Talk:Akira (1988 film)/Archive 2

Regarding the Plot Summary
Maybe we should just make it focus on a few characters. My suggestions would probably be Kei, Kaneda, Tetsuo, and The Espers. How's that? 202.8.230.50 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second that the plot summary needs some work. I have never seen the movie or read the manga, and the current plot summary makes very little sense. It is at once too detailed and not detailed enough. Characters are introduced with no explanation and important characteristics are taken as if everyone knows them. I can't revise this myself, but I cna point out that it is almost useless unless one already knows the film (in which case one doesn't need it). - Fenevad (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference
In the game Saints Row 2 there are some pretty obvious references to akira -

One of the Japanese (I assume) sports bikes is called the "Tetsuo"

And a bike unlockable by defeating the Japanese Crime boss is called the "Kaneda" and has a high-tech look almost exactly like the one in the movie. (Although it is a different color)

Notable? --Nitro378 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Date for the Live Action film
Currently the live action film dates the first of two films to be released in 2009, then says 2011. The former should be changed to "was the expected date, but", surely? Or am I reading it wrong? J4cK0fHe4rt5 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Akira (film) and Akira (manga) SHOULD BE MOVED!!!!!
I am AKIRA2019 and I think Akira (film) and Akira (manga) SHOULD BE MOVED! I've tried 3 times so far, but now I'm in a fucking edit war with Wikipedia. However, I read that if someone can get enough support, Wikipedia will let that person move a page! PLZ support me. The reason I want to change the name of the pages is that the manga and movie ARE NOT called Akira! That's the name of the character! The mm (movie and manga) are called AKIRA! (capitalization is not in anger, it's because thst's how they're spelled in Japan.) I also believe that if that's what it's called in one cuntry, that's how it should be called in another! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKIRA2019 (talk • contribs)


 * This is the English language wikipedia, and we follow standard english convention for names, as per MOS:TM. --M ASEM (t) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) for another guideline agreeing with the pages being named "Akira" as opposed to "AKIRA". Good raise  04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move This move is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the use of capitalization in articles and article names. Having the name in all capital letters is a stylistic choice of the Japanese creators. When other third-parties publishers mention or cover the film or manga, they always use normal capitalization for proper nouns. In other words, they only capitalize the first letter while the rest of the word is rendered in lowercase. --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to note that the person with user-name AKIRA2019, is not affiliated with akira2019.com, Cheers. Damn-Deal-Done (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Akira (film) and Akira (manga) SHOULD BE MOVED!!!!!
Oh, goddamn it! Wikiipedia put a message right on mine! Hey, Wiki, if you're gonna be on my messages without me knowing it, then show me where a general discussion page for these 2 articles are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKIRA2019 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "general discussion page" as Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You were, however, given a warning for edit waring by moving this page. That is SOP for such cases. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

'Anti-government" linking to anarchy?
In the first paragraph of the plot summary the word "anti-government" leads to the article on anarchy. I haven't read the manga but I don't remember anything about anarchism being mentioned in the movie. I don't think it was even said what the political affiliation of the terrorists were. Could someone who's read the manga clarify this? 71.61.250.56 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anarchists have a more specific ideology than just anti-government (such as anti-capitalism, anti-religion, etc.) and the anti-government group in the movie are only shown as anti-government, without the other ideological biases that would qualify them as anarchist. There are different kinds of anarchists, like anarcho-capitalists and christian anarchists and every other variation, so it is best left as "anti-government" as they are merely resisting the form of government that neo-Tokyo has at that moment in time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.30.38 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Voice Cast section table
Uh, what are all the parenthesized names in the voice cast table supposed to represent? There's zero explanation on the table section. DP 76764 (Talk) 04:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent news about the live action film
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/05/26/akira-looking-for-a-new-director/

