Talk:Princess Mononoke/Archive 1

Old comments
The entry originally said that Princess Mononoke led the pack of boars? Um, no. She was adopted by the wolf gods as a child & didn't get along with the boars any better than the rest of the humans. --Koyaanis Qatsi

She didn't lead, but she did fight alongside of them. She took along those two other wolves. Thats how that one that led ashitaka to san got underneath that dead boar after the battle. --Alan D

Yes, at the end they were forced to cooperate in their attack on the humans, though originally they didn't get along either. --KQ

Added in that neil Gaiman wrote the English script. The bit about the English script sounds very condescending but I left it. Also shouldn't it read "mythical medieval japan"? --AH


 * I was under the impression that it took place in the Iron Age. --Tydaj 01:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved part of hte plot description back above the spoiler warning--that part I moved was not a spoiler, and there's really no reason not to have some plot description in the description of the movie. Koyaanis Qatsi


 * I agree, but it should be some kind of description of the whole movie, not just "the first three minutes". -- Paul A 02:13 19 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I disagree emphatically. Most places describing a movie give some indication of the general plot of the film, leaving out specific turns and twists.  Since wikipedia aims to be comprehensive, we should go ahead and add the spoilers, however since most people arriving at the site don't immediately recognize it as an encyclopedia, we should give the spoiler warning.  The result is that we compromise between the two forms.  When is the last time you ever asked someone about a movie, e.g. Serpico, and heard "that's a 1973 film by Sidney Lumet"?  Usually the person will say "that's a film about an honest cop fighting against corruption in his precinct" or something to that effect.  Then, if you press the person, s/he will give away specific plot details.  Koyaanis Qatsi


 * You have a brief description there now, and that's fine. I just have a strong (irrational?) dislike of movie entries that list awards or release years but not some bare-bones plot in the first paragraph.  There are ways to do it without giving away too much, and plot is IMO much more central to what a film is than when it was released, what awards it won, etc.  Koyaanis Qatsi

I loved (almost) everything about this movie. I'm not real big into anime but this was the best voice over I've ever heard. I'm sure this movie is a great introduction to the genre for someone who's never watched a good animated movie. The wood fairy things were so cute. I'd really like to see the sub-titled version though. Anywho, the only problem I had was the main Spirit guy. From the side he looked pretty cool with all of those crazy antlers. But then he turns around and they do a close up of his face and it makes you want to fall out of your seat it's so funny. It's a weird combination of a human and deer face that's been smooshed. He looks like Mr. Burns did in that episode where Homer thinks he's an alien. That just about ruined the movie for me. Other than that it's mostly pretty cool. Like, Gillian Anderson did one of the voices. Sweet.
 * I liked the movie too but, if the violence was less graphic and the misandrism wasn't in there, I would have thought the movie was great. March 17, 2006

I didn't notice any serious misandry. I just felt it was playful, if anything. You know, I wouldn't even call it misandry at all...Ryan 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen this movie, but was adding basic information on it at Wikiquote: and the Spam filters do not seem to presently permit a link in the article to the official site for this movie at "www.princess-mononoke (DOT) com". (I am an admin at Wikiquote, but haven't encountered this before, and don't yet know how to turn this blocking off even there.) ~ Kalki 22:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a redirector to the (archived) official site on my server, and requested to delete the URL from the spam filter. Later someone can maybe change the URL to the original. - Not-registered, 7 Feb 2005

Gross for Theaters in japan
I changed the Japan gross from 18,650 million to 18,650,000,000 because it's easier to understand at a glance and now it fits in with the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Awards
Maybe an awards section here?


 * I took care of that. Federico Pistono 10:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent comments wa...
An Anon added to the article that Miramax hired translators for the subtitles on the DVD. This doesn't hold up, as the UK DVD at least clearly just has subtitles based on the English re-dub and not independently translated, and all I've heard indicates that the Region 1 DVD is the same. elvenscout742 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dub criticism

 * "...others criticized the dub for most of its casting choices, ..., claiming that they from the experience."

There's a verb missing from this sentence. Detracted? Distracted? —wwoods 20:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I was the one who posted it. I'll fix it.

-JT

"others criticized the dub for most of its casting choices, notably Billy Bob Thornton as Jigo and Claire Danes as San, claiming that they detracted from the experience as well as added off-screen dialogue that pointed out things clearly meant to be shown through visuals alone" How about some citations? Satchfan 10:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Toonami
Right now, as of this moment, I am watching Princess Mononoke on Toonami, shown with a TV-14V rating. I believe this is one of the first of its programming shown on Toonami with a rating higher than TV-Y7... actually, Naruto was the first with TV-PG. --Geopgeop 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. ANd i was supprised that they allowed the few profanity words in the movie on Toonami. I though it should have been adult swim. Is anyone going to add a section for this?


 * Was it aired unedited? That's surprising! --echelon talk 02:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was for a special month long event that they had. Every Saturday night for one month, Toonami would show one of four Miyazaki movies. The other movies were Spirited Away, Castle in the Sky, and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. -- PinkDeoxys 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It was indeed unedited, because Miyazaki will not allow his films to be presented edited. Cybertooth85 07:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Eboshi...a prostitute?
When was it ever said that Eboshi used to be a prostitute? Finite 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

She takes in prostitutes, but its never said directly that she was one as far as I could tell. BethEnd 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gotta say, I've watched the film numerous times, and though it is implied in the subtext that Eboshi may have been a prostitute at some point, she might just be a noblewoman who likes dressing sexy. Just because you're wearing a red underkimono doesn't mean you're a prostitute - I'd say it ties into her character as a sort of subtle critique of feminism, with her being strong and a sex symbol at the same time. She certainly has a grasp of military tactics and martial arts that I wouldn't expect a courtesan to pick up. Kensai Max 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaya is Ashitaka's Sister?
I think not! While she calls Ashitaka her brother, this is merely honorific. She may in fact be in love with Ashitaka. (see footnote 3) --echelon talk 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC) '' I remember reading somewhere (although I can't cite a reference as I don't remember where) that Kaya is meant to be Ashitaka's betrothed. This was de-emphasised for the western market where she is presented as his cousin or sister.'' --Shinji nishizono 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Story
In this animated film or mangaeiga, it takes place in Japan during Medieval years. So, Princess Mononoke and most other characters are from the Shinto religion. --PJ Pete

English version on Turner Classic Movies at 2 a.m. on May 13th
I saw the evidence that according to this week's TV book, Turner Classic Movies is re-airing the English version of Princess Mononoke at 2 a.m. on May 13th. It's two hours after May 12th. Claire Danes is the English voice of San. 68.73.1.149 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It has already aired on television several times, one more showing is not that notable. Finite 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Forest
Added in that San tries to set Yakul free, but he refused to go, and then condensed the portion regarding Shishigami. 159.37.7.254 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

minor edit
I'm removing the line from San's description that says her parents had "no possible means of escape". This isn't verified either way in the film - Moro only says that they threw the baby in her path. The line is arbitrary. BethEnd 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Same universe as "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"?
I have heard that "Mononoke" and "Nausicaa" are in the same - or very similar - universes, but in different time periods. I haven't ever found anything to back this up, and I suspect it may be caused by misunderstanding the "13 years since Nausicaa" statement that appears in the Japanese trailer for Mononoke.. Anyone know any different? Johnmc 05:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably just a misunderstanding. "Mononoke" is generally thought to be the spirtual succesor to "Nausicaa" with certain parallels of plot, character and theme. There is no sign of them existing in the same universe however. Finite 14:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese title
It's NOT Mononoke-Hime (モノノケ 姫), it's Purinsessu Mononoke (プリセス モノノケ). The reason is, most stories, cartoons, comics, and computer and video games in Japan, from now on have Japanese words that are almost similar to English words as you translate them. --PJ Pete


 * In the movie it appears as もののけ姫. Kokoro9 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the looks of things, プリンセス・モノノケ and もののけ姫 are equally acceptable, but as Kokoro9 says, もののけ姫 appears in the movie. --Curtmack 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"As with most Anime movies it is rather lame and not worth your time."

