually said otherwise when she was on the cart. I don't remember the exact words. But she did say that people say Geass cursed the bearer to a life of solitude. But that was not the case with Lelouch. It kind of negates the argument that C.C. would say the loneliness was the price he was going to pay.

@xjshiya This has been officially contradicted. there are numerous official statements where they explain that Lelouch is truly dead: interviews, tweets, live commentary, the official guide book, the remade epilogue where C.C. explicitly narrates to the audience that Lelouch is dead, etc. You can find an overview of these statements at https://www.reddit.com/user/GeassedbyLelouch/comments/8hklfr/evaluating_code_theory_main_body_index/ Please edit your answer to clarify that this fan theory is not canon and officially debunked.

Lelouch is officially confirmed dead
Over the past 10 years the creators of the show have repeatedly explained that Lelouch is truly dead. This was done in interviews, articles, tweets, live commentary, the official guide book, the remade epilogue (from 2009) where they dropped the misunderstood hay cart scene and replaced it with C.C. explicitly narrating to the audience that Lelouch is dead, etc. There's a Reddit post where all these official statements can be found. This post also scrutinizes the fan theory which assumes that Lelouch has the code and shows where and how the anime itself contradicts the theory's points.
I will give a few examples from that linked post, for a full overview follow the link above.
The interviews from Animage 10 (October, Okouchi) and 11 (November, Fukuyama) from 2008.
In these interviews they explain that the death of Lelouch was a matter of principle for them (their aesthetics, their psychology, etc.), it was a matter of redemption and salvation in the eyes of Lelouch and Lelouch found peace dying for the gentler world his sister wanted.

Okouchi: "(...) That end is to Lelouch and to Suzaku both the punishment and the salvation at the same time. It's also connected to the words Lelouch said at the beginning: "Utte ii no wa utareru kakugo no aru yatsu dake da." The person who gave the punishment was punished themselves and if you want to get the salvation, give the salvation first. Of course it's also the same with Lelouch's decision to accepts the geass (wish), because he geassed many people, as he himself has said in the show. [He refers to the last episode when Lelouch says what the people of the world wish for]"
Animage: "So this was the end, but was Lelouch happy?"
Okouchi: "I think that the show had a happy ending, not a bad ending. Lelouch and C.C. talks about it in season 1 episode 7 - just living a life is meaningless. Lelouch saved his beloved sister and managed to create a kind world in his own way. His life wasn't meaningless. That's why in the end he is smiling."
Animage: "So you accept the end of the show?"
Fukuyama: "I think that before he reached that final scene, Lelouch had many possibilities to choose from. But he understood very well what he had done and had to pay the price for that. Suzaku choose to live as Zero and was awarded the opportunity to pay for his sins by this choice. And Lelouch got his salvation by choosing not the happiness of living on but to sacrifice his own life to create the situation for the world to move forward. If you think about his character, I don't think he would still be himself, if he chose other end."

(Additional pictures of these interviews can be found here and in the compilation post of all official statements)
The interviews from Continue (Vol.42).
In this interview they confirm that the decision to kill Lelouch was a unanimous one, the entire show staff agreed:

Continue: Was there a dispute among the staff members regarding the ending?
Okouchi: No. It was decided fairly naturally. During the "Code Geass" script meetings, there are many cases in which there were a number of disputes, but there were barely any when it came to the scripts for (the previous series's) episode 25 and the final episode. I think everyone felt the same when it came to the end of the character that is Lelouch.

They confirm that Lelouch's death was one of the first things they decided for the show and that his death was a matter of principle to them ("their sense of aesthetics"). This statement was confirmed yet again 10 years later in the tweets (see below).

Continue: Why were you so bold as to choose this ending when the viewers might see it as a Bad End?
Okouchi: Bold... yes, we were so bold as to chose this ending. Perhaps the show that is "Code Geass" ending up this way was decided the moment Director Taniguchi and I teamed up. I suppose you can call it our sense of aesthetics, or perhaps a part of our psychological makeup.

The following statements explain how they foreshadowed Lelouch's death from the very first episode with his famous line "The only ones allowed to kill are those who are willing to be killed" (exact phrazing will depend on the subs you used, of course):

Continue: Still, isn't it possible that defeating the wise ruler Schneizel, the person who was supposed to have brought order to the world, might lead to some [viewers] interpreting it as a Bad End?
Okouchi: That's true. There are probably a lot of people who think of it as a Bad End, a tragedy, considering the protagonist's, Lelouch's end as well. However, Lelouch says in the first episode: "Only those prepared to be shot are allowed to pull the trigger themselves." If you were to think of that as his pride, then I think his getting shot (killed) in the end was a logical end. Of course, I understand that not all of the viewers will accept this ending. There were people who wanted a happier ending, after all.

It is important to note that part of this last statement was often misinterpreted by code theorists as him saying that people could see it as open ended. It is clear from his words that this is NOT what he is saying. He said that he understands that some people will see Lelouch's death as a bad ending and that some people wanted a happy ending. Basically, what he is saying is that people are free to interpret Lelouch's death as happy or sad, but Lelouch's death itself was never open for interpretation, it was set in stone as the rest of the article clearly demonstrates. The ending was never meant to be ambiguous.
It is also important to note the Lelouch's death can only be interpreted as a true, final death and not something temporary until the code revives him, especially the foreshadowing of his death doesn't make sense if we see it as temporary death or faked death, but the later tweets will make this even clearer, so I will go in further depth there. (see tweets below)
The tweets
As part of the 10 year Code Geass anniversary, the creators of the show started a series of tweets titled "Geass Memories" in which they reminiscence about the days when they made the show, shedding light on the production process, the way certain decisions were made, etc. Of particular relevance here are the Geass Memories 77-83:

"Before I started writing the story of a person called Lelouch, I confirmed with Taniguchi-director something. That thing was that the end of Lelouch will be death."
  "At least he is aware of his sins and pays for them with his death."
  "This man called Lelouch will pay for his sins by his death. The story follows him till he finally make this decision."
  "Probably this Lelouch we see in the first episode of the series wouldn't choose death. He would try something to avoid it. He couldn't die, for Nunnally as well. But we see him changed in the last episode."

Link to the tweets on his twitter account.

It is important to note that "death" here can only be interpreted as a "true, final death" and not some temporary death until the code revives him, just as was the case earlier with the explained foreshadowing. This is easily made obvious by replacing the word "death" by "death for 2 minutes" or "faked death". "Lelouch pays for his sins by being dead for 2 minutes". "Only those who are willing to fake their deaths are allowed to kill". "Lelouch being dead for 2 minutes was part of our aesthetics".
It is immediately obvious that their words simply make no sense if we assume Lelouch had the code and was immortal. The old argument "they said he's dead but not that he stayed dead" with which code theorists try to dismiss the Word of God simply does not hold water at all. (Also, who ever says something as unnatural as "he died and after that he stayed dead"?)
The Official Guide Book
The official guide book explicitly states several times that Lelouch is dead. To avoid too much repetition I will only copy the explanation of the Zero Requiem:

"For those two who bear the heavy sin known as killing their fathers, they share the belief that they can forgive each other by imposing the greatest punishments on themselves. Death for Lelouch who wishes for a tomorrow with his sister, life for Suzaku who wishes to atone for his sins through death."

