Talk:Akira (1988 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Akira (film))
Jump to: navigation, search

External Links[edit]

"If the link is to a relevant and informative site" - has been linked since feb 2006, added by me and has remained there for a long time. It is one of the, if not the most relevant site about Akira and therefore, for this wiki. Someone also mentioned only "official sites please" when removing from the links. Well I wouldn't exactly call Rotten Tomatoes site official, it's a tiny review, how is that more relevant than a site that is aimed at every facet of Akira. What makes a site "official"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damn-Deal-Done (talkcontribs) 11:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


The "parallels to blade runner section" is seriously worthless. It seems to be a bunch of coincidentally named characters/concepts. Almost every film since BR has been influenced by it, but Akira definitely does not parallel it. Reverting this edit. fataltourist 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The King of Fighters reference under the Parody section is redundant, as it is mentioned before in the article, and in fact irrevelant, because it isn't actually a parody. In addition, many of the items listed under "Parody" should be placed in the "Reference" section right above because they don't actually parody Akira!


Saying it "led the way for the growing popularity of anime" is an inaccurate, blanket statement. It only helped lead the way for the popularity of anime in America; anime was popular long before the film adaptation of Akira in Japan. Cleaning it up a bit. -- James26 03:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This has been corrected. Akira only launched the second wave of anime fandom (1990-1994). Robotech and StarBlazers were the posterboys of the first wave (everything in the 80s and before). The third wave was 1995-1999 (Sailor Moon and DBZ). After that, anime was mainstream, which means everything is levelling off137.198.52.107 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cast and crew[edit]

The cast and crew section seems to be there just to take up space. This kind of list is more appropriate for IMDB. And if we included the cast from both English dubs it would be even longer. I am chopping the section down. fataltourist 13:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, someone has included the casts from both English dubs, so I put back in the Japanese cast. They deserve to be in there more than all these "so&so .... others (Animaze dub)" entries. Also there was this link to "Full cast for Akira" that I removed because all it did was redirect me to the "Akira (film)" entry! Evan1975 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Film and the Book[edit]

Does it really make much sense to have this page chiefly devoted to the film, since the manga came first and had several events and characters that were never touched on in the movie? 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to change Akira (manga) from a redirect page to an article, seeing as the movie and manga info is all jumbled together in this article. Then each could have a proper plot summary. fataltourist 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Ok, here's what the style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films says: "Distributed by: the film's original theatrical distributor. In the case of there being different distributors for different countries, list only the distributor in the country where the film was produced. You can clarify this in parentheses at the end, e.g. "Orion Pictures Corporation (USA)" if Orion only released The Terminator in the U.S." So, I'll take all the info in there now and put it in a separate section in the main article. --fataltourist 23:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary - Needs work[edit]

The plot summary here needs work. It includes the area that is common to both the manga and the film (up to Tetsuo's first encounter with the psionic boy and his capture by the military scientists). Then it just includes the rest of the story (highly abbreviated) in the manga. First of all, I didn't notice the phrase "in the manga" at first, so I was thinking that whole paragraph was just inaccurate; the same could happen to someone who has not seen the film, and they might get the wrong impression. More importantly though, I don't think a plot summary, half of which pertains to the manga, is really indicative of what happens in the film. Perhaps if someone wrote what happens in the film, and then discussed the ending of the manga, it would be better, but I suggest just eliminating the manga section altogether (there's a seperate article for the manga anyway).

I didn't do this because I don't think the manga paragraph should be deleted until more information about the film is added. I tried to add more plot information about the film, but I just plumb couldn't remember a lot of it! Can anyone help?

Needs concise rewrite[edit]

I agree with the IP who wrote the cleanup tag:

"How about "Will be pruned as soon as possible." The author is needlessly adding an insane amount of minutia to the synopsis. To repeat, this section is NOT meant to read like a 3-page feature article in an anime magazine but simply a SUMMARY. --Trim it down or lose it. By the way, the line you cut out from the top indicating it's 31 years later is not a disposable fact, unlike your nonsense of describing props (flying platform), numerous useless references to the "Supreme Executive Council" and inserting character analysis which is already stated elsewhere on the page."