What that hell???????

To pronounce the title in Japanese, Mononoke-hime would be like this (MO-no-NO-kay-NO-hee-MAY). However, it doesn't make sense when you don't say the sound, "no" between the noun and adjective in Kanji, because people say the sound, "no" before they say the adjective in Kanji. --PJ Pete

Is it YOUR grammatical theory?


 * I agree with Kokoro9. The alt-angle storyboards on the DVD show もののけ姫 on the first splash; plus it's on the official website, ghibli.jp. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A Theme Maybe?
There's a lot of good stuff here, but I think there should be a theme section, even if it IS similar to the Nausicaa. BTW, I haven't watched Nausicaa for at least 12 years and I don't remember it clear enough, but I think the main theme for Mononoke Hime is to continue living, with the environment a sub theme. This is supported by various actions and dialogues in the story and the fact Shishigami represents life and death. The movie poster already posted also has the words "ikiro" written on it, which means "live" in command form. Parrallel Pain

Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), defence (B) (American: defense), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), any more (B) (American: anymore).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Edits
I've made a number of edits recently. As it adds up to quite a bit, I'll list it here: Comments welcome. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Started "Production" section for how they made it, etc.
 * Made images default size (so it just takes it from the user preferences)
 * Merged "Differences between the English and Japanese versions" and "English translations" into "Translations", as they cover essentially the same stuff. (mainly just re-ordering)
 * Reduced trivia as much as possible. The other 2 points still need to be worked into the article somehow. Created "References in popular culture" to fob most of that into.
 * Split CD track listing into 2 columns
 * One final thought - this really needs a "critical reception" section" to collect all the reviews, and the peer review is right, the lead does need to be re-written. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen the sections with in the page are needed because the content is dense but couldn't things like characters be a redirect to a page of their own maybe. I know I have seen several pages for TV sitcoms or movies that have use the same idea; they split off things (again such as characters) to a page of their own and just use something like a table to have the quick data (like names) Kevinbcollins 08:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Split CD
I've also suggested the CD is split. There should eb enough to say that it can have its own article, though the music is a key part of the film so I'm not really sure what to do. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover mononoke-1-.gif
Image:Cover mononoke-1-.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done--Svetovid 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Princesssan.JPG
Image:Princesssan.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done--Svetovid 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Too long?
I disagree that this entry is too long. In fact, I say that it's one of the most comprehensive, readable and delightfully opinionated Wikipedia articles I've read. Articles should be written from the point of view of the genuises who created them, and this Wikipedia entry clearly celebrates the author/artist/creator/director's timeless vision.

Having recently seen the DVD with both subtitles and with the english voice-overs, I can't help but feel that this Wikipedia entry has the "look and feel" of something written, or translated, by it's creator, or someone who knows him very well.

I would encourage wanna-be editors on this entry to at least see the movie first before you start adding your criticism of the writing of this Wikipedia entry. This meaty, re-telling of the tale is not only short and sweet but also concise and compelling. The character descriptions are robust, without giving away the "secrets" of this must-see, compelling film.

A section needs to be added about the English voice-overs that were done for the American release. This information can be found on the companion DVD that came with the film I rented here in Taiwan.

These are my humble suggestions for the improvement of this article.

Torch Pratt --Torchpratt 10:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deer god Vs Forest Spirit Dub
In the article is currenlty says - "In the subtitled edition, Shishigami is referred to as the "Deer God", rather than the "Forest Spirit" in the English dub. " I just watched it with the subtitles on it said forest spirit numerous times it didn't say Deer god? Is this only the subtitles on while watching it in Japanese. I was watching English with english subtitles on. --Fujita 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an expert on the Japanese language. I can't even speak it although I studied it years ago. That being said, the issue that you've mentioned is a common problem that I encounter when looking for the original titles and translations of songs. "Deer God" versus "Forest Spirit" is but the tip of the iceberg. I actually find this interchangeability understandable. Translations differ since that's part of the process and largely depends on what the translator wants to convey to a specific target audience. What I have difficulties with is when different websites give me different titles for the original, e.g. "gami" versus "kami". (When that happens, I open 5 sites and whichever term is more common is the one I choose.) To get to the point, in this case, I would go for "Forest Spirit" since it more accurately reflects Japanese religious beliefs. My best guess here was to put it in the cultural setting. Shintoism is different from the Western concept of God. Kami, for example, are nature spirits (sometimes termed 'deities') who live in different parts of the environment. I suppose the "god" translation was to make it easier for Westerners. (For more on the kami, use wikipedia or type "define:kami" (no quotes) on the Google search page. Any Japanese linguists, translators, or experts out there? SirX 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of all the sexism?
Throughout the film, I noticed there was a significant amount of sexism when and after Ashitaka arrives at Tataraba (feminism, in this case). Is it a joke? A running gag, perhaps? Or was it included to make a point? Is there any source which looks at this particular part of the story? Or...dialogue, I suppose, since it's not particularly involved in the plot.  Oc t  ane  [ improve me ] 04.10.07 1003 (UTC)
 * I believe that it was intended to make a point. Japan was (and still is) a very male dominated society. Having a settlement not only headed by a woman (Lady Eboshi) but also effectively run by women (the dialogue when Ashitaka shows up with the rescued men is a good example), highlights this. In addition, the women are doing hard physical labour (running those blast furnaces 24 hours a day must be hard work) only emphasises this.
 * Ashitaka is a prince so theoretically he should be part of the patriarchal dominance, but under the command "See with eyes unclouded", he doesn't pass judgement on the town automatically. He does see fault with what the town is doing to the forest, but that's incidental to how the town is run. Oni no Akuma (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My response to this is that Hayao Miyazaki generally has a very feminist agenda. Most of the protagonists in his movies are strong girls. And according to Susan Napier's article, with this film he seeks to subvert or augment his audience's ideas of what a jidaigeki should be. Although the notion that a medieval Japanese community could have been run by a women is "clearly fictional," he includes this aspect in the film to "subvert the conventional notion of the traditional female role" and to "problematize facile stereotyping of technology, armaments, and industrialized culture as evil"... and to make the movie more interesting. It's a pretty good article if you're interested; it's in the article under "Further reading." Brutannica (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Production Picture comment
I just fixed a small problem I found with the article, the fact that the description under the picture of Ashitaka firing an arrow with the "demon-worms" on his arm was slightly too long and ran over. I would appreciate attention being given to this small detail, because while it hardly changed the content, the small overrun from the sentence cause part of a word to be made into a new line, and since that section has very little text, the picture was longer than the paragraph it was next to. This cause the section right below it, Setting, to have a misplaced title, since the paragraph under Setting wasn't inhibited by that picture, but the title was moved towards the right-hand side of the screen at least a few centimeters if not a few inches. All I'm asking is that the caption remain small, fitting into the number of lines it takes up now, or a few more lines be added to the Production paragraph to allow the Setting section's title not to be skewed again. This makes the article cleaner and easier to read, I believe. Anyways, thanks Ziggaway (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Translations and Clean Up
The translation section appears to be one-sided, to me. The dub versus sub only mentions a few changes that were done to explain cultural differences, however there are also several changes made for the dub that change the meaning of scenes. Shouldn't this also be mentioned?