Albert Hughes drops out, Keanu Reeves rejecting part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.180.14 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Gilliams top 50?
That quote of the movie being on a terry gilliam list is a misnomer. He didn't write that list. He only made comments on a few select films, on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.213.172 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Split live action film
I propose to split the live action film into its own article.--Cattus talk 19:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until filming commences per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Splitting wouldn't make sense until the project is farther along. In the meantime, however, I would recommend removing casting reports and other news that no longer apply. They make the section a bit confusing for someone looking for the current state of the project.  I do not think past rumors about Leo DiCaprio or Joseph Gordon-Levitt are relevant anymore.  Perhaps even the bit about Keanu Reeves (although more than a rumor) should be excluded now that he's turned it down.MattMauler (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now until the project pushes through.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think most the information already included in the article about the movie is unnecessary, even if the movie actually gets made. Do we really need every casting rumor in even a dedicated movie article?  I think a few sentences that the movie had many casting rumors over a course of X years would be much better than what we have now. I'd actually propose thinning out that section of the article rather than spinning it off.  Denaar (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the opposing votes and the low relevance of the section I've trimmed it down to 5 short paragraphs, explaining the current known status of the project and the fact that it had a long list of associated directors, writers, producers and cast (I refrained naming anyone but the latest known writer and director). I've tried to keep most of the relevant references around, so they can be later filtered or better orgsanized. I've also kept the George Takei comment, since it was about the only actual thing to happen around the movie. Elideb (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the original references before the re-write pointed to empty articles, and some quotes were incorrectly sourced. I've reviewed some of them, fixed the right out wrong, edited a few more. I also made a mistake when moving around the references, but it has been corrected by another user. Elideb (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Box office "success"
I tagged the following statement as "dubious": "The film set attendance records for an animated film in Japan." According to MPAAJ records (here), not only did Akira not break into the top ten in 1988, the animated Doraemon film from that year did, which means this is likely a mistake. Michitaro (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC) That figure is wrong and ought to be deleted. - Primadog (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no one offered evidence that clarified or proved this assertion, I removed the dubious statement. Michitaro (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also added a "dubious" tag to the infobox's BO figure of 6 billion yen. That figure is given by such unreliable sources as this, but reliable industry sources like the MPAAJ show it didn't even break into the best ten in BO. Since the the number 10 film got only 1 billion yen, Akira was far from 6 billion (the Japanese industry at that time did not release official BO figures for films that did not make the top list). The Japanese Wikipedia article gives the BO figure of 750 million yen: ja:AKIRA_(漫画), though it does not give a source. Michitaro (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly wrong, but wrong for so long that it's taken as fact all over the English-speaking web. Here's the edit where it happened, which quotes IMDB.  6+ billion yen would make the movie a Top-10 grossing anime film and a Top-100 grossing film in Japan box office.  We can probably find plenty of those lists without Akira, in Japanese and English.

Found a citation for the 750 million yen figure:

6 アキラ 750 (million yen) キネマ旬報, Issues 1000-1003 page 171

Primadog (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An IP has repeatedly changed the box office figure to 7.5 billion yen, or 75 million dollars. Unfortunately, it is true that the citation Primadog found on Google Books is hard to read (I need to go and check the original), but the 7.5 billion figure is impossible. As I showed above, the Eiren figures prove that no Japanese film made over 4.5 billion yen that year . For the time being, I have returned it to 750 million yen, but if people feel it best, we can leave it blank until the KineJun figure can be confirmed. Michitaro (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We know for a fact that it isn't "750 10-million yen" (whatever that means) as that IP keep claiming, by cross referencing rest the box office gross on rest of the page:

前年対比八四,七おと .... 1.050 4 "-、:, 1,050 6 アキラ 750 7 ラブ'プ、トーリーを^に 500 8 源氏物^ 380 9 4 尺ケカ時代

Several series with "1,050" box office gross sits just above Akira, which we can identify from the EIREN rankings as 帝都物語, 男はつらいよ　寅次郎物語 女咲かせます, and またまたあぶない刑事ふたりぼっち.