This explains that Zero Requiem was not only about creating a better world, but also simultaneously redemption for both Lelouch and Suzaku for their sins (as explained above in the tweets). Lelouch eternally boinking C.C. is NOT redemption, as much as some fans might want that. It is undeniably clear here that Lelouch is truly dead.

The New Epilogue (2009)
Unlike the fake fan made epilogue which is going around on the internet (and which I will not give more attention by linking it!) where there's a fan edit which zooms in on the face of the driver and reveals it to be Lelouch, there is actually a real, new epilogue which can be found on the official release of the Zero Requiem Blu-ray.
While the fake ending was nowhere to be found except on shady YouTube channels from people who were pushing their code theory narrative (If it were real how did THEY get it? And why ONLY they?), the real new epilogue can be found all over the web where you watch anime (look for Zero Requiem movie).
Unlike the fake one where the image quality massively dropped during the edited zoom, the TV logo suddenly disappears, and there is no music during the edit, the real new epilogue has brand new, high quality art, music and narration by C.C.'s voice actress.
In this new epilogue, the often misunderstood hay cart scene is dropped and replaced by a new scene where C.C. talks to the audience and explicitly explains that Lelouch is dead, that she mourns his death, but that she finds comfort in the thought that he died achieving his goals.

"A young man dies. He had the power to change the world, to create a new order. The world feared him, hated him. But, I know he died with a smile on his face. Only those who have realized their dream will truly understand that feeling of utter contentment. So, this is not a tragedy. And whenever I feel sad or cry at night, I sing a song. A song of man's making. Zero Requiem!"

You can watch the new epilogue here.
Nunnally Did NOT See Memories
As if all the official statements about his death aren't enough, the creators even explicitly denied some of the core points of code theory, such as Nunnally seeing memories/code visions.
In Mook Animedia (28 January 2009, p.89-90) there was an interview (see 2 pictures below) which explicitly denied that Nunnally was seeing visions or that those images had anything to do with codes or geasses.

Q: "How did Nunnally managed to realize Lelouch true intention, when she touched his hand at the end?"
Staff member K: "The way Nunnally can tell that someone is lying, just like she was able to tell that Lohmeyer was lying to her, is that she can feel the hand of the person she is talking to is sweating or lightly trembling. It's nothing like Geass or some special ability like that."
Staff member Y: "Yes. So, she simply came to conclusion [Lelouch was lying] by herself, because of this ability."
Staff member K: "She is Marianne's daughter and Lelouch's little sister. Two months have passed since that defeat of Schneizel and for this two months she's been wondering constantly about what had happened, like "why it happened?" and so on. So when she touched Lelouch's hand at the end she felt that he is calm, she put the two and two together and realized the truth. Of course, we know that in anime, it's hard to explain things like that, but yeah, please accept it like this kind of romantic idea we had."

Codes Do NOT Need To Be Activated
The release of the Code Geass movies was accompanied by various Code Geass related events, some of these were, obviously, live interviews and live commentary. The following are excerpts from commentaries given by Okouchi, Taniguchi-producer and two other producers when they talked about the scene where Lelouch attempted to geass his father. This was documented by people who were present at these events. To protect the privacy of these people, I have removed all information which would allow them to be identified.
This tweet reads パパんにギアス掛けるシーンも、「これギアス掛かってないのに死んだふりするんだよ」「息子を驚かせようと」「ルルーシュくんかわいそう」「これ一番ショックなタイミング計ってるよね」「絶対笑いこらえてるよ」って色々言われてて笑った。
Translation: About that scene Lelouch geass his dad I laughed because they said like "He isn't geassed, just pretends he dies!" " He tries to surprise his son!" "Poor Lelouch" "He tries to choose the most shocking timing, doesn't he" "I'm sure he tries hard not to laugh"
This blog post talks about various Code Geass things, the relevant part is highlighted in red and reads コウジロウさん「この人、ギアスかかってない じゃないですか。よく我慢してますよね。こことか 絶対笑い堪えてますよ」
Translation: "He isn't under an influence form Geass, is he? He's good with pretending, sure. I'm sure he tries his hardest not to laugh right now."
The creators are saying Charles is immune to geass already, that means Charles already had an "active" code, which means that codes are never not active and thus don't need activating.
Conclusion
There's is a mountain of official statements which all repeat the same thing Lelouch is truly dead.
When you put all these things next to each other, you see this conclusion is inescapable, consistent and waterproof.
Some people will argue that the fact that a sequel is coming with Lelouch as the officially confirmed protagonist is proof that he's alive/immortal, but it is, in fact, the exact opposite. The official name of this sequel is "Lelouch of the Resurrection". when you combine all the official statement about him being truly dead, him returning for the sequel and the sequel's name, it is obvious that Lelouch will start as dead in the sequel and will somehow be resurrected, he'll return from the grave somehow.
Some people will argue that the sequel is an AU (alternate universe) which somehow must mean Lelouch is immortal. It is indeed true that the sequel will follow the movies and not the original series, and these movies have 1 BIG difference with the original series which makes it an AU. However, this change does not directly involve Lelouch, Zero Requiem still happens, Lelouch still dies, so as far as the movies show, all of the statements about R2 also apply to the sequel.
This answer was based on a compilation post from reddit. The compilation post consists of 2 parts, part 1 gathers all the official statements, part 2 shows how the anime itself contradicts code theory because code theory violates the rules established by the anime's canon.
That post is very long (even linger than this answer), but it is thorough and complete, and an absolute MUST READ for all Code Geass fans.

Well, actually, if you're going to offer that the official records pronounced him dead. I'd like to counter by saying during the show, after freya was launched by suzaku, the official records pronounced both nunnally and sayoko dead, and we know what happened there.
I know it was to prevent spoilers for the show, but still. Unless there's another season that adds on to it, we really can't definitively prove whether Lelouch is either dead or alive. There's just too much circumstantial evidence that he is alive, yet more solid evidence plus motive to say that he is dead.
It's inconclusive, really, but as a placeholder I think seeing him as passed on would be appropriate for now.


text:
How does the plot of Elfen Lied anime differ from the manga?
"Elfen Lied" (エルフェンリート, Erufen Rīto) has a rather confusing plot and setting in the anime version alone; the bits of the setting which I glimpsed from discussions about it hint at the original manga being even more complex in the relationship department between the characters and organisations. It doesn't help that the manga wasn't finished by the time the anime was produced, which very likely leads to inconsistencies between the two with material which so heavily relies on uncovering secrets to drive its story forward.
How does the plot (as opposed to superficial details, like location or hair colour) differ between the anime and manga, then?

