Talk:Scott Pilgrim Takes Off

Director?
Abel Góngora is credited as director for every episode in the opening title sequences. This article shows different directors for every episode, where is this sourced from? ~ nicolas (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The category/medium of the show (Is this anime or western animation?)
Pardon me, but why is the category/medium for this show not listed as "anime", just "animated series" it even says "Anime-influenced Western Animated series"?

Multiple the links in the references section refer to it as an anime. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Anime is animation produced in Japan. Just because something is influenced or inspired by something else, doesn't mean it IS that thing Jcharlesk (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But it is produced in Japan. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a co-production with the United States though, so what matters? I still think there needs to be consensus if it's really an anime. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll throw my vote into the hat. This is an anime, yes, it is co-produced by US for its writing and general copyright, but its animation (and yes, this is the important part), is predominantly if not 100% worked on by a Japanese animators. That is what classifies it as an anime. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen, whatever the medium turns out to be, we're probably gonna have to not edit any categories or medium mention on the article until we get this debacle sorted out. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It is animated in Japan based on the work and art style of a Canadian author, a work for hire. It is no more Japanese than The Simpsons is Korean. (McDonalds Big Mac made in a restaurant in Toyko isn't Japanese food either.) It is misleading to call it anime in the lead section and branding exercise by Netlfix to call it anime. Including the category Category:Anime-influenced Western animated television series seems more appropriate as it only says influenced by anime, but it would be better if the Production section had more information to support these statements, especially information from Science Saru and ideally information about their choices and art direction. -- 109.76.133.17 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how Netflix refering to is a "branding exercise". All that's happening is Netflix is referring to a show they own was animated in Japan, aka an anime. Also one quick note to bring up, Cyberpunk: Edgerunners on this very site is classified as anime despite also being based on a Polish video game. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just animated, but produced and distributed onto Netflix by a Japanese anime studio with a predominantly Japanese staff with clear intent from said studio as well as creators, showrunners, and marketing to be considered an anime series. Labeling the series as merely “anime-influenced” is completely disingenuous as it was not simply outsourced to be animated in Japan, but the entire production was developed and storyboarded in Japan. Its co-production in the US would also make make The Big O ineligable as it was co-produced by Cartoon Network and the second season only exists because the series did better abroad in the US than in its native country, where viewership was very low. 2601:80:4781:7780:2DCF:DCE:AFE3:EE3A (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources WP:RS are what matters. I should also have mentioned WP:CATVER. If you want to call it anime then just make sure to show your reliable sources, this encyclopedia is supposed to be based on what reliable sources are saying. If you can improve the Production section to make the Japanese influence and development and of the show clearer that would be even better. -- 109.76.133.17 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources cited in the article aside from Netflix call it an anime in the title of their article, including Variety, RogerEbert.com, Deadline, Gizmodo, and Pitchfork. Just hit a search and you see 13 of them in the Reference section.
 * It's pretty straightforward consensus in the sources, with all of them saying "anime" and none of them saying "anime-influenced Western animated television series". Consensus among editors can only follow. Reil (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not helpful to tell people how simple it is. If it is so simple then simply show your sources, don't expect other people to take your word WP:VERIFY it. If it is so easy then you could have easily included a link or three in your comments. "Just hit a search " think how well you would react if another editor said that to you.
 * Anyway, we might be discussing this as slightly cross purposes because my edits were concerned with the lead section, where I do not think it is due any emphasis, while other editors were more concerned with the Categories. I did notice that Hollywood Reporter called the show "anime" before it was released, but if you want to make a better encyclopedia instead of asserting and telling people it is "anime" it is better to show it clearly, show the Japanese influence through the article text and the Production details. There are plenty of people in Western media who will casually apply the label "anime" to anything out of Japan (and other Asian countries too) but that doesn't mean this _encyclopedia_ shouldn't take a bit more careful strict approach. For example the Studio Ghibli movies couldn't be more Japanese but they don't say anime in the lead section, but they do use many anime categories. Again to be clear my initial objection was to it being in the lead section. As for categories WP:CATDEF and WP:CATVER apply. -- 109.76.133.17 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not pointing people to a websearch. I'm pointing people to the citations in the article already, hence my saying "in the Reference section." Reil (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This talk section discussion was about sources in the references section already, and about categorization, so it's strange to be changing the subject and ask for citations that were being pointed to at the start of the conversation, but here's some copy-pasted out of the 13, I guess. Additionally, your assertion that we should clear some arbitrary boundary of evidence of Japanese influence instead of directly spoken secondary sources is tantamount to requesting original research to be put above citations. Reil (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to really indulge much here, but the "It is no more Japanese than The Simpsons is Korean" comment is so incredibly wrong and bad that it's painful. In the first case, The Simpsons is written, created, storyboarded, and entirely directed from the American side--the Korean animation team serves only as an animation labor force, they have absolutely no creative input in the series whatsoever, and neither does the Korean animation teams on Adventure Time, Castlevania, and whatever else. In contrast, Scott Pilgrim's Japanese team not only is co-producing it (and producing it under their system of animation production entirely separate from the western system of animation production, which The Simpsons and the two other mentioned examples are), but they're responsible for the animation itself, the show's storyboards, directing/processing the episodes. The showrunners and executive producers amount to requesting creative decisions, but have no hand in the actual production site unlike the aforementioned American cartoons. