Talk:Crunchyroll (Company)/Archive 1

fixed
← This has been fixed. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  06:04, Jan. 4, 2006

Clean up
article move was a little messy if some one could help clean everything up that would be good (Ke5crz 04:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

You are supposed to use the "move" button at the top of the screen. Now you have started this talk page, that is impossible for normal users to do Shiroi Hane 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All previous discussions are, for whatever reason, currently located at Talk:FUNimation Entertainmnet Shiroi Hane 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This has also been fixed. The history of both talk pages has been merged here. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  06:07, Jan. 4, 2006

Do any of you belive we should add anything else to the FUNimation page? (Ke5crz 04:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC))
 * You could break out the history better, but I'm not an expert. For example, there is no mention here of their licensing agreements with DiC and Kidmark which were crucial in the early days of the company. And the bit about Dragon Ball just succeeding is misleading-- my understanding is that they were pretty much at the end of their ropes with the cancellation of the original Dragon Ball after less than a season followed by short success with Dragon Ball Z, but that was cancelled from network TV after two seasons before it was picked up by Cartoon Network. They had to bring dubbing in-house to cut costs during those days, though that clearly ended up being a good thing. )They may have had other reasons. I don't know how their relationship with Ocean Group was structured. JRP 04:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited at the same time JRP it should be fixed now. (Ke5crz 04:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

Citation Needed
"FUNimation's legal department served C&D letters for series that had not yet been advertised or announced as licensed, including Tsubasa Chronicle, Black Cat (manga), and Solty Rei, with a few known series also mentioned in the letter"

Is there any actual proof that they did this? The citation provided doesn't say anything of the like. Outrack 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

International Distribution
Started a new section in regards to Brittish and Austrialian Distriubtion, any help would be fantastic, cheers.

Where did this bit come from: (although present rumors suggest that Toonami UK acquired the series only to not air the show, further hurting it's rather damnaged relationship with it's viewership)

I havent heard of any rumours about this. IanC 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No editorializing
I know that FUNimation has this strange tendency to be a magnet for vitriol in the anime community, but let's remember Wikipedia's editorial policy, especially avoiding weasel terms and cite your sources. Thanks! R ADICAL B ENDER &#9733;  18:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Would that scratch out the possibility of listing opinions from both anti-Funi and pro-Funi angles for the sake of completion of the article?


 * They have no bearing one way or the other. Present the information from a non-biased angle, plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.68.149 (talk • contribs).

Recent Funimation conflicts
To sum it up: Funimation's been acting bloody stupid and ticking people off. I've added this to the end as NPOV as I can by sticking to the facts and to how people have reacted. If you can add any more specific details or put in a reaction from Funimation (no official announcement on this topic has yet been released at the time of this writing), that would be good. Xuanwu 05:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this doesn't belong here, because there is no major conflict. FUNimation's C&D was not uncalled-for, because Shinsen-Subs were distributing a number of licensed titles that had been announced, such as FMA.  And there is no verifiable organised boycott.  The thread you linked to doesn't even contain one single instance of the word "boycott".
 * Further to that, reading over the threads on the subject at AnimeSuki and Anime News Network, I find the majority of fans appear to be supporting FUNi's decision to use legal threats to protect their investment. I've kept a summary of the facts, since this is indeed one more thing that FUNi have been criticised for, but I see no evidence that there is a huge controversy of the sort that needs several paragraphs devoted to it in an encylopedia. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. This information is more suited to a personal site outside of Wikipedia. --nihon 23:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There have already been organized boycotts in several college anime clubs that I've been aware of through email. Give it more time to spread. The event itself is, however, noteworthy. I'll add back the events and hold off on the response until more time has passed. Then after a more significant reaction has occured it can be noted. Xuanwu 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately we have a policy that is applicable here: WP:V. I can find no evidence of any organised boycott.  The only significant discussion of the subject I can find is this thread at Anime News Network; I haven't counted things up, but to me the majority of posters there appear to be of the opinion that the C&Ds were quite justified, because the fansubbers were breaking the ethical code by distributing FMA even though they knew it was licensed.  Meanwhile the only evidence you have of a boycott is "through email", and unfortunately emails are not verifiable, and material based on primary sources such as personal emails is discouraged by the policy WP:NOR.
 * I also remain unconvinced that there is much more anger than there usually is when a popular series is licensed. A lot of the fans who are upset seem to be more annoyed that they can no longer get the fansubs so easily or ethically than anything else.
 * I've tried to summarise the situation in a single paragraph: I believe this presents the facts accurately, without going into disproportionate detail about events that might turn out to have no lasting significance. I would agree that this could appropriately be expanded if FUNi actually responds to the criticisms in any way, or alternatively when or if it becomes verifiable that boycotts will happen on a significant scale.  Might this, or something similar, be an acceptable compromise until more certain information is available?
 * &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that transitory information like this has a place in a encyclopedia, at least not until all the facts are available; this is not a news site. It the information remains it should be noted that, in the only "verified" case of a C&D (last I checked the site that was supposedly C&D'd for Black Cat still had not been named so it is not known what other titles were available there), that they were C&D'd for unnanounced series as well as series that were announced months ago (e.g. Trinity Blood) or, in the case of e.g. FMA, already released. Other discussions exist at AnimeSuki (with input from SHS themselves) and Anime on DVD Shiroi Hane 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I heard once several years ago at an industry panel at an anime convention (unfortunately I can't remember by whom) that often US distribution companies have to buy the rights to unpopular animes in a package deal with the big name titles, with no intention of releasing the unpopular ones.  Since they aren't going to release them, they don't announce them.  If this is true it might be the cause of C&D letters regarding unannounced animes.  Fio Vaya 17:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * i would like to add that funimation also sends C&D letters to freeware games. the last one was ZEQII, a dragonballz modification which was planned to be playable for free and for the computer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.141.248.147 (talk • contribs).