Oh man... they diverge like crazy towards the end. I'm unsure of the details though.

The manga has a more in-depth treatment for all characters, as well as lots of new characters and storylines.

@Mysticial: What, the anime? It doesn't diverge that much. It was rather accurate most of the times actually. It was just until the very end where things were spoiled.

it's near the end of the anime where it start to split from the anime, they had a set amount of episodes to fill, so they had to cut the story short and think of the ending which hadn't been written yet

Clearly, the anime does not cover the whole story. One of the major plot points in the whole series is the execution of the plan to eliminate homo-sapiens by the research facility, which involves spreading the virus through a large population by using a missile. We could say that this is half of the whole story and the anime only covered the first half.
The relationship between Lucy and Kouta is very similar in both the anime and the manga. The major difference is the fact that Kouta is a bit more agressive regarding avenging his father and his sister, but in both cases he still tries to protect Lucy (not forgiving her though).
The bridge incident (the ending of the anime) also differs slightly. Mariko does forgive her father and engages Lucy in a battle. She uses the explosives within her to attempt to kill Lucy (thus, her father actually survives and is not killed). She fails and Lucy merely loses her horns.
There obviously are a bunch of characters not introduced in the anime. Most of them are not critical for the storyline, though, which might explain their exclusion at first.
One of the biggest discussions regarding the anime is whether Lucy died or not at the ending. Technically, from the point of view of the manga, the answer is no - she actually survived the bridge incident. She loses her horns, which disables the "evil" Lucy and keeps her as Nyuu. The horns grow back, however.
At first, it doesn't seem like the anime is capable of continuing, since they killed Mariko's father (whose name I forgot), who plays rather important roles through the rest of the manga. This is fixable though, they just need to do a few tweaks and make a new scene where he somehow survives the bridge explosion.
So, yes: the main difference is the fact that the anime only covers half of the story, and kills some people who shouldn't have died.

A great write-up, about what I needed. Mariko's father is Dr. Kurama, by the way (at least in the anime).

@MartinSojka: Ah, yes. Also in the manga... oh wait, you didn't read it? Damn, I guess I spoiled some important things then.. sorry :(

No problem about the spoilers. After all, I asked for them.

The anime is mostly the same up to about half the manga. The end of the manga, when Lucy goes on the bridge and loses her horn while being shot is the same in the manga. I think the only thing from the latter parts that were included in the anime was the side-story OVA which featured some of Lucy's past and the reason why she didn't attack Director Kurama from the research containment facility where Lucy escaped. I could be misremembering, though.

@Jyasuten: Wait, do I remember wrong or doesn't the anime end after the bridge scene, where the camera goes up, you hear shots, and see one of Lucy's horns fly away? Edit: I remembered right, that was the second-to-last scene, the last one being where someone approaches the house.

@Jyasuten: Yeah, till waiting for Season 2. :( On the bridge thing, yes, that went differently and sets quite some flags in the manga.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
In Fullmetal Alchemist, what does a State Alchemist's pocket watch do?
In Fullmetal Alchemist, it is stated a number of times that a state alchemist's pocket watch increases their power, but there doesn't seem to be a clear mechanism for that. How does that work, and what does increasing the power of an alchemist mean?

Besides increasing the power of a state alchemist, it is also proof they are one.

If it was a power amplifier, an easy mechanism would be for red stones to be stashed in the watch's body.

As stated in this wiki,

...each State Alchemist is given a silver pocketwatch to
  hold as identification. This watch is engraved with the symbol of the
  State Alchemist program - the Amestrian Dragon circumscribed in a
  hexagram (though both anime series alter the hexagram to a nondescript
  polygram, presumably so as not to invoke Judaism). Although the manga
  does not describe the pocketwatch as anything more than official proof
  that the carrier is a State Alchemist, the 2003 anime suggests that
  each pocketwatch is an alchemical amplifier. The 2003 anime also
  depicts the watch's silver chain as extendable, as in the instance
  when the Strong Arm Alchemist, Major Alex Louis Armstrong uses it to
  tie up a target.

So, according to the 2003 anime, the watch amplifies the alchemist's powers. However, both manga and FMA:Brotherhood shows that the watch is simply a form of identification, much like a police badge.
Also note that in the anime the watch is the indicator which people use to recognize Edward as a State Alchemist. I believe that unless the State Alchemist himself tells you who he is, the presence of the watch is the only other way to know it (they also get a certificate, but I doubt they carry it around).

Thank you for that clarification, but what I'm more wondering is if it is ever explained what exactly an alchemical amplifier would do (the mechanics of it).

They never explained it because it is a development of the first anime adaptation that was never expounded upon. The watches were merely forms of identification as state alchemists in Brotherhood, which follows the manga more closely.

They actually showed this in one episode when Ed got his watched repaired, that it contained red rocks in the back of it and that was how they amplified their alchemic powers.

Welcome to Anime & Manga SE! Do you know what episode this was in, or have a screenshot of it? This might help your answer stand on its own a little better.

I remember seeing that episode in the 2003 anime. The anime based closely on the manga did not have any special powers associated with the watch, other than it was a badge of office.

They tell time but mainly symbolize being a state alchemist and part of the country's government and army if necessary.

The Silver Pocketwatches amplify the State Alchemist's power, but besides that, the only thing they really do is prove that you're a State Alchemist, and perhaps to tell the time.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Was the ufotable Touhou anime ever released?
In order to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Anime Tenchou (who most notably appears in Lucky Star), ufotable animated a 10 minute crossover anime between Touhou and Anime Tenchou in 2010. ANN has a news release about it here.
I know that this was shown at Animate Ichioshi Bishōjo Matsuri according to the news release, but I have not been able to find any information about a general release. Was this ever released in any format to the general public?

You could buy the a DVD of all 10 projects back in 2010, but it not available in stores nowadays.

To my knowledge, it has been released but in a theater or the like and no one was allowed to record it in any way thus no one else has seen it.

アニメ店長×東方プロジェクトとは、アニメ店長誕生10周年を記念して行われたコラボレーション企画である。
[...]
アニメ店長誕生から10周年を記念し製作されたショートアニメーション（約10分）で、2010年11月20日に行われた”『アニメ店長』プレゼンツ!!アニメイト一押し美少女アニメまつり”にて初公開された。
[...]
その後12月29日～31日にアニメイト一部店舗で単独イベント上映、2011年1月9日に全国アニメイト各店にて上映された。尚、DVD,BDの販売はなく（設定資料のみ販売）会場での上映限定での公開となった。

That is what I feared. Thanks. Hopefully it will be released in some other medium someday.