Also, the article really needs some over all clean up to bring it inline with the film MOS. The reaction section changed to be a real prose section, not just a table with some review ratings from several anime sites. MPAA ratings and the like have no place in the article at all, per the Film MOS, and many sections need citations or references fixed. Thoughts? I'm willing to start the effort, if others agree its needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though the main thing which needs cleaning up is the plot summary. Overall, it is well done, but Jigo is mentioned towards the end of the description without having been introduced or explained earlier in the descripsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.243.117 (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will volunteer. I'll start working on it sometime this week. Brutannica (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Ashitaka's Name
Ashita means tomorrow and ka is a spoken question mark. So, I think that the meaning of Ashitaka's name should be listed as Tomorrow?. I realize that this could be a problem, seeing as it could be qualified as original research, and it kinda is. But it would be helpful if someone could give me some imput. Thanks. 70.177.115.38 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its original research and unnecessary to add unless verifiable sources refer to it as having some special meaning to the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It also depends on the kanji used. Ashita (tomorrow) is 明日 while Ashitaka's name is written: アシタカ from his more formal name Ashitakahiko, where Ashi is Leg, Taka is High and Hiko is a word used for men's name in ancient Japan. Oni no Akuma (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think i remember briefly seeing the origin of ashitaka's name in the "behind the scenes of princess mononoke". . . I very vaguely remember it being based on what i believed was some sort of folk lore about a traveling hero learning about the world mounted on an elk. . . apart from that i really have no clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.156.53 (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't even matter, since names aren't translated. Moo   cows   rule 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

should we add this to trivia
should we add that Kiba a chareter from Naruto has similar facial markings as San? 24.205.242.48 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? It's not pertinent to either article. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Not only may it be trivia, but it may be original research. This information has no bearing on any important aspects of this article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This has little relevance to the movie but why does it say "To Exist" "生きろ" (Ikiro) on the movie poster? Does anyone know? Does it have anything to do with the human-nature interactions within the movie? Just wondering... Moocowsrule (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule


 * Nevermind, I saw the tagline part. Moocowsrule (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Plot
>the land becomes green again and Ashitaka's curse is finally lifted.

There green or either Ashitaka's curse are not perfectly cured ,and that is an important concept of this movie.But I know the meaning had little changed in English vergion,and I dont have seen English vergion. So please someone correct it.Volclex (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the land does become entirely green again. It's unclear if Ashitaka's curse is cured or not, but it certainly has faded. I personally believe it is cured, and what we see is just a scar, but it's ambiguous (in Japanese as well as English). Brutannica (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just finished watching the movie again, and I was wondering if anyone considered the Forest Spirit to be dead? It seems to have healed everything (Ashitaka's condition is ambiguous to me), but it 'exploded' on top of Irontown before healing everything. Facebookery (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is starting to look forum-like talk, so let's keep it short. I think by saying the Forest Spirit can't die, they mean a «spirit» cannot die. But his body, his corporal being, exploded and vanished since sun has risen. Forest Spirit should have taken back his day-form, but I guess he got his head back too late, when sun was alredy there.

64.228.76.240 (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Longest animated feature
Is this the longest animated feature? If so, it should be noted. Alone Coder (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A Tree of Palme seems to be a bit longer - 136 min. Alone Coder (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yakushima
There is a live performance of Mononoke Hime on stage at Yakushima. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Eboshi
"Whether she herself was a prostitute or if she got married to a Japanese pirate." is a fragment. I don't know which way would be best to fix it; adding it to the sentence before it or after it? Either way, it might cause a run-on. Please fix what I cannot. 69.29.99.14 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't the only example, like in the Jigo part: In the end it turns out that this character had all of those qualities and then some. ??? ... there are other lines that should be checked by a native speaker who is familiar with the material. -- 134.102.101.64 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mononoke
In Vietnam the film was translated in to "The Revenging Princess". Some Vietnamese people suggest that "mononoke" means "revenge" in this situation. What do you think ? 137.132.3.6 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A Mono no Ke (物の怪) is a Japanese ghost. It doesn't means "Revenging" or "revenge", but it means "vengeful ghost" or "vengeful spirit".  moo cows rule talk to moo 01:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But that would be incorrect, as Princess Mononoke's name is written in hiragana (like this: もののけ) and is the name of a person, not the name of a thing.  moo cows rule talk to moo 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Revamp
its been my plan to do some major work on this article for a while. So I shall make a to-do list of what needs to be done and get to work in the following few days. Any help would be appreciated.
 * Find more references to fix citation problems
 * Trim down plot and character info
 * Expand and refine setting ,production and reception section
 * need to find some resources about production and setting


 * get rid of bullets points listing awards (either tabulate or make into paragraph)

If anyone else has suggestion please add them. Hopefully we can turn this into a good article. Ziphon (ALLears) 11:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Clean up Tags
As an editor has requested I explain the tags left on the article here, here you go:


 * It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since June 2009.
 * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since June 2009.
 * There are quite a few unreferenced statements and non-reliable references being used to try to support claims. The "Release" section makes several claims of cause-effect, with its only source being a fansite - classic OR.
 * It is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. Tagged since June 2009.
 * Removed as it inadequately addressees the awards list, which is long enough to need to be done in an awards table format rather than a list like that.
 * Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Tagged since June 2009.
 * The article is not written in the formal tone preferred for Wikipedia articles, with several instances of exaggeration and weaseling wording throughout.
 * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since June 2009.
 * The article is badly structured and should be cleaned up to better follow WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOS-AM as well as the general WP:MOS. The sections need some rearranging, the awards list needs reformatting, though better than before the plot is still too long, the article is not properly italicizing journal and media work titles, and the soundtrack section lacks a lead out to its parent article.

The article also shows a heavy American bias and is overly American-centric, which likely explains the in-article tag in the "Translations" section. This is particularly notable in the Reception section which is purely American focused. I hope this helps explain the tags adequately. If there are further questions, ask. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

picture
On the picture of movie title next to the girl with blood on her mouth theres some sort of wolf with japanese kana 生きろ which is senkiro.This makes no sense to me in japanese.i just thought this called be added somewhere as maybe trivia in this article.Ive never seen this movie so it could be obvisous.--Chaos2501 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is trivia and not particularly relevant. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Translations
The subsection "Translations" mentions that "there are no terms for words like Shishigami in English". It would be great if somebody could elaborate on that word a bit. I failed to find any information about "Shishigami", that is not related either to Mononoke or to "Bang Shishigami", another anime character.