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of personal feelings, we all need to come to unanimous decision to what is and isn’t “anime” and whether this series fits that criteria. Going by all the evidence available to us, this series should fit as it was co-produced, storyboarded, and animated in Japan with clear intent from the showrunners and marketing to be considered an anime series. 2601:80:4781:7780:6577:7261:8D2C:E620 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's also worth noting that there was an interview posted by Netflix where Grabinski and O'Malley describe how they themselves were fans of SARU already. O'Malley notes that he was approached for the show by Netflix, and by then Science SARU had already shown interest in producing the series (indicating that they were there since the start of the production). Director Gongora, chief animation director Ishiyama, and episode director Moko-chan each said a few things here and there, including referring to how the Japanese team and American team collaborated on ideas; and the Japanese team was clearly given creative liberties as exemplified by Ishiyama wanting to express elements of 90s-style anime (after he said he read an interview from O'Malley on his influences), Gongora wanting to balance the "Canadian-American humor" with anime "language", and Moko-chan emphasizing how they stayed true to the source material while also adding their own on-screen characterizations. It is made abundantly clear that the show is a US-Japan anime collaboration. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Super Crooks is called an anime on this site, Highlander: The Search for Vengeance is an anime, S1 of Star Wars Visions produced "9 anime shorts" (2 by this very studio), Batman: Gotham Knight and Batman Ninja settled on being an "American-Japanese animated superhero anthology film", Halo Legends is an "anime compilation", etc. Anime News Network´s database deems this an anime but not the also listed Castavenia as it is based on a Japanese IP. The studio and all producers call this an anime as the BTS video in the argument above proves. All my examples besides Castavenia are anime or American-Japanese co-productions at a minimum. A coherent approach to the labeling of co-productions needs to be found, 80s Transformers proves that this argument is decades old, but I am convinced that Scott Pilgrim 2023 is one of the easiest examples to be deemed an anime and not all anime is made for the Japanese market. That´s why I singled out Highlander. A film this site deems to be anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.255.72 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Scott Pilgrim Takes Off (ONA) is the 245th highest rated anime on ANN as of today to give an additional layer to my argument:
 * https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/ratings-anime.php?top50=best_bayesian&n=500 77.64.255.72 (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * All I see in this thread is a bunch of IPs, whose opinions we should treat like anyone else's... except when based on a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia, getting very touchy about their rigid definitions of anime despite Wikipedia having a labelling policy that in this case isn't even borderline. We follow sources and for this work it isn't even hard, they're all unanimous. Suggest this thread be closed to prevent more unnecessary "what is an anime" posturing. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My Daemon released only days apart on Netflix, is animated in Thailand but has a Japanese scriptwriter. This is how its Wikipedia article begins: "My Daemon is an anime fantasy-science fiction streaming television series".
 * Wikipedia doesn´t have an issue with Scott Pilgrim Takes Off. It instead decides what is and isn´t anime randomly. Wikipedia editors don´t get to decide what is and isn´t anime but fixed guidelines are needed as this has become a recurring issue when it comes to streaming anime, co-productions and anime-inspired animation. 77.64.255.72 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a guideline. As I said, We follow sources and for this work it isn't even hard, they're all unanimous. Again, close before people just wanting to have a chat about a non-issue devolves further. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So wait, there is a guideline and we should just follow the sources? We have multiple sources in the references tab calling Scott Pilgrim Takes Off an anime. Then I agree, just we should just call it an anime and be done with it. It seems the people disagreeing with it and calling it "not anime" and citing "consensus over citation" are just blatantly ignoring the rules now. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Cyberpunk Edgerunners; that's an anime based on a Polish game. Yet that show is classified as anime on this site. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, this discussion has stalled. Can we finally come to an agreement on whether this is an anime or not? Or are we really going to be stuck with just the unclassifiable "television"? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also concur this discussion should be resolved and firmly on the side of this series meeting the definition as “anime”. 2601:80:4781:7780:61FB:10A9:3266:E26D (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All sources and most commenters in this thread form a pretty strong consensus. Rᴇɪʟ  (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it should stay as "anime". We can bring up how all sources/citations in the references tab and the general consensus here as proof/reason if anyone attempts to edit it back to "animated series" or "television series" or add "western animation" as a category. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Currently it's anime in the article and I wanna say that it should stay that way. All of the sources here are reputable and the consensus around here, besides a minority, is that this is an anime. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the conversation as has been had, within the constraints of Wikipedia, is that there are not really going to be sources in the negative. (How am I going to find a source confirming that nobody considers Scott Pilgrim Takes Off to be a Bollywood film?) To those in the know, it's self-evidently ridiculous, which is why a topic-focused website like MyAnimeList simply does not include the series in its database of 26,000 anime. With that many inclusions, the omission should be read as deliberate. This is a pretty strong example where WP:IGNOREALLRULES should be applied – the logic and 'consensus' above, while based on policy, results in a less coherent article that reaches a conclusion not taken seriously by subject matter experts or a wider audience, making Wikipedia an unreliable resource for information on the subject. To what end? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Neither are you going to find any credible sources that consider Scott Pilgrim a Bollywood film. As for your topic-focused websites argument: 1) AniDB and Anilist have included Scott Pilgrim Takes Off, outnumbering MAL as far as a database can hold an opinion, and 2) A subject's inclusion within or exclusion from MAL (or any particular database) isn't authoritative anyway. There are swathes of things popularly considered anime (esp. "adult" material) that are excluded from the site, as well as things that many wouldn't (like Iron Man: Rise of the Technovore) that are included.