Is there any source to back up your post? (At least the part about it being released in the theatre)

@nhahtdh This Niconicopedia article lists a number of occasions on which it was shown theatrically at special events. The article also states that the anime itself was not sold, and was only viewable at said events.

At the live stream of Machi★Asobi last year, Koyama from Animate along with Ufotable, announced the collaboration anime is undergoing packaging for distribution.
Package Cover Art


text:
What differentiates anime from regular cartoons?
In my region, people don't know the difference between anime and regular cartoons. When they see me watching anime, or they hear about it somehow, they say that I'm watching a regular cartoon and hence I'm being childish. Sometimes, they even display sarcastic attitudes, so that giving a serious long explanation wouldn't be possible.
What effectively explains how an anime is different from a regular cartoon?

http://myanimelist.net/featured/1737

No matter how you look at it, an anime is a cartoon. The main difference is that an anime is considered a Japanese style of cartoons in the West.
Many English-language dictionaries define anime as "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation" or as "a style of animation developed in Japan."
However, in Japan, the term "anime" does not specify an animation's nation of origin or style. Instead, it serves as a blanket term to refer to all forms of animation from around the world (both foreign and domestic). The word "anime" is loan word referring to "animation" or "cartoons," adapted from the English word "animation."
Taking this from another perspective, in Japan, Disney movies are referred to as "Disney Anime", This refers to a certain style, not the genre as a whole.
The Japanese Wikipedia on "anime" specifically notes that:

アニメーションをアニメと略せる言語は日本語に限られるため、日本国外で「anime」という場合は日本製の表現様式のアニメに対して用いられる。日本国内では、製作国や作風に関わりなくアニメが使用される。

While in Japanese, "animation" was abbreviated to "anime," Outside of Japan, the word has been used only to refer to media considered "Japanese animation." However in Japan, the country of origin and literary style (of the media) are not taken into account when applying "anime" to it.
Western cartoons and anime can both vary in drawing styles, based on the staff, budget, and character/set designs. Anime series are typically more detailed than your average western show as there is more of an abundance of technically skilled artists overseas than there are available in the West.
Both can reach different age regardless of their initial target audience (Avatar: The Last Airbender, My Little Pony, and Adventure Time are notable examples).
Typically western cartoons are more lighthearted when compared to Japanese anime. However, both can deal with more mature themes, in both a serious (like Cyber 6, Mighty Max, and Dungeons and Dragons) and humorous light (like Futurama, South Park, The Simpsons, and Family Guy). There are western cartoons for mature adults just like there are 18+ anime in Japan.
If you ask the average person in your country and one in Japan, both will consider them to be childish. The difference between anime and cartoons is very subjective. It typically comes down to what you like and how you like it.

And that's it. The differences are only there when we look at some kind of averages. Specific cartoons or anime can and often do easily fall outside of the typical. It's easy to find examples of both for almost any theme, genre or target audience you'd care for.

I think you've missed a vital difference: continuity. It's true that some anime is repetitive and non-continuous, but the greatest difference I've found is that most western-made cartoons have no continuous plot, making them better-suited for children. (This also leads into the idea that western cartoons often incorporate some moral or lesson into each episode, but this is less apparent.)

@Dani I think continuity is related to the differences shows are broadcast and renewed. In Japan the success of a series is typically gauged on it's profitability, usually by it's disc sales, in the US, it's by viewership. In Western countries, they want a series to last as long as possible so they can build and sell stuff off the brand they built. Most animes, don't have a regularly allotted broadcast schedule that gets renewed every season (shows in the West get renewed if their ratings do well), so it would make sense to have a contiguous plot that (usually) wraps things ups.

@Dani you see a break in continuity with long-running series like Bleach and Naruto, with their filler episodes.

@Krazer Interesting point about broadcasting! I see what you mean about the long-running series, but I think this does constitute a legitimate differentiating factor despite being influenced by broadcasting practices. After all, aren't they made to be broadcast?

+1 but I would rephrase the answer a little, not using "domestic" when you mean "american". Also sometimes your "domestic" means "non-japanese". There are more styles around the world that are very different from Japanese Anime (with capital A) or "domestic anime" and can be considered the country's style anime e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time..._Life (French anime), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_of_Pigs (Korean anime)

This does an excellent job of expressing the fact that the words "anime" and "cartoon" effectively mean the same thing. The differences between Japanese and Western storytelling and TV show production is another (much deeper) topic entirely

well this is factually incorrect; there are ways of looking at the two as distinct rather than a generalization and a subset. cartoons have entirely different etymology, history and social artifacts compared with anime or donghua

My personal argument:
Cartoons are mainly produced for kids, with topics about friendship, fun, exploration and similar things.
Anime / manga and related media mainly are produced for targets of all ages (except for Hentai and Ecchi series, of course). They can of course contain the "kids content", but there are much more serious ones out there, e.g. ones about love, death, conflicts, and wars. They're simply much deeper. The drawing and character art of cartoons is often vastly deformed / otherworldly to emphasize the disconnect from reality and the fun part of it.
Another difference is the way characters evolve. In most comics I've read, you have episodic experiences which are, at most, loosely connected, and so characters don't really evolve / grow up. I'm sure there are counter-examples out there, but I think we can agree that the characters are not the focus.
For most anime and related media, the characters are much deeper. Of course you also have the occasional counter-example here, but the characters get a much bigger focus.
You can think of anime / manga / visual novels / light novels as (Western) books / series / movies with regards to the content, except they're drawn (or have illustrative content) instead of being filmed / purely in written form.

Note that there are examples of anime that look and feel just like Western cartoons (Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, for the "look" aspect, at least) and the other way around (Avatar - The Last Airbender, Korra).

Would that make "Family Guy" or "King of the Hill" anime? Or can there be no anime that is targeted specifically at children? I'm no anime expert, but I found it curious that your differentiating point is the target audience rather than stylistic considerations.  I'm not looking for the exception that disproves the rule, but I never thought of anime in the manner you suggest. Interesting.

"The drawing and character art of cartoons is often vastly deformed" This definitely applies to anime as well. You wouldn't say the huge eyes that are characteristic of anime characters deformed?

"Cartoons are mainly produced for kids" this is an old stereotype and is no longer true. Even Disney cartoons are now more family oriented. With all the episodes of Family Guy, Simpsons, Futurama and South Park, it's obvious that cartoon is a media for everyone. Also there's ton of "Anime" that is just for little kids. But of course they don't get famous abroad because you won't watch them in your teenage years when you start getting interested in Anime abroad :)

This answer is heavily biased towards the notion that anime is somehow superior and more complex than western animated shows.  Assertions like "much deeper" "characters get a bigger focus" need much, much more support than they are given here.