134.155.176.21 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Running time
I just watched a recording from free-TV and the movie did not get anywhere close to the 134 minutes stated in the factsheet. Including the credits it was around 131 min but still had some one-spot commercial breaks (maybe 2-3 min total). Are there different versions? 139.18.183.181 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. 134 min according to IMDb AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably because the TV version was edited for time/content. The DVD itself lists the runtime as 134 minutes, so that's the figure we go with. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Forest Spirit is not kirin.
original is shishigami N88282 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Stupid localization. boar-demon(祟り神) and forest spirit(シシ神) is kami.
A cultural meaning of Japan is disturbed. 220.104.48.146 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Having the Japanese voice-actors listed in the plot section
In the plot section, we have the Japanese voice actor's name beside each character. However, as this is the English Wikipedia, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the English dub actors listed? I understand that the Japanese version is the 'original and authentic', and I know that some of the more committed fans prefer the Japanese dub, but still, I'm thinking in terms of the wider audience here. I would expect that more people are familiar with Gillian Anderson and Claire Danes than... those other folks. Vranak (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Went ahead with the changes. Vranak (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GA push?
All right. I am thinking about getting this article up to GA. I am currently working on it in my sandbox. Here's what we need to do for now: All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead section - needs to be expanded to three-four paragraphs and heavily rewritten to comply with WP:MOSFILM.
 * Plot section - looks good, well between the recommended 400-700 word range for WP:FILMPLOT.
 * Production section - needs to be heavily reorganized to include the history and origins of production, as well as the localization section, which must be rewritten as well. We can merge the soundtrack section within the production section with details on how Joe Hisaishi created the music.
 * Reception section - needs to be heavily reorganized as well and renamed Release, with box office results first, then the critical reception (we can expand it with other notable critic reviews from Japanese and English source like the LA Times and NYT), and then the accolades section (we can use the table format as well). Also, the home media section should be created.
 * Copyedit - this article needs to undergo an extensive copyedit.
 * Sources - we may also need more Japanese sources, including documentaries, interviews and animation history for production information. Also, we can use "The Art of Princess Mononoke" book as a source. Since fansites are generally not reliable sources, apart from Nausicaa.net, they should be removed and replaced with the appropriate reliable sources.
 * Via WorldCat.org, here are some sources I found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Via Google Scholar, additional sources: 7 and 8. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Production
I am going to work extensively on the production section. The soundtrack section can be merged with the section, and can be also expanded upon as well with the history and studies regarding the film's motifs (i.e. the environmental themes and motifs). For example, the documentary for Princess Mononoke can be used as a source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest avoiding the quotes and copy edit it.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That will also work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Currently the cast section is pretty bare; I suggest moving the content discussing the characters in the production section be located to the individual character entries in the cast section, and then that section will be fleshed out with sourced background information on the casting. The production section can then exclusively deal with the development and realization of the project. I also recommend creating an inspirations section where the John Ford influences can be expanded upon (here is one I did at another article. That way the production section can just cover the filmmaking process. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead
For the lead section, I think we should simply summarize the article as a whole per WP:LEAD. Per WP:MOSFILM, we should first begin this section with the year, nationality, genre and director. Then, we should mention the starring roles (in this case, voice actors) and the premise. The next couple of paragraphs should include the development information and history of the English localization. Then, we should mention the release dates, the reception of the film and awards they have made. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Leave plot section, it's good now. But in preambule as I told on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, we don't need plural repetition of cast. We need there "chief" voice stars (like voices of Ahitaka and San, if you will be adding it, but I still think that it's unnecessary by common sence). Awards too, too many of them, only if pick out the most significant and important. Production section... authoritative sources are necessarily if will write motifs like environmental and so on. "Anon with IP" 12:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am fine with mentioning the main voice cast members in the lead section. The infobox is another way to summarize the information and will tend to overlap with the details in the lead section. With film as a visual medium, the front-end (starring actors, live or voice) is consistently mentioned. The back-end (crew members) depends on the film; the director is pretty much always mentioned, but a person like the cinematographer may only be mentioned if the article discusses substantial contributions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead should basically be a concise version of the article. At the moment it doesn't say anything about the production, release or reception. The main voice actors should be included, but I would suggest leaving out the dubbing actors. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot
The plot looks good, and is in the recommended the word count of 400-700 worda per WP:FILMPLOT but I think it may need some rewording as well as trying to keep it straight to the point without being too excessively detailed. Also, I think the Japanese words for the demon and Forest Spirit should be added. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not against adding Japanese words. But about "boar-demon"... he is not demon, he is exactly controlled by demon. So I think we need to rewrite to "A boar controlled by demon attacks an Emishi". You undo and say that's "excessive detail, just boar-demon should do", but really this is fact from the article object, wikipedia needs to be authentic, don't it? So I think my edit is right and you should return it. Thanks.
 * Overall I will attend to improve plot section, deleting some of excessive and unnecessary details, improving trustworthiness and some other. You please concentrate on production section and else. If we want to make this article a GA... "Anon with IP" 15:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. I will also try to help out in the plot section and several sections here as well, in addition to trying to help make it accurate as possible without going overly detailed. Even if some things in the plot section are facts, we should keep unnecessary details out and trivial information, and just because people say something on Wikipedia does not mean it's always true. Also, while some parts of the film just take up a large amount of runtime, it is not essential to understand the plot coherently. Also, just to clarify, we don't own any aspect of the articles. Make sense? Also, if we can change the wording of the film's ending regarding San and Ashitaka, there is a reliable source we can use: Roger Ebert's review, and I quote "There is a remarkable scene where San and Ashitaka, who have fallen in love, agree that neither can really lead the life of the other, and so they must grant each other freedom, and only meet occasionally." This review does not violate WP:OR and is a reliable source, even though the film itself is a primary source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could "a giant demon-possessed boar" be a compromise? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would make more sense. I am changing it to reflect that. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sjones23, sorry, but you act so limited... Thank you, Erik, if this user don't listening to others because of prejudices.
 * I'm against "Roger Ebert's review" in plot. You can add it to "Reception" section, but not in plot. Coz it's only his opinion and what is more I even think it's really not correct, he is wrong. I'm undoing this edits. And some disputable and excessive recent edits by anonym user too. "Anon with IP" 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry, but I was only trying to help out and give out some advice as well. Per WP:PSTS, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since this film is a primary source, we should not add personal interpretations of the plot summary. Just to clarify, it's not just my opinion, WP:FILMPLOT states that "complicated [film] plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." However, "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." That's why I am using the Ebert review as a secondary source to make it less complicated. I try to listen to others and help out whenever I can and I have already undone some of the other IP's recent edits. I think we should come up with a compromise on how we can word the film's ending. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Since this film is a primary source, we should not add personal interpretations of the plot summary." That's just what I mean. And I describe in edits directly and correctly exactly what we see in film (primary sourse). So write in plot just what is in primary sourse. While reviews, revisions and so on in "Reception". Thanks for understanding for this time I hope. (And don't wait, please, when someone more will say it or finds actually the same compromise). P.S. Btw if you afraid of my inexperience then I can tell, please, don't write and send me to every rule and guide (I remember your role), but I'm for about 6-7 years in wiki and I know all system quite very good. Just sorry for not perfect english.). With rescect, "Anon with IP" 13:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "I think we should come up with a compromise on how we can word the film's ending." I agree. But I don't understand what you don't like there. I think all is more that fine. So.. againt what specifically you are in the ending of plot secton? What you don't like? This is just authentic information from the film, i.e. from primary sourse. That's all. "Anon with IP" 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Having been experienced in editing Wikipedia, aware of all of the policies and guidelines for over 5 years and also as a member of WP:FILM, I educate users about certain guidelines and policies that we should follow for the article and am fully aware of the relevant style guidelines and try to get others more familiar with what the project intended with film articles. I am actually not afraid of anyone's inexperience and no one has ignored you or said you could not improve the plot summary, I just want to conform the article to the relevant policies and guidelines (and it is not fine just because other equally bad stuff exists). Even experienced editors like ourselves may forget policies and/or guidelines as well, so if I have done anything wrong, I sincerely apologize.
 * As what Erik pointed out to me, this article has not gotten good attention historically. Even if there is authentic information in the plot, I believe that not only is it good enough, but it might be complicated and there are actually quite a few examples where plot summaries in film articles do have secondary sources apart from the film's plot which is again the primary source (Four good examples are Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which I am using as the basic models for the article). While I have not violated the original research policy (if it was unintentional, then I am sorry) nor personal interpretation of the plot was intended, complications in the plot may occasionally be cited with a secondary source (such as books or scholarly papers) as noted in the relevant manual of style so we can ensure that the content is verifiable and maintaining a neutral point of view. However, 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." WP:FILMPLOT makes it quite clear that we should avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. Per the Verifiability policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
 * Also, I clearly have nothing against the ending in the article's plot section. I just feel that I find the wording regarding San and Ashitaka's final scene in this section is a little too complicated for my taste and we should avoid minutae and since the intent of a plot summary is to summarize the plot, we do not need to include every single detail that occurs in the film. If there are key plot points in the film, I would suggest that they should be presented here as well and explain why they are important. Anyway, I don't think the plot section needs attention at the moment, and as what Erik pointed out to me, such sections are never immutable. Also, I am not trying to change things just for the sake of changing things, that's all. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Awards
This section is essentially a list so far and has absolutely no sources. I am thinking we should convert it to prose format or table format and cite the available sources. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a table format would be best. It would be hard to read all these items in prose. I like the way List of highest-grossing films uses a "Ref" column in the first table. Perhaps we can trim the list of awards to the ones that have been reported by secondary sources? That way, we can attach some importance to them. There may be some minor awards that only had a press release and shouldn't qualify for listing. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a table format should work best as well and I also find that too difficult to read all of the items as prose or lists as well. I agree that we should trim the list of awards to the ones reported by secondary sources. Some minor awards that only have a press release should not be qualified for the listing. For a good example of how tables are used, please see Thor (film). :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Thor approach looks like a good way to me. In respect of which awards to include, I think it's best to limit awards to national/international awards, and any any awards covered by independent seocndary sources. That way these regional critics awards and magazine promotional cruft is left out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should just limit awards to national/international awards and any awards covered by independent secondary sources and we should also avoid the regional critical awards and magazine promotional cruft. I am working on this matter in my sandbox and will implement it a little later, as this may take a couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Themes
I am actually quite surprised that this does not have a themes section. We should use the references Erik gave me in his email. For reference on how themes for films are used in Featured Articles, a very good example can be found on Star Trek: First Contact and Conan the Barbarian (1982 film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception
The reception section is in a pretty bad state in its current form. I suggest that we should reformat it to include box office and critical reception. While I am in the process of writing up my part of the reception in the sandbox, I am going to use reviews from the LA Times, Boston Globe, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and so forth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reception section needs to be completely overhauled. The section doesn't really say what critics like or disliked about the film, and the focus seems to be on the dubbing, which is largely incidental to the quality of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Working on it in my sandbox and will implement parts of it as I go. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any references that have a meta-analysis of what critics thought? For example, a book did this for the first sentence at Panic Room. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Release
The release section needs a complete overhaul. It does not have release dates and this section is completely unsourced, apart with the localization section which has at least two sources. We also need to include premiere dates for the English releases and we can merge part of the localization section in with the reception section as well as the production section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources to use
As per Erik's email:

