Talk:Akira (manga)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, High-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Marvel Comics work group.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Subjective writing[edit]

Someone added the following to the movie-blurb: "The film will be set in New Manhattan - a decision which has drawn severe criticism from die-hard Akira fans.[4][5][6]" The links that the references led to had no mention of any fan responses, neither positive or negative. TorbenFrost (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AKIRA (2009 film)[edit]

why does that link to this page when in the AKIRA film section it mentions this film and says AKIRA (2009 film) main section. if you click on it it takes you to the manga section, that makes no sense! how do I get to the article on the 2009 film! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.224.124 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a redirection circlejerk happening here: Akira (film) disambigs to Akira (2009 film) redirects to Akira (manga) disambigs to Akira (film). Will some fan please start the Akira (2009 film) article to solve this?--87.162.1.180 (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

theres 2 endings for akira the 1 for japan story .an the other 1 for marvel in u.s. the marvel stip ed early in the early 1990s cuz otomo felt the he wanted a different ending.. sumtime in the the mid-1990s,otomo tools years to rewrite the u.s. ending ,marvel printed the bookk around 1996 ..i havent hread bout this since the 1990s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.8.205 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


On a similar note, why is the anime mentioned so often in the intro to this article? The two are very distinct pieces of work and I think it would be much cleaner if the manga article simply linked to the anime article instead of trying to make comparisons in every single sentence. I haven't read or seen them recently enough to make these edits myself, but I think this article is doing a HUGE disservice to the manga by constantly referencing the inferior anime instead of simply stating: For more info about the anime title of the same name, see Akira (film). 76.24.24.170 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary[edit]

Ok, the current plot summary has been copied from the film article. I haven't read the comics in a while, so maybe someone who has could write a proper summary. Thanks. fataltourist 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Groovemaster D. 10:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've recently read them and this manga is the primary reason I signed in as a registered user. I'm glad to see someone else also thought this manga needed a page different from the movie. I'm busy writing a summary and I'm also thinking about analyzing the metaphores more elaborately. Maybe a good source for more information is http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/archive/avril00/artjmb.pdf. It's a great article (eventhough it has several grammar errors) and that's the one I'm currently trying to incorporate in the Akira (Manga) article. I'll probably make a lot of errors with this because I'm not familiar with editing Wikipedia, or other, pages whatsoever.

It needs to be an objective outline of the plot. Metaphors are too open to interpretation. Just try to write a clear, concise outline of events. I can help edit and wikify the text. fataltourist 14:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take into mind. But it would be alright if a part of the page will be made where interpretations/meanings or something can be put, right? BTW, I'm Dutch and although I think I can speak and write pretty good English, don't be too surprised when a grammarmistake slips into my stuff. As of the moment, I'm still summarizing the story a bit more elaborately (as well as working for the my study). Groovemaster D.
  1. OK, So I've added my synopsis. Just adjust what you do not think is appropriate, what is bad English, add links or anything else you think should be adjusted. I'll probably now move on to adding some character paragraphes. Groovemaster D. 15:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I've read all the comics and am willing to help out where I can, I was planning on separating the Manga info myself and began a synopsis but I've been busy with exams, so this took a back seat. I personally recommened breaking up the synopsis into the six books, just to make it that little bit easier on the eyes and to make it more clear. I think V for Vendetta is a good example of a well organised comic book wikipage. What are your views on a more detailed list of characters? Ajplmr 09:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. We can always seperate the synopsis into the six books. I do not think it would be my preferation but just try and see what happens, maybe I'll end up liking it and even if I don't, that does not really matter. I think the thing I really wish to do is, at least, give an outline of Tetsuo's physical changes, what they (could) stand for and what Tetsuo's behaviour is at that time. Maybe we could also add more information about Kaneda, Kei, the Children and others? --Groovemaster D. 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I have all the books at home, I'll add to the undone summaries once I can find them all again.