@RobertCartaino probably the update should be western cartoons are 99% comedy and mostly children. mean while anime is either comedy or drama and either children or adults. Right?

The difference is only subjective, depending on yours and your peers' perceptions. Keep in mind that MOST of the anime that is exported from Japan is actually aimed at children. (defining 'children' as extending through the teenage years)

When they see me watching anime, or they hear about it somehow, they say that I'm watching a cartoon and hence I'm being childish.

Walt Disney didn't think Fantasia was for children either. Having watched the film several times, I'm inclined to agree. The point is that although they have tended in that direction (with a few notable exceptions) in the western world, there is no particular reason to limit cartoon themes to kids.

Sometimes, they even display sarcastic attitudes, so that giving a serious long explanation wouldn't be possible. What are the effective ways to explain that anime is different from cartoons in these kind of situations? Are there any clever sentences that will make an impact on people who don't know about anime?

I realize you only included this for context... but if someone is being sarcastic, it's not as if any real answer is applicable. This section of the question is also probably offtopic.

The easiest method of convincing someone would probably be making them sit through a showing of Grave of the Fireflies... although that's not particularly quick or clever.

"You don't... because they aren't. " not true. The term anime was coined in the west as a term for Japanese or Asian cartoons. And "anime" in Japanese is a term derived from english "Animation" with first Disney cartoons in mind. That's the beauty of language and this question is more or less just about language and the perception of two words that technically mean very similar thing, but in fact mean two different things.

@sm4: Most of your historical statements here are wrong. Please review the Japanese wikipedia article on アニメ, particularly the historical terms section.

I see the quoted line dissapeared from the answer, so I suppose my comment is no longer relevant.

@sm4: That line no longer matched the form of the top post. In the original, the final question was along the lines of "How do I explain that anime and cartoons are different?" I didn't notice the change in the top post prior to your comment notification.

This question is really usual, especially when you are an anime fan. In my situation, I don't want 'anime' to be called 'cartoons' because they are so different for me. The following are the differences I think they have:

Anime targets a vast audience, from kids to adults, while cartoons
mainly targets kids, with the exception of course of adults who
likes to watch cartoons.
Anime tackles themes for kids, teens and adults and have stories that
have depth, while cartoons       tackles more themes that are for
kids.
Anime came from Japanese productions, and cartoons came from US
productions (or anywhere except Japan).
You can really tell if what you are watching is an anime or a
cartoons by it's visual graphics (if you're an anime fan then, you'll
know what I mean). You can notice that the characters from one
cartoon show is very different from how cartoon characters in another
cartoon show looks like. However in anime, you can notice some
similarities on how they look like.

I think the best way for you to explain is to let them watch a very good anime and have them watch some cartoons, then tell them, "Saw the difference?". Or just let them think what they want. I experienced what you experience a lot from my parents but I just let them say what they want or think what they think. Respectfully ignore them. Just make sure that you don't disrespect them as you try to defend anime and that watching anime doesn't affect your attitude negatively.

I agree, "from Japanese productions" is a key part. While some cartoons have tried similar styles, it often does not seems to be considered "anime".

Avatar the Last Air Bender is an example of cartoons which tried an anime-like style, from it's story and a little on the graphics area, but it still can't be considered as an anime since it didn't come from Japanese productions.

Anime and cartoon are both used to identified an animated production, the first made in Japan, the other ones in the rest of the world...
If we have to show more detailed difference I'd say:
Visual characteristics
Anime: Distinct facial expressions. Wide variation in physical characteristics.
Physical features of characters are, on the whole, closer to reality than cartoons.
Cartoon: Characters usually have features that are not relative to the rest of the body and therefore further from reality than anime.
Topics/Themes
Anime: concentrates mostly on life issues or things tied closer to human emotion.
Cartoons: are generally made to make people laugh and so is more comical.
Definition and Term:
Anime: English dictionaries define the word as ‘Japanese style of motion picture animation’.
Cartoon: was used as a model or study for a painting but is now associated with caricatures for humor and satire.
Reference

I don't want to get too subjective here, but there are some key aspects that I discuss with others:

Art style; there is a distinct difference in how characters in an Anime series are drawn as opposed to Western style series.  (Occasionally, you'll get a shout-out to the Anime style, too.)
Target audience; there are a wide variety of audiences and an even more diverse demographic of consumers of anime than there are of traditional Western cartoons.
Theming; as much of a culture shock as it may be (which I'll get to in a moment), many Anime have themes that wouldn't make much sense in the Western world, such as 108 for the Buddist number of temptations man will case, 4 for death, white for death, etc.
Culture differences; there are quite a few series that are tolerated, if not acceptable, in Japan, whereas in the Western world, they'd be censored in some way or not permitted at all, or merit whomever is a fan of it some very dirty looks.
Some of the things that would cause controversy or be seen as "unacceptable" in Western animation would be homosexual relationships (yaoi/yuri), large age gap relationships, lolicon/shotacon (which is strangely legal but heavily frowned upon), and incest.
Western animation wouldn't touch that with a one-hundred foot pole.

... and then we have animations like "Drawn Together", "Rick & Steve", "South Park" and "The Three Friends And Jerry", which are happily throwing those themes in your face.

This is a pretty difficult question, but I may have some tips.
While cartoons are meant to be watched by kids, anime is meant to be watched by all ages:  there is a series for everyone, for every theme, for every age. From little kids, like Doraemon, for young kids like Pokemon, to teenagers like shonen series or teen-shojos, to more adult like seinens or even hentai. Everyone can enjoy something.

kids? ugh...family guy? the simpsons?

We all know Anime is "Japanese-style cartoons", and this often makes people say they are both cartoons. Yes they are, but this doesn't mean there aren't differences. Substantial differences.
First of all, the audience. The main objective difference is that Anime are not cartoons for kids, usually.
Some Anime get censored when dubbed in foreign countries and they are rendered as quite childish (and this is sometimes really annoying), while the original holds some adult references, scenes containing violence and so on. While this is not true for all Anime, as some are really aimed to children, some of them need a mature audience.
Also, the characters are treated quite differently. There is more growth in Anime characters as it develops for a whole series. For example, Zabuza in Naruto ends up being quite a likeable character because you go beyond him simply being an antagonist.
Both Anime and cartoons treat themes like life, death, religion, love, betrayal, ethics, etc. But cartoons really treat such matters quite differently. Just think about Disney-style cartoons: do they share anything with Anime in terms of how they treat these topics?

kids? ugh...family guy? the simpsons?