CLARKE, James: Feature: Ecology and Animation: Animation Gone Wild: Bambi vs Princess Mononoke Imagine (1748-1244) v.31, May 2010, p.36-39, English, illus Examines the links between Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke (1997) and Disney's Bambi (1942).

JOLIN, Dan: Back story: Miyazaki on Miyazaki Empire n.243, August 2009, p.114-123, English, illus Profile an interview with Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki about his long career, with discussion about the themes and production of many of his films.

OSMOND, Andrew: The top 10: Cartoon songs Empire n.239, May 2009, p.152-153, English, illus Briefly lists and critiques the ten best songs from cartoon and animated features.

BIGELOW, Susan J.: Technologies of perception: Miyazaki in theory and practice Animation (1746-8477) v.4 n.1, March 2009, p.[55]-75, English Article discussing the work of Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki and its philosophy, with particular reference to Shinto religious imagery.

KIM, Eunjung & JARMAN, Michelle: Modernity's Rescue Mission: Postcolonial Transactions of... Canadian Journal of Film Studies (0847-5911) v.17 n.1, April 2008, p.52-68, English, illus '...Disability and Sexuality'. Part of a whole issue on film and disability, this article examines national identity and disability in PRINCESS MONONOKE and The GOOD WOMAN OF BANGKOK.

GOULDING, Jay: Crossroads of Experience:Miyazaki Hayao's Global/Local Nexus Asian Cinema (1059-440X) v.17 n.2, October 2006, p.114-123, English Looking particularly at two of Miyazaki Hayao's films MONON- OKE HIME (Princess Monoke) and SEN TO CHIHIRO NO KAMIKAKUSHI (Spirited Away) as responses to cultural globalisation -i.e. Japanese culture responding to American and Asian influenc

LEYLAND, Matthew: Princess Mononoke Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.16 n.6, June 2006, p.90-91, English

SCHILLING, Mark: The modest monster Screen International (0307-4617) n.1490, 25 February 2005, p.16, English, illus Profile of Studio Ghibli from its scrappy upstart to its landmark creations by Hayao Miyazaki: SPIRITED AWAY, HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE and PRINCESS MONONOKE.

WHITE, Dave: PRINCESS MONONOKE: SYMPHONIC SUITE StarBurst (0955-114X) n.277, September 2001, p.73, English, illus

C.K.: Princess Mononoke Premiere (0894-9263) v.14 n.2, October 2000, p.90, English, illus

HARRISON, Genevieve: Mononoke hokey cokey Empire n.134, August 2000, p.20, English, illus On why Buena Vista has failed to release Hayao Miyazaki's MONONOKE HIME in the UK. Includes reference to other animation films by Hayao Miyazaki which have never been released in the UK.