Shamanic Enzan 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Year of the first destruction of Tokyo[edit]

The article says the first explosion, mentioned in the prologue happened in december 1992. My japanese version of the book says december 1982 (which would be right about the time Otomo started drawing OR the time the first pages were published). I'm not sure about the translations, the date could have been altered for them. Can someone elaborate on this? If not, I'll change the date to december 1982. 213.172.254.96 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My English version (Dark Horse) says 1992, and it also has the line "38 years after World War III (2030 AD)," and 2030-1992 = 38. Rapidflash 04:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

user.lain's edits[edit]

Just for the record, all I did was edit the volume summaries for grammar and clarification in some places. --User.lain 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help! Book 4 needs to be condensed. I will try to work on turning it into a concise summary if I have time. --fataltourist 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
On top of that, Book 1, at least, could use some expansion as far as I can tell. I've only just started reading the series today but I'm 2/3rds through and unless I'm mistaken, the summary for Book 1 ended quite a ways back from where I am. Looks like it needs to both cover more of the volume but also be condensed given how little ground the paragraph that's already there covers. (Kind of like this comment I just made!) --User.lain 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

akira as a startpoint for animanga[edit]

Well, I don't think that needs a citation, I mean... Sure, NOR is very important but anyone that has dabbled on a few animanga communities can tell that this statement is true. That said, I think Akira popularity as a central animanga has declined over time, maybe replaced with newer centerpieces. Then again, that's original research and doesn't belong to Wikipedia, but...

No "buts". You've said it yourself: it's original research, so it doesn't belong here. And you're most probably wrong, like all those people on "animanga communities". 207.164.158.194 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

collected editions v. individual books[edit]

I've never looked at any of the six volumes, can anyone tell me when a new volume begins and ends in the series of 38 books? --Onesecond 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That depends. For example, I used to borrow a three-pack set of the smaller Marvel issues from a friend, and immediately noticed that the first of the three comprised the last part of Book 3 (where Kaneda and company come face-to-face with the Colonel and Akira unleashes his power again), and the other from the first part of Book 4, where the Great Tokyo Empire is established. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AKIRA hardcovers by Graphitti Designs[edit]

Is there any word if Graphitti Designs ever plans to release the sixth and final volume of their limited edition hardcover collection? 74.244.63.126 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Themes?[edit]

"Akira, like Otomo's other work (such as Domu), revolves around the basic idea of individuals with superhuman powers, in particular psychokinetic abilities, but much of the story does not focus on these abilities themselves, but rather the people involved, social issues and the political ramifications of their existence. The social commentary is not particularly deep or philosophical, but rather a wry look at youth alienation, government corruption and inefficiency, and a military grounded in old-fashioned Japanese honor, displeased with the compromises of modern society."

Alright, the problem with this section, and a problem that pisses of people who understand their english classes, is that these are not themes, but are motifs. A theme can be written as a complete statement, esentially as one of the messages contained in the book. For instance, "the idea of the cosmic stream presented in Akira is used to assert that entropy and chaos is inevitable, and that order and society are destined to crumble." Now, the problem with a theme section is that themes are provable, but they are not encyclopedic fact.

"revolves around the basic idea of individuals with superhuman powers, in particular psychokinetic abilities" is definitely a motif, as are "youth alienation, government corruption and inefficiency, and a military grounded in old-fashioned Japanese honor".

Also, the statement "The social commentary is not particularly deep or philosophical" is a statement of opinion and is a violation of NPOV.

So I'm going to edit the section.