The summary needs to be about a quarter of its current length. --fataltourist 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IAWTC it's way too long right now. (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and confusing content[edit]

There are some changes that I would like to make throughout the article however I will focus initially on the opening plot summary.

"Akira (stylized as AKIRA)" I believe that the part in paranthesis needs to be deleted as it is unnecessary to mention the way in which the films title is printed on posters or merchandise. If there was an alternate way in which the films title appeared elsewhere that could not be immediately recognised as the title of the film then, and only then, would mentioning it would make sense.


Just went through the trivia, and I can see kids have tottally 100% included sh*tless information!

  • Tetsuo was the inspiration for the King of Fighters character K9999. Nozomu Sasaki, the Japanese voice actor who played Tetsuo in the film also did the voice of K9999 in the video game. This is the other way round! Or if that editor didn't understand the meaning of "Inpriation". King Of Fighters wasn't even created that time, which means K99999 was inspired by Tetsuo!
  • I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning here. Just to clarify, if Item A is the inspiration for Item B, then Item A inspired Item B, Item B was inspired by Item A and Item A came FIRST.

--John Lunney 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

      • In Kanye West's music video for "Stronger" they recreate some of the scenes where Kanye West is Tetsuo like where he is making his way to the "Baby Room" and attacks the guards,when he is tossing in his hosspital bed because his powers are starting to merde, and when he is on the MRI machine and etc. The music video also copied the motocycle riding with the lights trailing behind them after they pass —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • A clip of the movie was featured in a 2006 commercial for Absolut Vodka.

This is just a waste! Because there are plenty of adverts in the world that features Akira in it!

  • A clip of the movie was shown in the Michael and Janet Jackson music video for "Scream."

That was a different Anime, it wasn't Akira, that editor must have gotten it confused with Akira, or just wanted to fill the Trivia section in with data when it lacked information before!

No you are in fact wrong the 'Scream' video has the Akira character falling (looking down on him falling). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

  • Clips from the movie were used in a back page comic strip for the comic book fan magazine Wizard in 2004. They used the clips of characters to imply they they all work or eat at a restaurant that has run out of soup. Chaos ensues. What about Burger King and Mcdonalds!?
  • The scene in the episode "Career Day" of the cartoon Invader Zim in which Zim molts, closely mimics that of when Tetsuo does in the movie.

I can mimic like Tetsuo too. "hmm..hmsdss...s" Or if you mean when Tetsuo transformed. "0100010100101001"

  • Mandy was seen riding a futuristic bike similar to Kaneda's in a 2005 episode of Cartoon Network's The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy.

There are other cartoons and movie that have similar bikes to Tetsuo, if that bike Mandy was seen riding it, if it's suppose to be similar, then Mandy's bike should have those stickers Tetsuo had on his bike!
But then again, it might be similar! If the cartoon was based on the invents of Akira times

  • There was also a scene in an episode of Robot Chicken, featuring Son Goku of Dragon Ball Z fame, where Tetsuo's metamorphosis was parodied as well. Tetsuo sporting his trademark red cape and spiky hair made an appearance shortly thereafter.You forgot to mention, the way the Z warriors transform is the way Tetsuo transformed!
  • The futuristic animated series Batman Beyond referenced Akira several times. The Jokerz biker gang was inspired by Kaneda and Tetsuo's rivals, the Clowns. The film Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker included a climactic scene with an orbitting satellite attacking Gotham City like the SOL satellite on Neo-Tokyo. It might be similar, but just pretty stupid!

But I will say it was inspired by that Satellite blaster, but saying the Joker gang was stupid because The Clowns for Batman is official!

  • In the Batman: Mask of the Phantasm feature film, there is a flashback of a young Bruce Wayne fighting a man on a motorcycle that uses almost the same storyboards as a scene from Akira.There was also a day, I rememberd me turning to that thing Akira thingy

I annotated this piece of junk, so I don't want people reverting my edits!