PEDROLETTI, Brice: L'animation d'auteur veut s'imposer au pays de Pikachu Le Film Francais (0397-8702) n.2382, 09 June 2000, p.15-17, French, illus Focus on Japanese animation and its success internationally. Looks in particular at the POKEMON films, with an interview with Masakazu Kubo their executive producer; and at DIGIMON and PRINCESS MONONOKE.

JONES, Alan: Reviews: movies StarBurst (0955-114X) n.260, April 2000, p.93, English, illus

GÉNIN, Bernard: Princess Mononoke Télérama n.2609, 12 January 2000, p.30, French, illus

O'NEILL, Eithne: Princesse Mononoke; Mon voisin Totoro: Hauts faits et pasto. Positif (0048-4911) n.467, January 2000, p.32-33, French, illus

DELORME, Gérard: PRINCESSE MONONOKÉ Premiere (0399-3698) n.275, January 2000, p.61-62, French, illus Review of MONONOKE HIME and interview with Hayao Miyazaki.

[J.B.]: Score of scores 1999: the animaniacs Film Score Monthly v.4 n.10, December 1999, p.44, English Soundtrack review.

HAZELTON, John: Animated English accent Screen International (0307-4617) n.1234, 12 November 1999, p.8, English, illus On Miramax Films marketing an English dubbed version of PRINCESS MONONOKE to a broader audience than the usual animation fans.

BURR, Ty: Quick takes Entertainment Weekly (1049-0434) n.511, November 1999, p.50, English, illus

FILM REVIEWS Variety (0042-2738), November 1999, p.88, English, illus Review of release of English dubbed version

KHOURY, George: An interview with Neil Gaiman Creative Screenwriting (1084-8665) v.6 n.6, November 1999, p.63-65, English, illus An interview with Neil Gaiman who discusses the process of writing the English screenplay for the Japanese animation PRINCESS MONONOKE.

WILNER, Norman: Cinema Scope review Cinema Scope (1488-7002) n.1, September 1999, p.96, English Reviews of films shown in 1999 Toronto International Film Festival.

VITARIS, Paula: Princess Mononoke Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.31 n.4, April 1999, p.7, English, illus Neil Gaiman talks about writing the English language dialogue for the English version of PRINCESS MONONOKE

LURIO, Eric: Toon reviews Animato (1042-539X) n.40, April 1999, p.113, English, illus

DOYLE, Wyatt: Disney Turning Japanese Asian Cult Cinema n.21, December 1998, p.25-28, English, illus On the success of MONONOKE HIME (Princess Mononoke)in Japan. Disney immediately scooped up the rights for the film out- side of Japan. Japanese animation continues to be successful both at home and internationally.

SCHILLING, Mark; BROWN, Colin: Marketing News: Royal Ascent Screen International (0307-4617) n.1146, 20 February 1998, p.18, English, illus on the marketing of the film in the US

KLADY, Leonard Variety (0042-2738), 02 February 1998, p.28, English, illus

SCHILLING, Mark: Reviews Screen International (0307-4617) n.1117, 18 July 1997, p.16, English

SCHILLING, Mark: Marketing Focus: By royal appointment Screen International (0307-4617) n.1117, 18 July 1997, p.11, English, illus on the marketing of Studio Ghibli in Japan

FITZPATRICK, Michael: Front desk clips: manga mouse! Empire n.96, June 1997, p.30, English, illus Disney will be distributing Hayo Miyazaka's latest movie, The PRINCESS MONONOKE.

These will help the article immensely. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 redraft
In the next couple of days or weeks at least, I am going to be in the process of writing up a complete redraft of the entire article using the suggestions provided above, along with the sources Erik provided for me in my email and also other sources that I will find (such as books about Miyazaki himself and the production). This result will be an article that conform to the policies and guidelines of this project. I will also implement the redraft when I finish it and then have it peer reviewed. The ultimate goal after this is to possibly get it into a GA or an FA and have it featured on the main page as a TFA on July 12, 2017, the film's 20th anniversary. And let us not forget User:AnmaFinotera, one of the top contributors of the article who, sadly, is in permanent retirement. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot length discussion
Please see WT:FILM for discussion on the plot summary. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot section
I see the plot section has recently been subject to a bit of an edit war. I believed the section as it stood could be considerably clear and cleaner, and tried to rewrite it as such, but it keeps being reverted by User 93.186.30.245, who called the last revision (at the time of writing) 'really awful', and then wiped half the story from the page, which I don't understand.

Can this user explain what is wrong with the previous version, so a consensus can be reached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornduff (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that the section as it stood was considerably clearer and cleaner. However, the plot summary is also supposed to be a complete summary not a placeholder blurb (like those we often use in films yet to be released). Per the plot summary guidelines for Wiki in general and films in particular, that is what a plot summary is supposed to be. We held a discussion on the length of the plot above, and trimmed it down to match the plot summary guidelines, but we did not leave out important information in the plot summary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When I said 'believed the section as it stood could be considerably clear and cleaner', the version I was referring to was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Mononoke&oldid=523252261 This version covered the full plot.


 * I agree the page should cover the entire plot of the film. What I am confused about is why one (or more?) users keep reverting it to, IMO, a more poorly-written version with bad English and irrelevant information (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Mononoke&oldid=523280106) and more recently why someone has cut it down to cover only a blurb, like you say. Popcornduff (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the IP was just throwing a tantrum after their version was rejected (not least of which was because of poor English). And given that the IP had demonstrated poor English skills, I would take any comment from them about the language with a hefty grain of salt. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Home Media
This section doesn't make sense. First it says: "In July 2000, Buena Vista Home Entertainment announced plans to release the film on VHS and DVD in North America on August 29.", then: "The DVD release of Princess Mononoke was delayed as a result.", and finally: "Buena Vista Home Entertainment released the DVD on July 2000 with bonus extras added" How could it be announced in July 2000 to be released in August of 2000, get delayed, and then get released in July of 2000? 205.143.205.150 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References that need to be checked
I got the following references from the article history so they can be checked for potential use in the article.



I hope you were being careful and not merely lucky (WP:CITEVAR). – Allen4names (contributions) 19:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry I forgot to take the sources here, I would love to see them go back in here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Trivial information?
Princess Mononoke is the only Miramax film that Disney has retained the rights to. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any point to the "sources" section?
Am I missing something here? Surely anything that is a source for something in the article should be a reference? "Sources" section just seems to be a random "suggested reading" list with no indication which parts of the article, if any, relate to which source. 210.246.46.244 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Princess Mononoke. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ex.org/4.7/06-event_mononoke.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Princess Mononoke. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for //www.oscars.org/pressreleases/97.11.24.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Princess Mononoke. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/fuji/9270/article2.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Futher improvement of Princess Mononoke article
1.	Most of the information is up to date, but the article fails to mention the 20th-anniversary re-screening of Princess Mononoke that took place on January 5th and January 9th, 2017.

2.	The film also marked Studio Ghibli’s first use of computer animation instead of primarily hand-drawn animation. Studio Ghibli created a unique animation software specifically for the film, and it now available for public download.

3.	The themes section could be better organized with sub-headlines dedicated to main themes such as environment, sexuality and disability, and humankind’s growth that further elaborate on their importance.

