Talk:Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise/Archive 1

Budget is wrong...
... In the article it says the budget for this movie was 8 billion yen (8.000 million I suppose) but in fact, it was 800 million yen.

Quote from official gainax web site:

''This was GAINAX's first production. Planned as the first project from Bandai's video production department, with a production budget of 8 hundred million Yen (approx. US$4-5 million at time of production), and music by Sakamoto Ryuichi, it was a one-of-a-kind epic.''

Have a look at the full article HERE:

http://www.gainax.co.jp/anime/honeamis-e.html

Oh well, I've just updated it anyway :P


 * I updated your update. :p --nihon 23:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
"The" is part of the official English title, and should therefore be part of the title of the article. Currently "The Wings of Honneamise" redirects to this page.


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 05:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --nihon 19:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Deconstruction
Not only does this section not have a single reference, it reads very much as if it is the personal opinion of the poster. I am not in anyway saying that he is wrong, just that this is not the place for it. If there are references that can be cited please do so. In the meantime I have placed the tags for both "non-compliant" and "essay entry". I considered adding Original research or Lack of References as well but as they fall under non-compliant I felt it was redundant.Colincbn 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed sex scene
This movie has a sex scene, which, besides being unwelcome, also makes no sense. (To me, at least.)
 * Your point...?
 * From what I recall, it wasn't simply a sex scene but a rape scene, removed for the UK release but included AFAIK in other European releases Alastairward 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an attempted rape scene, and Yamaga described at length on the film's commentary the purpose of the scene's inclusion.Xenofan 29A 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Variation
http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/oldeva/2001-March/039239.html

I have actual Gainax in-house production materials (character/mecha drawing references and animator storyboards) from The Wings of Honneamise, and they cost me an arm and a leg...The attempted rape scene unfolds differently in the storyboards.

--Gwern (contribs) 20:19 14 December 2009 (GMT)

Cover Artwork
The current image, of Manga's VHS release, should be replaced with the HD-DVD release cover art, which is much more faithful to the look and feel of the film, in my opinion.Xenofan 29A 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To that end, I have replaced the old image with the new one. Xenofan 29A 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For development

 * http://www.ex.org/4.6/08-feature_ohnishi.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20070808033846/www.fansview.com/1999/071899c.htm

Others reviews
Not sure those reviews can weight much versus the ANN or the Mania review. --KrebMarkt 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DVD Review at Frankly Mr Shankly
 * nt2099 Entertainment review


 * As I think I've said elsewhere, the nt2099.com site is a RS, and it's useful because it gives us historical context ("Back in the 70’s and 80’s, the majority of anime films were typically edited compilations from popular television shows. One of the most popular examples of this are the “Mobile Suit Gundam” trilogy films which more or less compiled and edited 50 TV episodes. And many films were created by live-action directors and the main sponsors of these films were national sponsors and toy manufacturers (this is explained in detail by an accompanying booklet included with the box set written by Hikawa Ryusuke)."). --Gwern (contribs) 17:16 23 January 2010 (GMT)


 * Maybe. What hurts is as far as i could check nt2099 is a big black monolith, we have zero info on why they are credible and worth mention compared to others reviews opinions. To make the things worse this site has a wikipedia article J-ENT which is like begging to prodded or sent to Afd.
 * So i think we should focus on using our most credible reviews first before considering using nt2099's one. --KrebMarkt 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a few "J-ENT" usages elsewhere, but rather few.
 * But I'm especially not concerned about using that review because it specifically cites the booklet. If you assume that these reviewers are incompetent and ignorant (but not dishonest), then the statements are useful because they're just plagiarizing/summarizing the reliable booklet; if you assume they are competent and knowledgeable, then there's no problem at all. Either, we're fine. --Gwern (contribs) 19:59 23 January 2010 (GMT)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise. 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.inwards.com/woh/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19950512%2FREVIEWS%2F505120307%2F1023
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007034519/http://www.mania.com/wings-honneamise-bddvd-combo_article_79633.html to http://www.mania.com/wings-honneamise-bddvd-combo_article_79633.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Much to add.
A lot of info is missing from the article. The hero became an astronaut after he failed to get high enough marks in basic flight school to go to fighter pilot training. You see the space programme is not serious, they only get second-class personnel. Their work is meant to offend the opposing superpower, they have no other purpose. The space agency succeeds AGAINST the will of their own government.