 * What meaningful evidence that can be gleaned by SMEs and databases statistically leans one way, as do strict readings of any of the consistently set forth definitions of 'anime' that don't discounting wide swathes of other article subjects that have been accepted as such. Rᴇɪʟ  (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Adult material is an edge case that is not directly relevant here, and the fact MAL includes things that many wouldn't demonstrates how inclusive they are. AniDB and Anilist might be anime databases, but are not even notable enough to have Wikipedia entries – which, considering how generous the threshold of notability to be eligible for an article has become over the years, is telling. It can be mentioned that MAL has a defined criteria for what counts as an anime which is well defined https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=515957
 * So the databases do statistically lean one way, and strict readsings of consistently set forth definitions of anime that don't discount wide swathes of article subjects do indeed point one way, which is that Scott Pilgrim Takes Off is not considered an anime by SMEs. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The large amount of SMEs and reliable sources point to the conclusion that it is generally agreed to be an anime. Also take note that SPTO qualifies as anime according to MAL's own criteria as well. So if they cannot follow their own criteria, while also being hypocritical because they consider Cyberpunk: Edgerunners an anime, MAL is unreliable and should be disregarded in classifying this as anime or not. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not hypocritical at all, you just don't get it. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Elaborate please Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're actually interested, I'd encourage you to browse the MAL forum as a consistent rationale that directly cites their own criteria was cited for the conscious exclusion of SPTO from the database. It just doesn't meet the criteria, and your own lack of familiarity with it doesn't mean you can lodge a claim of 'hypocrisy' at them and conclude they are unreliable. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, even if MAL were to be taken seriously after their hypocritical exclusion of SPTO despite stuff like Edgerunners qualifying despite being of a similar situation. What exactly do you propose we do here? You have 1 source calling it not anime against the majority of sources calling it as such. We can't just call this not anime based on the criteria of one website. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See my original post AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay? Your OP is based on a false belief. Most subject matter experts and the wider audience consider this an anime. No change will be made. This is an anime per discussion. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, actually, as it really doesn't matter how many times you repeat your statements – they are false. I wanted to contribute to the discussion and explain the situation as it actually exists outside of this talkpage. If I wanted to change I would open RfC. Someone else might feel more passionately about the state of this article, see this comment down the line, and wish to open RfC. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They are false? Why are they false? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the point of talking in circles with you? I give an explanation, you either say "nope" or "explain yourself". I am not here to debate with you, I came to point out that what is being asserted is wrong – subject matter experts don't consider this an anime, a wider audience doesn't consider this an anime. Your disagreement is noted but not material to what I was saying. Cheers. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have provided zero evidence besides one website that doesn't consider this an anime. You did not represent subject matter experts nor audiences not calling this an anime. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. It's you who failed to adequately support the point you feel you've made. Take care now. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You provided one website. One solitary website. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright. Stay well AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Such a relevant response that totally addresses my concern. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The nature of your responses and selective reading of my attempts to converse with you doesn't really incentivize further conversation with you. A third-party audience is unlikely to get much from the conversation at this point either. I don't know if you've clearly picked up on it but I'd like to end the conversation here, but you insist on a last word that pushes some onus onto me rather than acknowledging you and I are not having a particularly instructive or worthwhile conversation. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Uncompleted Premise
The Premise Section is Uncompleted 170.10.50.79 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 11:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Proof that this is an original net anime (ONA).
I assume you undid my edit here for the same reason on the Pokémon Concierge article.

Here's my reasoning as to why I believe Scott Pilgrim Takes Off also falls under the ONA classification: Talk:Pokémon Concierge 2600:8802:1913:1F00:A814:4DED:3F0A:8859 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)