>x<ino 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just confused about this:

  • Akira seems to be the first Anime movie to have the longest lasting credits. The credit takes about 4 minutes to finish, during the rolling of the credits, the Akira theme song is played. Rapidflash 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...I wrote that, but I didn't know how else to put it down. But it is true, Akira has the longest credits. You know the credit I am talking about? Credits at the end

>x<ino 09:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-quoting what you said:

  • Tetsuo was the inspiration for the King of Fighters character K9999. Nozomu Sasaki, the Japanese voice actor who played Tetsuo in the film also did the voice of K9999 in the video game. This is the other way round! Or if that editor didn't understand the meaning of "Inpriation". King Of Fighters wasn't even created that time, which means K99999 was inspired by Tetsuo!

I think you need to re-read that sentence again. Tetsuo being the inspiration for K9999 means that K9999 was inspired by Tetsuo, not the other way around. In short, you found fault with something that you really already agreed with. --Cyde Weys 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I did get my self confuse, because I also went to the K9999 article. Read it! And got myself confused:P

>x<ino 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

umm... I'm confused about this one...

"All this story was set before, but the real present story starts after the returning of Akira and destroying of Neo Tokyo again. As Number 26 says "Because it as already began". All character and people will have the ability to unlock their own powers just like Akira's and Tetsuo's, and they will all be able to control it."

What's "the real present story"? Also, is this backed up by anything, or is it just speculation? 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I removed it. --fataltourist 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Note that if you want to buy a British DVD of Akira and watch it in it's native language (Japanese), forget about it! All region 2 British releases by Manga Entertainment had the unfortunate error of only comming with Hard of Hearing English subtitles making it a frustrating affair to watch with Japanese dialogue. Along with charactor dialogue spelled out, you get odd background noises aswell. For a film of this esteem, this simply won't do and Manga Entertainment should be ashamed for such an oversight."

I just rewrote the above paragraph as it's highly opinionated. I'm assuming it's factually correct. Superbo 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's not! I bought a double DVD box in around 2003, maybe earlier, that had English subtitles, I'll double check the distributor etc. and post the details. At the risk of having an opinion, watching the film in Japanese is a joy and seriously enhances viewing pleasure. You can appreciate the decision to record audio first, animate later. Hobrob (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm pretty sure that Billy and Mandy thing was a Kill Bill reference anyway!

Can anyone explain this "parody" to me?

  • One of the segments on The Wacky World of Tex Avery featuring Maurice and Mooch included a parody of The Colonel, who looked like Colonel Sanders.

Akira features a Colonel Shikishima, but "The Colonel" makes no appearance, implied or otherwise, to the best of my knowledge. Decaheximal 07:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheap bullet time[edit]

I an't too sure about this game being reowned or it having a bullet time effect. I don't remember the camera obriting around Tetsuo.

  • Do you mean the part where he was at the staduim, and Kaneda fires the laser at him?
  • The crowd, where the tank fired a rocket at Tetsuo?
>x<ino 07:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this what people know Akira for? Why is this in the initial description? I think it belongs in the trivia. --fataltourist 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I didn't add it. I just wanted to know if it does have that bullet time 360 round camera. Cuz I can't remember. We might add that to the main description or trivia. But I need to know first if it does have a 360 camera round, like The Matrix's. But in the UK dvd collection, the cheap one I got:P. It says something relating to Matrix. That it was the first bullet time thingy, I dunno

>x<ino 17:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The film has always been cited as an influence of the Matrix. I will try to watch it soon and see if there's any bullet time. I reverted the edit until there's verification. --fataltourist 17:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a bullet time, but the camera doesn't rotate 360 around Tetuso You can tell, by the slow motion in the movie:

  • In the contruction staduim, where Kaneda fires the laser pinpoint at Tetsuo, Tetsuo jumped up.