Both EIREN and キネマ旬報 lists their gross in million yen (単位：百万円). That IP was bullshiting. - Primadog (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture of city
It's fanart. The city was not nearly as detailed in the actual movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.141.60 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New section: Themes
This film is well-recognized for its complex theming and story-telling, and the lack of a section regarding the movie's thematic concerns is jarring at best. I wouldn't recommend copying the themes described on the manga's article, as the film differs considerably structure-wise from the manga and therefore can be interpreted in different ways. Any ideas (particularly sources), people? PatTheMoron (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic can be a good start. I'd bet that some of sources already on the article may deal with it. Some one just needs to give a further look. And, yes, do not copy&paste from the manga article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's turned up on Google Scholar related to the movie. However, I was able to find some very intriguing articles on interpretations of the film (the cycle of destruction, the role of Kaori etc.), but all are non-official articles by fans. As SephyTheThird pointed out to me, fan opinions on anything aren't allowed as per Wikipedia's Original Research policy. However, here are the articles in case you're interested:
 * http://symposiumforgeek.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/akira-and-its-existence-in-japanese.html
 * http://theideologyofmodernentertainment.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Akira
 * http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/11b589/ive_seen_akira_1988_probably_over_a_dozen_times/
 * http://www.oocities.org/invictusdomini/AKIRA.html
 * http://www.madmind.de/2010/08/03/the-role-of-kaori-in-akira/

Tak a look, and see if they could be used. Thanks! PatTheMoron (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dates
They were kind of written funny, can somebody change that, or is that part of manual of style now? --173.53.83.88 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

LIVE-ACTION FILM SECTION: People Involved?
In the Live-action film section of the article, there's a sentence that reads, Since the project began, several writers, directors, producers, actors and actresses have been attached to the project, and then it cites 12 sources as a means of covering all the writers, producers, directors, and actors that were involved with the project. It seems kind of underwhelming. I think those 12 sources should be expanded upon to better benefit the section so readers can know who was involved in project instead of just opening a new tab for each source. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Akira (1988 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202165925/http://www.slashfilm.com/james-franco-akira/ to http://www.slashfilm.com/james-franco-akira/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary discussion
All right. I don't want to start an edit war on the article with regards to the plot summary. While I agree with most of the additions, here's the definition of WP:FILMPLOT:
 * "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction‍ '​s non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article. Lastly, events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot. See how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials for more in-depth suggestions."

However, that particular film is an adaptation of a 2000 page manga obviously and its plot is unconventional per that guideline. With all of the recent editing going on, I've been attempting to keep the plot summary short (i.e. below 700 words), but as of right now the current word count is over 900 words. As such, per WP:BRD, I'm going to open up a discussion about this here. How should we go about editing the plot summary to contain important elements to the plot while leaving out less important information within WP:FILMPLOT guidelines? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say to focus on cutting down the play-by-play. I'm not sure if the plot is "too complicated to summarize" though. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw the post on FILM. Yeah, I'd be tempted to agree that there isn't anything specific to Akira the film that would justify a plot summary that's longer than the guideline. The plot isn't that too complex (just a bit of scene setting), and it's not unconventional in terms of structure (fairly linear). I had a quick look at the summary, and I'd say that after the recent copy edits it's currently at a suitable length at the moment, if anyone's at all interested in my opinion. It's been a long time since I've seen it however, but I can't recall anything important that's been omitted. Scribolt (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Akira (1988 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307121115/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/akira/ to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/akira/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1088692%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202165925/http://www.slashfilm.com/james-franco-akira/ to http://www.ecartelera.com/noticias/7754/james-franco-podria-ser-kaneda-adaptacion-akira/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Explosion and the riots/protests
Where does it say it's a gravitational singularity? And I do think the anti-government protests are relevant to the plot, as Kei's revealed to be part of the group that tried to help Takashi escape. Orthacanthus (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The initial explosion at the start of the film we have no idea what caused it beyond that it was a result of Akira, so that's right to keep as an explosion. --M ASEM (t) 23:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding on to that, I remember that part of the driving plot of the film is finding out what/who caused the explosion, and - surprise - it's Akira, and we find this out halfway through the film. Orthacanthus (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Live action section - here or at magna or new article
With news coming again about this, it still stresses that they are looking to do the live-action of the manga and not of this film. (eg now back to 2 films, each doing 3 volumes of the originl manga). I can understand keeping the live-action stuff here since the manga article isn't well suited for it and this makes sense, but I also feel its misleading here since this work seems to be based on the original work and not a remake of the anime film. Ideally a separate article would be best but I know FILM frowns on a film's article until its established production has started. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)