Firstly, anime in English tends to refer to Japanese content. However, as noted in this answer, "anime" in Japanese just refers to any animated content. That said, it's fine to have this discrepancy — similar things have cropped up in other English loanwords. (For instance "Lied" or its plural "Lieder" refer to 19th to 20th century styled German language art songs when the words are used in English, but in German, "Lieder" seems to sometimes take on a more general sense.) So in this sense, at the very least, in English, not all cartoons are anime, because not all cartoons are Japanese. (Certainly it would be ridiculous for me to go around claiming that Spongebob Squarepants is anime to an English speaker.)
It is still unclear whether "anime" is simply a subset of "cartoons". The main problem, which other answers have touched on, appears to be that in English, "cartoon" often suggests something intended for young children, which does not cover the content of a lot of anime. Certainly things like Serial Experiments Lain or the Fate series are, by this connotation, not really "cartoons".
However, even shows animated outside of Japan are sometimes denoted as "cartoons", even when their content or art style doesn't really fall into the areas of the average person's idea of a "cartoon". For instance, a search for waltz with bashir "cartoon" suggests that at least a few writers in large newspapers (1, 2) described the animated film Waltz with Bashir as a cartoon, and both its subject matter (the 1982 Lebanon War) and its style hardly resemble the likes of the average cartoon, both in content and style. (Compare to Arthur or South Park.)
The same goes for Archer, which is, at least in the English-speaking world, markedly more famous than Waltz with Bashir. I have not seen Archer, but Wikipedia suggests that it is hardly more appropriate for children than Waltz with Bashir.
So insofar as usage in English goes, either:

Anime is different from "regular cartoons", but only insofar as "regular cartoons" consists of children's shows and also fail to cover other animated content like Waltz with Bashir. Anything outside of regular cartoon-appropriate content is best either described with a different classification if this gives more information about the content (e.g. "anime") or a broader one (e.g. "animated content").
Anime is not different from "regular cartoons", because "cartoon" covers anything at all animated.

In either sense, "anime" is really only about the fact that something was animated (and marketed towards the Japanese).
I am inclined to prefer the first view in terms of how I personally use the word "cartoon" (so describe Doraemon and Chibi Maruko-chan but not Fate/zero as "cartoons") because of the connotations of "cartoon". However, I would consider the second to still be acceptable (in the sense that I won't get upset about that view being taken) because it's obvious that people also use "cartoon" similarly "inappropriately" on other more adult-oriented shows that are not from Japan.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is Kiroumaru really a bakenezumi?
Warning: Answers may contain (hopefully hidden) spoilers from the end of the series.
Kiroumaru is a leader of the bakenezumi (monster rats or queerats) but he looks a lot different from all the other ones in the show.

On the left is Yakomaru, who looks like pretty much every other bakenezumi in the show. On the right is Kiroumaru who is quite different from Yakomaru. In a few of the episodes, I think I heard characters refer to Kiroumaru as a bakenezumi, and nobody questioned why he looks so different. Is he really a bakenezumi, or is he some other species that joined a bakenezumi tribe?

Think of Queerats as humans (WINK WINK). A person can be Asian, Caucasian, etc. So, there are many different types of Queerats too; some of them have horns, some have smaller teeth and (in this case) some of them are tall.
HOWEVER. There IS a speculation regarding Kiroumaru's height that involves the origin of the Queerats. It's a last ep spoiler:

 Since Queerats are from non-PK humans, Kiroumaru's height might come from this. It might mean that he or his race didn't "evolve" properly into Queerats. Or, Kiroumaru's race might be tall in the first place. That is, when they were still humans, they were tall. So, when they turned into Queerats, they're tall too.

Hope that helps you :D

Wasn't it revealed at the end that queerats were mole rat + (you know what) DNA? I can see the you know what, but I'm at a loss for the mole rat part...


text:
Why do many anime OPs and EDs have onscreen lyrics?
I have noticed that much, but by no means all, of the anime that I've seen has had lyrics onscreen during either its OPs, EDs, or both. Why is this so?
I know karaoke is fairly popular in Japan, so do people actually sing along while they wait for their shows to start? Perhaps it is done to promote the songs licensed for the openings/endings?
Some examples of what I'm talking about include:

Shirokuma Cafe

Pokémon

Dragonball Kai

Doraemon

Note: Emphasis mine in all of these images.
As a bonus if you could include some information on these side issues, that'd be great:

Is this exclusive to anime, or does it appear in other forms of Japanese media (e.g. music videos? OPs of live action dramas? etc.)
Why are they almost never included in licensed English versions?
What was the first anime to include them?

Perhaps this is a slightly broad question, but I assume there must be some general consensus on the matter. Does anyone have an explanation for this phenomenon? :)

I don't know why they show the lyrics on some and not on others, but for me, the number of shows that have lyrics is much less than the shows that don't have. (Probably because most of the shows that I watch are late night anime in Japan).

I think this is only common among shows aimed at children. All of the examples you gave were shows which are, at least partly, aimed at children. Having karaoke for the song helps the younger viewers sing along, and also has some educational benefits in terms of learning more advanced characters. If you watch anime targeted at older viewers, they rarely have karaoke.
It's also notable that those anime aimed at younger children are using only very common kanji that even children would probably know, and is giving furigana. Those aimed at older children tend to have more complex kanji and sometimes omit the furigana as well. This isn't apparent from just the exam

All of the examples you gave were shows which are, at least partly, aimed at children. Now I feel immature :P Thanks for the input though. :)

Is Beelzebub aimed at children (it shows lyrics of OP/ED apparently)? I have a bit of doubt, since the show is mostly violence.

@nhahtdh For the purposes of this answer, yes. I was including the shounen, shoujo, and kodomo demographic groups, and Beelzebub is squarely in the shounen category. Beelzebub aired at 7 AM, which is a timeslot that is usually used for shows targeting a younger demographic. There were changes from the manga to make the show less violent and more appropriate for children. In any case, I'm not claiming that every show with karaoke does so for the sake of younger viewers, just that most of them do.

Then maybe it is because of the time slot? I don't think late night anime has any karaoke lyrics.

@nhahtdh I don't think it will be possible to determine whether it's the time-slot or the target demographic, because the two are very highly correlated. Anime aimed at children wouldn't be shown late at night, and anime targeting adults wouldn't be shown in early mornings. That being said, I don't see much reason why the time slot would be directly relevant to including karaoke.

@LoganM: Because the children are supposed to be asleep at the showing time of late night anime? I think that is the whole reason why such shows are aired around 12AM (plus minus a few hours).

@nhahtdh Yes, that's why children's anime is not aired late at night, but it's a question of cause and effect. Is it being aired in the morning that caused the anime to have karaoke, or being targeted towards children? Of course the two are correlated, but they don't both have to be part of the explanation for why these shows have karaoke. Logically I can't see any reason why the time the show is aired, holding demographic targeting constant, would be related at all to karaoke, while I see a lot of reason why the demographics would play a role.