That was bullet time but camera didn't rotate

  • The army fired a missle from there tank, before hitting Tetsuo, the rocket moved in slow motion
  • Where the Capsule's where chasing the Crown's at the begining. One of them jumped on the boss crown's bike, that had slow motion
  • Where Kaneda and those anti terrorist, where going to rescue the boy and Tetsuo. Kaneda jumped on that guy's, air bike. That was slow motion

This anime is cool:P

>x<ino 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Slow motion is not bullet time. I don't think there were any scenes in the movie when the camera was rotated 180/360 degrees. Also, the tank bullet didn't move in slow motion, Tetsuo was just slowing it down. Rapidflash 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no bullet time in Akira. Move on. --John Lunney 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally removed that false claim from the article. No such effect. Just watched the film again. Utils 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Could someone explain why the expansion tag was added? Was it a joke? --fataltourist 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask Mrwilly123 (talk · contribs) why he added that tag. -- ReyBrujo 00:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

I think the summary begun in the last edit is far too detailed--a summary should provide a basic outline of the plot, not a scene-by-scene breakdown. And certainly we don't want the beginning of the film summarized in great detail with a "to be continued" at the end. Nareek 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Postcard From Ground Zero[edit]

I chopped out the following myopic bit from one the old paragraphs near the top: "The social commentary is not regarded as particularly deep or philosophical..." (say what??) ...and added the "Themes and Symbolism" section for greater clarification of the story, because too many people say they "don't get it" or mistake the movie as little more than a pretty exercise in excessive violence. As detailed therein, the philosophical message of the film is deeper than a superficial viewing would suggest. (Short version: Think of Akira as an atom bomb, with implicit religious connotations.)

Some of the other symbolism — eg., associating milk with nursing infants, the children themselves stuck inside the military's giant toy chest ("You know we aren't meant to exist in the outside world...", Masuru says to the runaway Number 26), and the kids' secret development mirroring real-world political ambition to nuclear capacity — is fairly self-explanatory, I think.

Considering that this artistic work is Japanese in origin (and keeping in mind the Cold War era in which it was crafted), I don't see how anyone could miss the glaring parallels to Hiroshima (screaming at us from the story's very first annihilating image, no less), and Otomo's barely disguised commentary on nuclear arms (here costumed in superhuman trappings). — It's pretty obviously a postcard from ground zero telling us not to forget the horrors of history in our mad collective stampede to "greater power".


  • I've optionally hyperlinked the phrase "little boy" for its ironic double-meaning (if capitalized), not intended to imply that this naming analogy was necessarily Otomo's direct inspiration.
  • I have deliberately steered clear of any radical interpretations that would rely on external material apart from the manga (eg.,Freudian analyses, referencing other fictional works, etc.), instead taking movie dialogue and visual metaphor at its most basic as held in widely recurrent views (such as the cited WIZARD Magazine article).
  • I would guess that the tiny ball of light which Kaneda absorbs at the end of the film represents the last vestige of Tetsuo's ascended spirit (or "soul") infusing itself with his memory (gone but not forgotten), as suggested by Kaneda's prayerful pose and thankful response, but I didn't include this because fans tend to get defensive of their own interpretations and pop culture topics are besides often subjective.

Also, I've heard it reported that if the (Region 1) DVD is watched with closed captioning enabled, grafitti and signage is translated. Could someone tell me what the given translation is for the large message painted red on the pavement by Lady Miyako's devotees? Near as I can figure, it reads "daikaku Akira", whose first word either translates to "grand awakening" or "omniscient" (~roughly, "grand sense").

~ GALVATRON 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't KAY's name appear anywhere in this article??[edit]

I attempted to remedy this situation in my prior rewrite, but someone of the otaku purist persuasion (the sort I've met at conventions who react with hostility to the slightest culturally idiomatic alterations) went and trampled out every mention of "Kay" (as well as "Roy" in the English cast list). To me, this seems the equivalent of combing through Wikipedia pages to replace every instance of "Godzilla" with "Gojira" and then demanding that non-Japanese 'ought to know' what we're talking about. At best, this is an oversight; at worst, this purposeful neglect might be regarded as an attempt at revisionist history by said purists determined to erradicate any reference to the English version which English speakers are most likely to encounter.