Funimation's copywrites are perfectly legal, to claim that their enforcement of such copywrites is a source of "criticism" is ridiculous. Pure POV, so I've removed it.--71.60.82.125 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FUNimation | 4Kids distribution agreement
I've removed the claim that sales were good before the agreement was terminated, since I have not been able to verify it. If anyone wants to replace it, please remember to cite a reputable source for the claim. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Section removed until it can be rewritten and put somewhere it actually belongs
I removed the followng from the "Disribution of properties to non-U.S. markets" section:


 * However, the Dragon Ball series is licensed to a different company in Canada and the European mainland, which means that FUNimation's dub is not used in these countries and instead is dubbed by Ocean Group, retaining many of the voices that worked on the first two series of Dragon Ball Z including Scott McNeil as Piccolo and Brian Drummond as Vegeta, or its sister group, Blue Water Studios in the case of Dragonball and Dragonball GT.


 * In the instance of the Dragonball Movies, a Norwegian company, Bridge, produced the dubs for the movies in the UK. These dubs often deviate greatly from the source material, including changing the chracters' names. For example, Piccolo is called "Big Green", the Saiyan race is refered to as "Super Warriors" and "Super Saiya" (the dub alternates between the two) and the Dragonballs themselves are referred to as "Crystal Balls.". British Dragonball fans were also disappointed with the quality of the dub as well as Toonami UK's decision to air these dubs despite there being a FUNimation (or in the case of Dead Zone, Geneon*) dub of better quality being available for at least a year for each movie.


 * * FUNimation has since redubbed this title

I really don't think this editorializing belongs in the main article. Part of it may belong on the Dragon Ball pages, but not here. --nihon 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DBZ hate again (of the English dub) ....
Opinions about "horrendous voice acting" and editing done to DBZ, all done with the complete approval of the Japanese licensors in order for the shows to be broadcast on TV. Kinda un-neutral POV, isn't it?

MSRP of titles
For the second time I have removed the following from the Criticism section. "...and every volume of Fullmetal Alchemist, that has been released so far, contains four episodes per disc, and at the same time costs $29.99 in comparison to other popular anime programming DVD releases, such as Cowboy Bebop, which contains 5 episodes per volume and costs $24.99 at the same time." Cowboy Bebop actually has an MSRP of $29.98, the same as Fullmetal Alchemist. I'm not opposed to this general point, but if you want to re-add it, find a better comparison than CB.DrGeoduck 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i must of have put it back when i restored the article and did not notice (someone had removed a large chunk of the article) (Ke5crz 05:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Black Cat
Could someone give a possible source saying the FUNi has obtained the license to Black Cat? It doesn't even say so on the BC article itself. It needs an official source.-Lord Lonic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.157.32.95 (talk • contribs).
 * FUNimation's official website. DrGeoduck 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Beck manga - Funimation
is the Beck -as the manga- one of the licensed thing of funimation, because in the Beck page, there says Tokyopop has the license for it in the USA Zaibolint 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Beck manga = licensed by Tokyopop. Beck anime = licensed by FUNimation. Philip Reuben 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why use "FUNimation Entertainment" as page's name?
I made a request at WP:CFDS for Category:Funimation to be speedily moved to Category:FUNimation Entertainment (matching article title) but someone there brought up a good point, see this. Can someone give a reason why the article uses this name? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering the same. From the MOS and naming conventions, it should probably be renamed to Funimation Entertainment, as we are supposed to ignore a company's capping words. This would be consistent with Tokyopop not being named TOKYOPOP or TokyoPOP. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Think VIZ Media was moved to Viz Media per that reason, MOS:CAPS. Since this appears to be a non-controversial move, would you do the honours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. A few others have had to be cleaned up. I'll move this one now as soon as I can get the Funimation Entertainment one CSDed to make room. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, someone else renamed after doing the CSD I guess. But all fixed now. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'm attempting to have the category moved to reflect the new title. Hopefully, it'll work out for the best. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FUNimation taking Slayers Revolution
This week, FUNimatoin has sent several C&D letters to some fansubs that were subtitling Slayers Revolution. (Static Subs and IY4E) The references are this [LINK REMOVE] and this [LINK REMOVE] As I am not sure if this should fit in the main article as an update I left the information here so someone more experienced can decide.86.43.74.158 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As neither of those are WP:RS, and linking to copyright violating websites is against WP:COPYRIGHT, nothing can be updated here unless/until a reliable source reports on it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Torrent-related suit
Should there be any more information on the suit that Funimation brought in January against 1,337 'John Does' for using Bittorrent to download an anime episode? One can find several references to it via Google (e.g. Anime News Network); if any of these are verifiable sources, or some can be found, one would think the suit might be at least marginally relevant--perhaps one or two sentences near the 'Reaction to Fansubbing' section, or wherever appropriate. JWMcCalvin (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)