I think demographic (when it is clearly aims at children) plays a crucial role. But when it is not really clear that the show is aimed at children, I think the time slot better explains the phenomenon.

I think you hit it on the nail with the Karaoke connection. Karaoke is extremely popular in Japan, so offering song subtitles is something of a no brainer. Also, OPs and EDs are an integral part of an anime franchise, both as an identity and as a source of sales. Putting the lyrics in plain view makes singing along with the songs a lot easier, which in turn makes them stick to a listener's brain. This could lead to increased loyalty for the title and increased sales for its merchandise, especially musical ones.

Some music animes or Idol animes such as Love Live gather fanbases that love to sing along. This is also done when an anime is dubbed (the op/ed is some times given an eng translation along with karoake words. Other animes seems to have no reason.


text:
Is there a superstition about good anime series having character(s) that run in the ED?
At the end of the Carnival Phantasm: HibiChika Special, Kohaku (Koha-Ace ver.) mentions that there is a superstition where good anime all have people running in the ending animation.
Does this superstition actually exist? If so, how true is this superstition? Where did it first start?

Interesting question, but I don't think there's an objective way to answer "how true is it?" What I think is a good anime might be a bad anime to you, or what a famous critic says is a good anime might be bad to me.

@atlantiza While taste in anime may vary greatly between fans, the commercial success of certain series is usually undeniable. I'm asking if there is any evidence that this sort of "jinx" could be result of a popular/unspoken myth/belief (like talking behind someone's back causes the person being talked about to sneeze), something that evolved out of some trend (like the Curse of Bambino) or something the writers just made up in a tongue-and-cheek manner.

I am not sure if there's a superstition in the Japanese culture or just among the animators but according here,

In a lot of anime, a character (usually the protagonist) will show up
  in the opening or ending credits, running along while remaining on a
  fixed spot on-screen. The character could be running the whole time,
  or start out walking slowly and gradually pick up speed. The
  background is usually of the scrolling kind, but sometimes the
  character actually seems to run through a changing scenery. In any
  case, it's rare for characters to maintain a leisurely speed the whole
  time; usually, this has something to do with either the pace of the
  music, or the animators' need to keep opening and ending themes moving
  fast at all times.
Side-on running and walking cycles are often created by animators as a
  way to get a feel for the characters, and these cycles will no doubt
  be used at some point in the show.

While this may answer why they do these types of sequences, it doesn't necessarily explain if there is a belief or trend that having such a sequence could boost the success of your franchise. Much like how superstitious sports fans do certain ritual or wear certain colors to games in hopes of their team winning. It's also interesting to note that if there are characters running, in one of those sequences, it's much of the time, it's to the left of the screen.


text:
What particular anime first showcased crossovers?
Well, the question says it all.  I'm really interested in the idea of cross-overs in anime. I want to know which particular company or manga group artists started the idea of cross-overs and what particular anime(s) showed cross-overs (in anime history) and the characters involved in it.
As I have searched from Wikipedia:

A fictional crossover (short: crossover) is the placement of two or more otherwise discrete fictional characters, settings, or universes into the context of a single story. They can arise from legal agreements between the relevant copyright holders, unauthorized efforts by fans, or even amid common corporate ownership.

I think that defines cross-overs in anime as well 'cause anime and manga stories are mostly fictional, hence, may work the same way in the anime industry. Correct me if I'm wrong but the general idea I have about it is that they can only do cross-overs if they (anime characters and anime) are in the same company or copyright (e.g. Clamp).
So far, most of Clamp animes did cross-overs like the cross-over of the characters of Cardcaptor Sakura, Chobits, Clamp School Detectives (same names and faces but with different roles) to Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle. Another is the popular cross-over of characters and even story of Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle, XXXHolic, Kobato and several Clamp-made animes (that I might have forgot to mention). Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle focuses in the cross-over ideas since they travel different worlds and meet the same people they met from the previous world they've been yet with different attitude and roles.
Another example I know is the cross-over of Lupin III (along Fujiko and others) in a Detective Conan movie, Lupin III VS Detective Conan. And Conan Edogawa's appearance in an episode of Yakitate! Japan (I'm not sure which episode it is). I don't know if Detective Conan, Lupin III and Yakitate! Japan are animes from the same company or copyright. Are they?
P.S. I hope this question won't be closed since this will really be educational for anime fans out there.

Very similar question already closed, and I think with good reason. The idea of cross-overs did not originate in anime or manga; it's been a device in many fictional media. The Wikipedia article quoted in the question indicates this quite well: "A fictional crossover", "a single story", "discrete fictional…settings"—all of those phrases, to me, point to it being a general phenomenon within fiction, not something unique to anime/manga.

How about the question of mine about the first anime that showed crossovers? Aren't you going to consider that question?

I might consider it a very broad question, but others will need to come and express their opinions so we can really start to define whether questions like this are in-scope for the site.

I don't think that the question is off-topic, as it asks for anime with a speciality, not for crossovers in general. Or am I mistaken?

I voted to reopen this question since it did not seem to violate any of the FAQ guidelines for asking questions.

It's probably as early as those old Go Nagai shows. There's a couple of movies where several of his franchises were together. To name a few:

Mazinger Z Vs. Devilman (1973)
Great Mazinger tai Getter Robo (1975)
Great Mazinger tai Getter Robo G (1975)
Grendizer - Getter Robo G - Great Mazinger Kessen! Daikaijuu (1976)
UFO Robo Grendizer tai Great Mazinger (1976)

Crossovers consisting of Devilman, Mazinger Z, Great Mazinger, Getter Robo, Getter Robo G, Grendizer, and UFO Robo Grendizer.
Also, Lupin III is by Monkey Punch and Detective Conan is by Gosho Aoyama. It was a planned collaboration. Both shows are produced by Tokyo Movie.

I think you meant Kaitou Kid and Detective Conan...?


text:
Why did Jeremiah Gottwald use his Geass on Nunnally?
In Code Geass R2, on episode 49, when Lelouch went to Nunnally

who was the holding F.L.E.I.J.A. switch, to confront her and to give to him the switch, it was revealed that she has now regained her sight which she lost because of his father, Charles Vi Britannia's geass. The only existing geass who can possibly cancel out that geass was the Geass Canceller. And Jeremiah Gottwald has that geass. On the previous episode, Nunally has fallen from her wheelchair and someone helped her. So it can be assumed (though it was not really stated or shown) that Jeremiah was the one who helped her then and canceled out the geass Charles used on her, thus having her regain her sight again.

My question is, why would Jeremiah

use his geass on Nunnally? (Assuming that he really was the reason why Nunnally regained her sight again.)