In fact, I've been familiar with AKIRA since 1988 and this webpage is the first place I've ever seen the spelling "Kei": it's spelled "Kay" in the comic, she's called "Kay" in the Streamline dub, it's spelled "Kay" on the trading cards. If I were to grab any random person off the street who knew nothing of AKIRA, anime, or Japanese, and asked them to read the word "Kei", what percentage do you suppose would arrive at the correct pronunciation? (Next to none.) Instead, they would struggle with "Key", "Kee-Eye", "Keh-eee" (getting warmer) or "Kai" before dismissing it in frustration.

Notwithstanding conventions of Heppurn romanization, this page should make allowances for readers unfamiliar with the original source material — if not in the body of the text, then at the very least, I don't think it's unreasonable to include the English-dub names "Kay" and "Roy" parenthetically in the cast list (as I had edited it previously) given that the list refers to dual-language casting. Simply insisting that "Kei" is the proper name in Japanese doesn't address changes made in the marketed English translation, even if you happen to personally dislike those revisions.

~ GALVATRON 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Years later, I know, but still...
While the name of that character is indeed written "ケイ" / "Kei" in kana, it's spelled "Kay" in Latin alphabet in the Japanese volumes (... except for volume 6, which uses "Kei").
And considering that's just an alias (the actual name of the character is never revealed) and the fact she signs a written message with the Latin letter "K" in the original Japanese version, it is actually quite possible that the kana spelling "Kei" actually stands for the English pronunciation of the Latin letter "K" to begin with (maybe the initial of her real name?). In which case, it would make a lot of sense to use the spelling "Kay". Erigu (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

AKIRA or Akira?[edit]