4.	The 27th reference link “ Kitano, Ryuichi (January 29, 2016). "Hayao Miyazaki: Leprosy scene in 'Mononoke Hime' inspired by real-life experience". Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved January 29, 2016. “does not work.

5.	In the Release section, the second and third paragraph lack any sources for the information regarding poor sales, and alterations of the dub adaptation. Ssydneybb (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) So, finally, after my message on administrators edit warring page Sjones23 excused and admited that there is no need to shorten plot section in Princess Mononoke article - quoting Sjones23 :"I don't want to shorten the plot to make readers unfamiliar with the film's plot summary, and I agree that the film's plot is quite complicated". Honestly, I didn't believe my eyes when readed this, coz literally 1 hour earlier he said right here, on this page, that:"Unfortunately, I tend to disagree". Duplicity? I hope no, and he really changed his opinion. So, I think now we can remove billet (tag) "may be too long or excessively detailed". I'm truly glad that I managed to convince Sjones23. What about other members? Do you agree? If yes, please, delete tag.


 * 2) Elen of the Roads, quite true. But honestly I prefer variant that we have now and I will explain why. In present variant we have main sourse - film itself. We just describing dry facts from film, truth. In this approach easy to correct someone possible mistakes and so on. But if "try to convey the purpose and meaning of the scenes" this might be OR, neutrality violation and many other violations... it can generate tons of disputes. Many members will spend time on non productive things. Or it needed very strong and authoritative sourses. And what I don't like even more in this variant - even authoritative sourses can write shitty delirium. After all there people writing it too. And they can be deeply mistaken... I know WP rules, please, don't write them here. I know that WP info must be based on sourses and so on. Just share with you my own opinion. Rules give birth to other problems and sometimes made hostages itself. WP itself is good example... So, how I said, coz all of that I prefer real present variant. And even if write purpose and meaning of the scenes I bet plot section will be not shortened - but vice versa. Btw even we have quite dry description, there are meaning of scenes in section too... And in the end, this is just words. If you want to suggest something, please, do it specifically. Then it will be faster and what more important - better. Let's not "spread over the paper". Just specific suggestions. P.S. Ah... sorry comrades again for not perfect english. But I hope you understand all what I mean.


 * 3) Btw I'm seeing user:TheFarix making strange edits in categories in anime articles (including "Princess Mononoke"). Look at his contribs. I don't understand such edits, do you? I don't see reasons to move categories like this... hm... can someone explain? Best explanation that I have - just silly tamping of edits. Sorry if I mistaken, TheFarix.


 * 4) Btw I have doubts about need of to say "Ashitaka and San starts to develop romantic feelings for each other" or not in plot section. Well, it's it is obvious that they like each other, but "romantic feelings"... what do you think? And I bet few know this, but Ashitaka is engaged to be married to Kaya (young lass in start of film, who gave him amulet or charm (that beautiful stone like knife, which later Ashitaka will pass to San)). So really have doubts... Your visions and opinions? Maybe better to drop such phrase?


 * 5) Thank you. "Anonymous with IP" 06:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It does appear that you have basic knowledge of the core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the English Wikipedia may take some time getting used to for newcomers from other language Wikipedias. TheFarix and I are both well-respected editors within Wikipedia so we know what we are doing in our work, and TheFarix is not making strange edits to anime categories. TheFarix appropriately tagged this plot section appropriately as it is excessively detailed. Also, just to clarify, this is the English Wikipedia we are in (not the Russian Wikipedia), so you are a relative newcomer to this project and I appreciate your contributions here. However, I find the current version of the plot rather confusing here and I am partially convinced of the plot summary's length, but I still believe that it is excessively detailed. What I meant was that since the film's plot was quite complicated and that I did not want to shorten the plot to make it ambiguous to other readers, there is actually a way we can bring it down to the 400-700 word length per the WP:FILMPLOT guideline (keep in mind that this is not policy), and this guideline does not set a limit here. As what Betty Logan pointed out, the standard response for breaching this guideline is that the film is "complex" or "long", but this in itself does not justify breaching the guideline (since that is the standard excuse for plot bloat): in most cases a responsible editor should be able to select a level of abstraction that meets the guideline. If an editor can reduce the plot to within the guideline limits then generally they should be allowed to do so, provided the premise of the story is still adequately conveyed; it is not necessary to include every single plot development. As a responsible editor, I am usually allowed to reduce plot summaries within the guideline limits, but the issue on this plot summary is not plot complexity, but narrative complexity. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer project and that there is no deadline. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read over both plot summaries and find this one to give most all impotent details without going into over details and flows much better. The only detail I find missing is why Ashitaka is unable to condemn Lady Eboshi's actions. The plot summary currently on the article is hard to understand, and this is coming from someone who has seen this film several times. The plot of this film isn't really that complex and there is no reason it shouldn't be within the word limit as outlined by WP:FILMPLOT. As for my other edits, they have nothing to do with with this situation, so you comments is comes down to an assumption of bad faith. However, all of those edits are in relation to WP:SUBCAT and manually populating anime films by year categories. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the plot is not really that complex and there is no reason that it should not be within WP:FILMPLOT's word limit. I think we should implement this version of plot summary from my current redraft into the article:
 * The film opens with a description that Japan was once populated with forests, where a group of gods live. Ashitaka, a young man riding on his red elk Yakul, lives in a remote village belonging to his tribe, the Emishi. The village is attacked by Nago, a giant wild boar turned into a demon god (祟り神). Ashitaka kills Nago, but the prince is inflicted with a curse on his arm, granting him superhuman strength but will also kill him. Ashitaka discovers from the village's oracle that Nago was aggravated by an iron ball in his body; the boar also came from the western lands. In search of a cure, Ashitaka follows the oracle's advice and sets off to the west. As he wanders the land, Ashitaka befriends Jiko-Bou, a traveling monk who tells him about the forests in the west as well as the deer god (シシ神), a creature who lives there.


 * The forest is continually cleared by a group of citizens living in Tataraba (たたら場), a town located in the west that also serves as a refuge for the country's social outcasts; the town is led by Lady Eboshi. The citizens use the forest to mine iron ore and also to make advance weaponry called Ishibiya (石火矢), resulting in fights from the forest gods. In one such fight, Eboshi's people are attacked by a group of giant wolves led by their goddess Moro; among the group is San, a young woman raised by the wolves and has a hatred towards humans. Eboshi’s people drive off the wolves. In the forest, Ashitaka rescues two injured men and takes them to Tataraba, encountering the Deer God in the process. While in Tataraba, Ashitaka discovers that Eboshi turned Nago into the demon god and, after finding out more about the town, he is unable to condemn Eboshi. Later, San infiltrates Tataraba and fights Eboshi, but Ashitaka intervenes and ends their duel. As Ashitaka leaves, he is unwittingly shot at by one of the townspeople. San takes Ashitaka, who is on the verge of death, to the forest. The deer god, in the form of a gigantic Daidarabotchi, arrives and transforms to its deer-like form; the spirit heals the gunshot wound, but is unable to remove Ashitaka's curse.