Was it out of pity? Since he

has vowed his loyalty to Lelouch,

did he feel the need to help Lelouch's sister, knowing that she is very important to him?
Or was it included in Lelouch's plan? If it is, what will it gain him?
Or Lelouch purposely asked Jeremiah to do it for him, again, for his sister's sake?
Or it was just a random act for Jeremiah just for the purpose of having his geass used?
I just need some clarifications on this part. Maybe I overlooked something or misunderstood something, but any clarifications would do. Thanks.

He didn´t use Geass Canceller on her because they have never even met. regardless of that, how would he cancel her if she had no eyesight?
Either she overcame the Geass by her own or all Charles´s Geass are canceled upon his death.

Great point! :) But then, who was the one who helped her when she fell from her wheelchair? She hasn't gain her eyesight then but when Lelouch came, she already had.

Furthermore, he defeated his father long ago. So if Charles' death was the cause of Nunnally's regaining of sight, then she should have regained that long before. Remember, on episode 46, Lelouch defeated his father, then the next scene was one month later, when Lelouch declared himself as the new Emperor of Britannia (or, will it take that long before a geass can be cancelled?). Was it explained that cast Geass can be cancelled after the Geass who cast it died? And was there a situation where someone did overcome the Geass that was cast on him/her?

Nunally could´ve simply been hiding that she regained her eyesight. And no one helped her get back up from the wheelchair because when he finally came back for her, it was to use her as a prisoner.

@ChristianAurigFrøkjær Well they did say :  When Lelouch comes to retrieve the F.L.E.I.J.A. control key from Nunnally, she reveals that she somehow managed to overcome her blindness, caused by the effects of their father's Geass, through her own willpower

according to the wiki, the geass canceller will automatically reverse any Geass used on Jeremiah or anybody else in its range. So it could have been possible for Jeremiah to use it on Nunnally

Jeremiah still wasn´t within range at any point until the grand finale.

Nunnally was helped back on her chair: Lelouch had always planned to destroy Damocles and of cause Nunnally was on board, even on opposite sides Lelouch still loved Nunnally, Lelouch would have had an agent ensure that no matter what happened to him or the Zero Requiem Nunnally would be safe so that he wouldn't loose her like he almost did last time

Jeremiah being on Damocles: as ChristianAurigFrøkjær has said, Jeremiah wasn't in range, he was fighting C.C with the Siegfried and was in the ocean with her at the end after she was defeated

Geass is canceled when the user dies: this can be tied with the debate of if Lelouch is dead or not as there are conflicting evidence, the girl Lelouch commanded to scratch the wall everyday had stopped and the Geass Canceler was never use in Ashford (however she could have been in town in the same area as Shirley unconfirmed thuough), what contradicts this is Schnizel's order to "Obey Zero" which he is doing at the ever end (and since Zero is now Suzaku Schnizel would obey him) so that either means Lelouch is alive of Geass doesn't disappear when the user dies

@Memor-X Geass is NOT CANCELLED upon user's death. Charles was long dead (months) during the Damocles battle, and Nunnaly was still blind, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunnally_Lamperouge . Geass can be weakened by the user's death, but not broken.

@ChristianAurigFrøkjær Area effect geass do not need eye contact. Rolo Lamperouge, Mao, Bismark, all these guy's geass work without eye contact.

@Mindwin if you read my entire comment i also explain a contradiction about Geass being canceled or even weakening after the caster's death. If Lelouch did die then the Geass on Schnizel should be weakening however according to the Code Geass Wiki and what we see at the end he is still "obeying Zero", if the Geass had weakened he would not be given his character, however as i also noted, this contradiction will be cleared out once we get a definitive comment from the writers about Lelouch's fate

@Memor-X we do have a canon position on Lelouch's fate: UNKNOWN. The show producers decided to cut the shot of the cart rider smiling, to leave interpretation OPEN (craps the people like me that need certainty, but caters to a larger audience) to generate specifically this kind of buzz we have right now on if he lives or dies. Even worse, is geass cancelled upon the user receiving a code? lolz. PS: the wikia sites info is not the best source for stuff. lots and lots of speculation in disguise everywhere (not only code geass site, mind you).

@xjshiya I think she climbed her wheelchair by herself. Disabled people have extraordinary arm coordination and strength for their frames (compared to regular people) and If you think that she has been for years in that state, it is safe to assume she climbed her wheelchair on her own from the ground at least a couple times way before boarding the Damocles.

He did not, as he was fighting elsewhere far beyond the range. Nunnaly broke the geass out of sheer willpower. Some individuals can resist part of a geass, or overcome it.
It is shown for example, that Susaku can retain the memories of what he does under the influence of the Geass, while everyone else forgets.
Think of how she was feeling when it happened. She had reason to believe that not finding the key would be the defeat of her side, and everything she held dear.
That would be enough to break the geass on her eyes. Note that it is not shown that it also break the geass about her fake memories implanted during her mother's death.
Also, EVEN if you think Orange-kun could make a dispell bubble that large (kilometers), it would also dispell the geass on Lelouch soldiers. So he only used it to dispel (presumed) Charle's (or Marianne's) geass on Anya, after he opens up her cockpit during the battle.
(I think its not shown he used it after the Mall incident).

It's simple, he didn't.
First off, he couldn't use his Geass Canceller even if he wanted to:
At the moment, he was fighting Anya in Mordred and even fter he defeated her, his Knightmare (both parts) was already destroyed and also even if Mordred wasn't damaged enough, he would have to get access code from Anya to pilot it. Moreover, Damocles's shields were still up at that time, so he couldn't even get inside the shield, since the temporary hole that Lelouch created was already gone.
Secondly, it's been several cases of people resisting Geass and even breaking it without the Geass Canceller.
Namely, Lelouch himself (though with the help of C.C.'s kiss) did break the same Charles's Geass and restored his memory. Suzaku is known to partially resist Lelouch's Geass order due to his willpower to get an upper hand in combat. Euphemia was resisting Lelouch's order for some time because she didn't want to kill the Japanese and seemed to break out of that order before dying as she couldn't put herself to hurt Suzaku. The same Nunnaly did also resist Lelouch's order to give him the Damocles key. So it's not unnatural to be able to resist Geass without Geass Canceller.
Lastly, it's been stated in-universe by Lelouch, that she did overpower Charles's Geass by herself.
After Nunnally opens her eyes Lelouch literally says that she did break Geass on her own.
Also, Jeremiah didn't just vouch for his loyalty to Lelouch. His loyalty to Lelouch originates from his loyalty to Marianne and Nunnally is also her child. Also from his fandom wiki profile:

His loyalty towards Marianne, and to an extent, to Lelouch and Nunnally, was so devoted that he is willing to betray anyone in order to prove his loyalty to them.

Moreover, while going to the battle, Jeremiah says

For Lelouch, for Nunnally

which shows his loyalty to both of them.