The girl protagonist is actually a prostitute. This is obvious in the scene where her shoe's heel breaks and and a lot of money falls off. (This footage may have been deleted from puritain anglo-saxon releases.)

The launch of the space rocket is clearly modelled after the soviet R-7 missile (Sputnik's and Gagarin's booster). 81.0.68.145 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really believe it should be in the article, then add it in yourself with appropriate sources. And, please, do not make another stab at "Anglo-saxons" (British) people again, you have been warned about that before. "(This footage may have been deleted from puritain anglo-saxon releases.)" - Seriously, stop being derogatory towards British people. Scar ian  Talk  08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The scene where the girl's shoe breaks and money falls out is included in the UK release (which would be presumably different from the "anglo-saxon" US and European releases... If there is a line in any director's commentary, please quote it, otherwise leave it uncited.


 * As for the "clearly modelled after" comment, leave that out please. There's enough rubbish of that type on Wikipedia. Personal opinion is uncalled for, if you can cite something, include it Alastairward 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with some of your assessment. True, the fact that the space program gets second-class personnel is important, but it's not obvious Ruiquinni is prostituting herself. When she is first seen, she might be in a red-light district, but her behavious is most definitely not that of a prostitute. The money from her shoe later could just as easily be from begging, for instance. IIRC, the film never explains it. StaticSan (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any explanation of where her money comes from other than the job in the field she has chopping vegetation Alastairward 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the need to hide it in a boot then?:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.138.5.233 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Made major change to critics response section (August 2019)
Hi! It turns out that the movie did not go direct to home video, but had a release first in US and UK movie theaters during 1994 and 1995, in the English dubbed version, and during that time many print newspapers did reviews on it, including the one by the previously quoted Roger Ebert who, when you read the whole review, was actually writing the piece to recommend one of those local theater showings.

Though many of the reviews at the time were highly positive, some were mixed and some very negative and I believe this gives a more nuanced picture than the earlier version’s assertion that the movie had received universal acclaim from film critics since its release. As said I took out the previous 4 citations but 2 of those 4 critics, Ebert and McCarthy, were in the 14 I added so maybe I changed it less extremely than it might look at first.

People are also still arguing even today about what “anime style” means, why anime is that way in Japan, and what anime should or shouldn’t be…I’m thinking about the controversy over that recent Netflix documentary, Enter the Anime. So I found it super fascinating to look at these old reviews and realize some of the same debate was going on 25 years ago in everyday American and British newspapers. If you look close at the reviews cited, for example there were cases where you’d have two papers covering the same urban area such as Dallas/Fort Worth and Los Angeles, except one paper liked the film and the other paper didn’t like the film.

The reception the movie got from the newspaper movie reviewers really was mixed and complex, and I think the record of that would benefit the article. In a small way it reminds me of reading about the critical response back in the ‘60s to 2001: A Space Odyssey, even though that is a much more famous movie. It was actually why I used the phrase “Critical response,” modeling it on the critics section in the 2001: A Space Odyssey page. Hopefully that isn’t pretentious, but 2001 is rated a good article, so I thought it was also a good model to try to use.

Even though some papers that are still major online today weighed in on the film way back then, such as WaPo and The Guardian, I can really understand if these Royal Space Force/Wings of Honneamise reviews just weren’t known about before. The 1994-95 time frame seems to have been right before newspapers started going online, so they may have only ever appeared in the print versions.