 * As San and Ashitaka fall in love with each other, a group of boars led by their god Okkotonushi arrive and attack Tataraba in a desperate attempt to save the forest. Eboshi plots to kill the deer god, while Jiko-Bou intends to give the head to the Emperor of Japan, who promises to grant the town's protection from the local daimyos. The citizens of Tataraba and the imperial hunters manage to kill the boars. By using the boars's skins, the hunters trick Okkotonushi into leading them to the deer god, and San is unable to convince him of the truth. The hunters turn Okkotonushi into a demon god, trapping San within it. Ashitaka, Moro and the wolves reach the forest and rescue San. The deer god arrives and takes the lives of both Okkotonushi and Moro, but Eboshi confronts the deer god during its transformation into the Daidarabotchi, and uses her Ishibiya to behead the spirit.


 * As Jiko-Bou collects the deer god's head, the spirit searches for the head by destroying everything in its path; Tataraba is nearly burned down in the process. Ashitaka and San confront Jiko-Bou, who allows them to take the deer god's head. After Ashitaka returns the head to the deer god, the land becomes green again, and the accursed and lepers are restored to health. San and Ashitaka part, vowing to see each other as much as possible, while Ashitaka, finally freed of his curse, decides to rebuild Tataraba. Eboshi vows to rebuild Tataraba along more harmonious lines, and the final scene shows a Kodama appearing in the forest.


 * It's much easier to read and is within the word limit outlined on WP:FILMPLOT, and this flows much better and gives out impotent details without going into over detail. Would that work? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sjones23, yes, I agree, specifically english wikipedia have differences, in the moments quite critical and sharp differences with other language wikis. So, yes, I will need time to get into the way, or how to say... to learn these differences, shorter saying. But that doesn't means that I'm wrong now in this specifical question. And I don't wanted to offend or hurt somebody feelings. If so I'm sincererely apologize. I just wanted to investigate. And make improvements of english wiki. ... But I must say, that you, Sjones23, is quite double-faced, you change your opinions often. You sating and agreeing that plot of "PM" is complicated and complex and after one day you saying that it is not so. You should not do this. Or this means can't to come to an agreement. You said:"Let's hope there are no more edit wars based on misunderstandings." But if you will go from one side to another... I hope you understand. So I just kind advice to watch and keep your words. And don't forget what admin Bbb23 said to you:"I strongly urge Sjones to stay away from the article for a while to prove his good faith". I believe that you are respected editor, but everyone can make mistakes and so on. Rules, guidelines, etc, are only one side of a coin. Well, I hope we understand ech other. Again I'm saying I don't want to offend somebody, just saying my sincere vision and opinion. Maybe some roughness...
 * TheFarix, really I didn't undersand totally. You mean that there is fixed order in categories? I read that rule, but didn't understand it completely. Will be glad if you can explain. Thanks. For example, how I see this: in WP:CAT "Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.", then I don't understand why you moved 'Studio Ghibli animated films' and 'Toho animated films' categories to the end, when it is obviously that in this article this categories is more significant than, for example, 'Picture of the Year Japan Academy Prize winners' and 'Sengoku period in fiction', even than 'Films directed by Hayao Miyazaki', 'GKIDS animated films' and 'Miramax Films animated films'... So will be glad if you can explain. Thank you.
 * Sjones23, about your sand-box version of plot. I must say that I don't like it and reasons I telled earlier. Look, you write, for example:"After Ashitaka returns the head to the deer god, the land becomes green again, and the accursed and lepers are restored to health. San and Ashitaka part, vowing to see each other as much as possible, while Ashitaka, finally freed of his curse, decides to rebuild Tataraba. Eboshi vows to rebuild Tataraba along more harmonious lines,..." - what I see there it's completely muddle, misinterpret, lie. This is rough OR and distortion of what we really see in the film. I hope you will understand. And much places in your sand-box version like this example. So I disagree, must decline your version. Reread please what I wrote to Elen about different variants (point two). Thank you and again sorry all comrades for my not perfect english, must hurry just now, don't have much time to sit with dictionary and correct all mistakes. You can correct me if you want. Best wishes. "Anonymous with IP" 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am a respected editor, having been involved in Wikipedia for nearly 6 years now. At the same time, we often make good faith mistakes. It happens though. :-) Basically, this is not original research, as you put it, it's just a summary without going into too much detail. At the same time, you want to show some respect towards your fellow editors and the reasons for doing so. I realized that the plot of Princess Mononoke is not really that complex and the recent plot summary is still hard to understand here and TheFarix has clearly explained that the plot summary is hard to understand here, and you have seen the film several times according to him. No one is ignoring you or saying you could not improve the plot, the basic catch is you want to summarize the film itself without going into too much over detail. The categories have absolutely nothing to do with the present situation at the moment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anonymous with IP, the words 'lie', 'lying' and 'liar' are very strong in English, best reserved for police interrogations and court cases. You disagree with SJones' understanding of the end of the film, but I seriously doubt that he is lying, so try to avoid that word. Could you instead explain the ways you think it doesn't describe the film. As to the plot - part of the issue with Princess Mononoke is that to I think to get the full effect you need some knowledge of Japanese mythology. That's why I think the plot summary needs to be a little longer - it would actually help us Westerners (who for example spend lots of time trying to work out which one is the Princess). The current version isn't in very flowing English, but that can be fixed up too.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sjones23, of course categories question is another one, it does not connected with plot section. I just wanted to gain an understanding, you see?
 * Elen, first of all, if you adress to me by 'nick', then it must be in inverted commas, coz it is deliberate irony, you see? :) I don't named Sjones23 a lier. I said that what he wrote looks like lie. Well, hard to explain for me to you. I think you just didn't understand me correct. But I'm glad that Sjones23 understand me right, how I see. "I think to get the full effect you need some knowledge of Japanese mythology" - you are absolutely correct. And I must say that I'm an expert in the Slavic, German-Scandinavian (North) and Japanese mythologies. Just for you to know. We are all respected editors, but each of us have strong and weak sides, right? But of course, everybody can improve WP. And again you corect, I want to write more delicacy about "PM", but respected editors len on there 400-700 words. So some of us thinks that plot section must be longer, some thinks that it must be shortened? So how we can get consensus here? I am trying to convince Sjones23 and other respected members, will be glad if you will help in that. I will write then and mythology context and other nicety fine poins of plot and film as a whole.
 * P.S. And yes, respected members, I'm waiting your visions and opinions about other points which I wrote (about "Ashitaka's and San's romantic feelings", for example). Thank you. "Anonymous with IP" 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've reworked the plot section to reduce unnecessary wording and bring it under the 700 word recommended max. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work, Nihonjoe! :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to eliminate those one sentence paragraphs at the beginning and end of the plot summary, either by removing them completely or combining them with the paragraphs next to them? —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just read it through (and made some small corrections) and it looks fine. I do not think the plot is complex enough that a summary over 700 words is necessary. Cultural explanations are mostly offered through wikilinks to the pertinent phenomena. If I can make one comment, it is that I don't seem to recall that the film makes it clear the lepers are cured at the end. I wonder if that and Eboshi's promise is reading too much into it. Michitaro (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The film does make it clear in one scene at the end. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I thank there was a change in the software so that references would appear at the bottom of the page if Reflist or &lt;references/&gt; is not used so I added one below. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 20:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)