Yikes, overgrown plot section[edit]

This really needs to be trimmed down guys. A lot. I'd help, but my computer access is limited.--SeizureDog 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously cut down. Like to a two or three paragraphs per volume, at most -- see WP:NOT#PLOT. I'd help, but no way I can pick out which of the profusion of details are the significant ones. —Quasirandom 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Cut way down. And I'm not going to do it either. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ultra supermegasaiyan cut down. I'd be willing to help out if I can find the time. Eyeball kid (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll help turn these into synopsis-length paragraphs.207.164.158.194 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've trimmed a bit of the Book 1 plot, but Jesus Christ, this is going to take forever. I still think it's too long. There should be a better way to go about this, like re-writing the whole thing.207.164.158.194 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's worth the effort, dont' worry. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, we're all agreed, but what a task, and I don't feel comfortable doing it until I reread the manga. These entries are meticulously detailed but it's just too much information. Cripes, I'm usually in favor of more info on wikipedia but these synopses are just unreadable. 76.24.24.170 (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He, i too agree that the plot needs to be shortened, but please take into consideration two things: 1.- Akira's plot is extremely complicated, particularly the section between akira's awakening and the destruction of neo-tokio (the whole chase-in-the-streets sequence between Nezu, the army, the protagonists and miyako's girls), given that there are many characters with unrelated story lines that affect each other, and a shortened exposition could very well be very very confusing to someone that has not read the manga. 2.- As an encyclopedia article, the plot summary should server a reference purpose, by containing mention and context of all things that could be of interest to readers, particularly things that are part of the story setting, being as this is a soft science fiction plot and its full of things that only make sense in the context of the story.

I have an example for this, and it's the reason i came in the first place to the talk page, but found your discussion about the plot: i wanted to find the name of the american counterpart to SOL seen in the manga, that Tetsuo crashes into the aircraft carrier, and i noticed that there's a gaping hole in the plot, in the end of book five: "Back at the aircraft carrier, the Admiral goes to the ship's infirmary to check on the condition of the scientists of Project "Juvenile A" after Tetsuo's destructive onslaught", but no mention is made of this event, neither of Kay's fight with tetsuo in the aircraft as a medium for Miyako, nor the scene previous to that one that is critical to understanding the relationship between her and kaneda.

The above examples shows that a briefer plot exposition should be built with extreme care, as leaving this details out make the article useless as a reference source, and this is, after all, an encyclopedia and it should be the kind of place where one would be able to find answers to questions like "what is the name of the american satellite...". In the context of this article, this questions can only be answered in the plot exposition, unless one created reference sections for all the elements mentioned in the story that could motivate interest and searching form readers, which is much more difficult.

I haven't got access to all the books right now, and haven't read it in a long time, so i'm affraid that i, too, would be unable to assist with this daunting task. sorry. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ps: the funny thing is that while i was writing this comment, i had a sudden flash of memory and remembered the name: it's called Floyd.

People, fret not: the entire section has been CUT DOWN like you've wished. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

This external links need to be cleaned up per the policy guidelines at External Links to Be Avoided. Anyone up for the task?ask123 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to figure out how BlueBladeAkira is a relevant link and Akira2019.com isn't? It seems like some of the "new" editors of this page are taking an over zealous approach to what links can and can't be included based on their personal opinion. I've read the guidelines and still see akira2019.com as the most relevant link there is to any article about Akira. Seems like nothing more than a grudge against the site.

B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

  • I changed "realised" to "realistic", and it got changed back, so I tried "well-realised"; let me know if that's not what you meant.
  • The refs section is broken. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think "realistic" got changed during an edit conflict, to be honest, it wasn't a conscious decision and I do remember conflicting with you once. i thought I covered all the changes but it must have snuck by me. Hiding T 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Waf#List of exemplary articles, it seems to me the list of characters is okay (or will be when I'm done with it), so I removed the "tone" tag. However, I'm not great with fiction articles, so feel free to revert me if I'm wrong. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I was thinking of culling the list, to be honest, I can never work out when you stop adding characters to it which is usually a good reason not to start. Hiding T 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

Just bookmarking refs for later work:

I hate it when this happens.[edit]

Click Tetsuo Shima. This article redirects to itself.

Idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.219.155 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Review(s)[edit]

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)