These reviews may be behind paywalls or not otherwise searchable on the web, although they are definitely available in libraries that have some archives on the old microfilm format, which is where I sourced the newspaper and magazine references. The clue that sort of unlocked all this in the first place was finding an old issue of an anime fan magazine, Animerica, that listed the cities and the dates where the movie was going to show, otherwise I would have never been aware that these reviews existed, or even where to start tracking them down in the library.

One newspaper cited, LA Village View, no longer exists, but it is mentioned in the page for the paper it was taken over by, New Times LA, so I linked to that page in the reference, which I thought was the best I could do with the situation. Actually New Times LA also doesn't exist anymore, since apparently a lot of papers that were around in the '90s have gone out of business or changed names since news media went online.

One strange thing I noticed is that even though one of the 1990s sources added is actually available online, Richard Corliss’s “Amazing Anime”, the online version does not contain the quote about Honneamise used in the reference. In the microfilmed library edition of the article, the quote was visible in a sidebar giving a timeline of anime, adjacent to the main article. The archived online version of “Amazing Anime” http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,34340-1,00.html contains the main article text but not the sidebar text.

I don’t know if this is due to how the archiving was set up, but it’s got me wondering if other online archives of print material are always 100% complete as well or whether sometimes they might get abridged in some fashion. Maybe it has something to do with how they set up the OCR? I’ve seen old Microsoft scanned books where images were fuzzy but text was more clear, and my guess was it was because they made the settings for the text. If they were doing batch scanning jobs maybe things got skipped over occasionally, like text if it was in boxes instead of columns. Just a guess though.Iura Solntse (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Split Sequel section into previous redirect page for Uru in Blue (January 2020)
Hi! I noticed that on the Japanese Wikipedia, “Aoki Uru” is a separate article (jp:蒼きウル), and as the “Sequel” section of Royal Space Force has expanded I think it has become suitable to do the same in the English version. What I did was leave a short summary on “Aoki Uru” and a “Main Article” link in the “Sequel” section then move the rest of the “Sequel” text to the Uru in Blue page which has previously existed as a redirect to “Sequel” on “Royal Space Force”. At the moment the 1992-93 section of Uru in Blue is the most developed but I plan to cite more information on the late 1990s period in the near future.

Uru in Blue was actually one of three titles that previously redirected to the “Sequel” section...the other two are different names the sequel has been known by, Aoki Uru and Blue Uru. Out of those three I picked Uru in Blue to be the main article name because it seems to have been the official English title for this project since 2013 although I reference how the other titles have been used by sources in the past. Then I removed those three redirects from the Royal Space Force page and added into Aoki Uru and Blue Uru redirects to the Uru in Blue page.

I think the separate page for Uru in Blue makes sense because there is a fair amount to document about the project (not surprising since it has almost a 30 year history now) and yet...although it’s described as a sequel to Royal Space Force the references on it show a definite difference, for example it being set a half century later and deliberately sharing no characters or situations with the first movie. Also the basic identity of the two works is different, that is Royal Space Force is an actual movie completed back in the 1980s that you can watch streaming right now or on get on Blu-ray, but “Aoki Uru” is a concept for a movie that has never actually been made as yet. It has a different backstory and different issues behind it, so I don’t think it should exist mainly as an end piece to Royal Space Force but as a separate article if that makes sense.--Iura Solntse (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed Japanese links for proper names that currently do not have an English wiki page. (April 2020)
Hi! As there are a fairly large number (26) of Japanese proper names that do not currently have an English wiki page devoted specifically to them that are nevertheless referenced at some point (sometimes multiple times) in the main body text of the English Royal Space Force article I think it would be better to remove those names' previously inserted Japanese page links entirely rather than have the reader so frequently encounter names in the text denoted in red as happening to have no devoted English article at present.

This may at first seem like information is being removed but as pointed out the previously inserted links are of somewhat limited utility in the context of the English-language wiki article as they naturally direct to Japanese-language wiki pages. In the absence of those Japanese links hopefully the English body text itself already presents the basic context relevant to this article behind the use of each of these particular names (for example the article notes Shigeru Watanabe as being a film producer, General Products as being a fan merchandise company, Fumio Iida as being a key animator, etc.) even if they are among those Japanese people and entities that lack English wiki pages of their own at the present time.Iura Solntse (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Morgan695, thank you very much once again for taking the time to review the article, and here is a breakdown of my current edit as reflects your outline:

Lead

• "later to share the Academy Award for the soundtrack to The Last Emperor, served as music director" interesting trivia, but I'm not sure it belongs in the second sentence of the article.

I believe it is appropriate to retain it there as reference 161 notes he was the only member of Royal Space Force's main staff known to the general public and was therefore a more prominent lead creative credit on the film than even the director himself. Sakamoto's Academy Award was for a film released the very same year as Royal Space Force so the context of that mention is close to the work under discussion.

Plot

• The article in general suffers a bit from WP:OVERLINK. In the first paragraph of the plot alone, "middle-class", "spaceflight", "satellites", "preaching", "red-light district", "astronaut", and "orbit" should not be linked. I would recommend doing a proofread of the article to remove wikilinks from terms like these that are easily understood in context.

I removed most of the links from the Plot section.

Voice cast

• Both the Japanese and English casts need to be cited, ideally with a secondary source but if not, citing the work itself is adequate (see Adolescence_of_Utena#Cast)

I was able to include a secondary source for the Japanese cast but I’m not currently aware of any reference that would list the full English cast other than the work itself so I cited it in that way for now. If I come across a secondary source for the English cast list in the future, I will update that citation. Development

• Again, check for overlinking

• When using the term "OVA" for the first time here, spell out in full (i.e. "original video animation (OVA)") and then use the acronym for all subsequent uses

I changed the mentions of the OVA term as indicated, and removed an additional 47 links from the Production section, 19 from the Release section, and 12 from the Reception section.

Pilot Film

• Uncap "Film" so header reads as "Pilot film"

• Italicize Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg

I made those formatting changes.

English-language release

• All images have proper rationales except File:HonneamiseHD.jpg here, which is currently licensed for use in a lead infobox. The image should be removed from the article, as it does not communicate information that File:Royal Space Force Poster.jpg doesn't already.

I removed the File:HonneamiseHD.jpg image.

Further reading

• These reviews should be integrated into "English-language critical response" or removed. None of them, with the possible exception of the DVD Talk review, feel substantial enough to stand on their own as Further reading; the Carl Gustav Horn link is also broken.

I removed the “Further reading” links.

External links

• What is the significance of the four unformatted Internet Archive links to the Gainax site?

As with the “Further reading” section these seem to be very old parts of the article. They reference the 1997 Japanese studio sessions in which the movie’s sound FX were re-recorded for an anniversary release of the film. I decided to remove the introductory comment link and then only retain the first of the three links of the report on the sound recording event as the first link itself has a link to the second and third parts of the report. I also chose a different capture date for that link from the Internet Archive as all the images were gone from the original one. There doesn’t seem to be a capture that has all the images but I found a date that has about half still present so it’s an improvement. I then moved that remaining link of the original four out of the External links section and instead made it part of a citation in paragraph three of "English-language release” (reference 208) since that section had previously noted that the English-language Bandai Blu-Ray/HD-DVD uses the 1997 re-recording.

Closing comments

• @Iura Solntse: @GamerPro64: This is a well-written article, and will happily pass it for GA once these changes are made. If you seek to take this article to FA, or even just develop it further, I would strongly recommend including a "Themes and analysis" section that sources scholarly articles on the film. There is a depth of material on this film in academic writing, paticularly the sexual assault scene, and the article feels somewhat incomplete without it. However, the article as currently constituted is more than adequate to meet GA standards, once these edits are made. Good work. Morgan695 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That’s a good suggestion about a Themes and analysis section and I’ll look into it.Iura Solntse (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)