It seems like the name of the movie should be Akira, not AKIRA, throughout the article. Yes, it say AKIRA in all caps on the box; that's a style choice that many studios and publishers make when packaging a film. (See your collection of DVDs.) That doesn't change the official title from Akira to AKIRA. Nareek 11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the movie title is written in all-caps primarily for clarity of subject, to distinguish it from the character name, Akira (even if italicized). It is not simply a matter of the DVD cover font; the title is fully capitalized elsewhere in print: for example, in Animage (original Japanese advertisement), where the soundtrack is noted in text as "AKIRA Theme". It's also capitalized in Marvel Age (article), Epic Comics (alternately with boldfacing), Protoculture Addicts, and in the production team name "AKIRA Committee" (probably again to distinguish it from the common Japanese name). However, I've sometimes seen the title written Akira in English reviews or video inventory listings (at Blockbuster or wherever, because they couldn't be bothered). ...Cartman would say that capitals have more "authori-tay". :p Seriously, (if this is a fair analogy,) would it be any more proper to get rid of the trailing capitals in THX 1138?
re: AKIRA Committee
By the way, the related page (and the "Distributed by" listing in the film box) should actually be retitled "AKIRA Committee" (the company's proper name) [...capitalized in whatever style is deemed fit for Wikipedia topic titles], dropping the "Production". The beginning of the film says "AKIRA COMMITEE PRODUCTION" because Japanese language doesn't use articles, as in: "An AKIRA COMMITTEE production". Notice in the closing credits ( as well as on the trading cards, etc.) that the copyright holder is "AKIRA COMMITTEE" (no "Production").
@ ...
Hey there, you're getting mighty anxious with moving that card picture around, shuffling it a bunch of times and then removing it altogether... Its original positioning was meant to align with related text at left (re:"esper nightmare"), and to illustrate the Buddha comparison -- ie., it wasn't just some random decorative addition. Also, compressed as a low-res 50kb pic, it's not like its inclusion was trying to flaunt the trading cards. Your prior placement of it at the top of that section visually clashed with the image immediately above; it's better to break up the layout with blocks of text, and it's not written in stone anywhere that all Wiki-article images must be top-aligned. The only possible argument I could see for not including it is that our boy of mystery is openly revealed, but the article in any case is clearly marked "spoilers below" and requires scrolling the page to arrive at his mugshot.
re: Trivia section
I recall the listed PPGirls episode, vaguely -- evil clone causes trouble in schoolyard, PPGirls mistakenly catch flak from the teacher until they finally get royally fed up and go kick butt to save the day -- but does a silent explosion (stylistically common in anime) really count as "parody"? Seems more like "a scene reminiscent of AKIRA" than a deliberate homage. Focally muting the sound isn't unique to this anime or even cinematically original: in screenwriters' lingo, this distancing audio trick is commonly known as "MOS" (Mute Out Sound), and is considerably older than AKIRA. I imagine Otomo picked it up from Kubrick (noted as one of his favorite directors), or from silently played violent scenes in various Akira Kurosawa films (sometimes punctuated with music, sparse Kabuki/ flute notes, or drum beats). The spherical white explosion thingy has also been done elsewhere in anime, but I don't see much point in listing every post-AKIRA instance just for spectacle. 08:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to say I support the change from AKIRA to Akira throughout the article. A quick Google search supports the normal first-letter capitalization as the general way that the title is rendered in English. Clearly, there is no need for special capitalization to distinguish between the character Akira and the movie Akira. And the comparison with THX 1138 is not apt; THX 1138 is a serial number, Akira is a name, and ought to be capitalized in accordance with WP's conventions on capitalizing names. Nareek 03:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:ALLCAPS. I've gone and changed the all-caps AKIRAs to Akiras, partly to be in compliance with WP:ALLCAPS, partly because the all-caps version is not used throughout the article, and partly because I don't see any convincing evidence that the title really is intended to be in all-caps, and I seriously suspect the whole "stylized as AKIRA" thing in the lede as well. Using Japanese sources as evidence doesn't count, either, as different languages have different standards, and this is the English Wikipedia. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Channel 4's best 100 cartoons ever (UK)[edit]

Akira was 16th in the 100 'greastest' cartoons voted for by the British public back a few years ago. Is this worht mentioning at all? Tenchi Muyo

I would say no--if it was a more definitive list, or if Akira had placed at the top, it might be worth mentioning. Nareek 11:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Channel 4 "top 100" lists really don't count for much. For a long time they showed one each week. Unless it got into the top 5, it's not worth mentioning, and even then it's of very dubious encyclopaedic merit. --John Lunney 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

in channel fours 100 greatest war films Grave of the Fireflies was 38th not bad for an anime.... just thought to say that all anime is good not just akira all though it is wicked....._matt_

Was that English? And what is Cannel 4 supposed to be? Gingermint (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Character section edits[edit]

  • every test known to modern science

Your determination to quote verbatim from the movie is rather lacking in originality when my revision (" exhaustive battery of tests, yaddayadda") basically expressed the same thing. I had changed that part, along with "study of future generations" to "by", because several prior edits demonstrating poor grammar were ridiculously switching it to a pluralized "studies" (as if this offered any helpful distinction), so I hoped to forestall more of the same by revising it to "further study BY future generations" to finally nail down the editiorial flip-flopping. ...Yet here, too, you insist on reverting it to "OF future generations" for no discernable reason other than to slavishly drone the Colonel's dialogue.

  • "... unable to solve the mystery."

Feigning ignorance: Exactly which "mystery" would this be referring to? This is where adhering lockstep to the Colonel's speech fails, because while he establishes that unknown quantity of Akira in his tangential dialogues with the Doctor, the extracted statement placed here on its own does not define what the so-called mystery is, nor do any of the prior sentences. Articles should not assume that readers are bringing prior knowledge of the topic with them.

  • They embody a variety of paranormal powers which they use to benignly influence the course of events to the best of their ability. While individually of far lesser strength than Akira or Tetsuo, their combined effort proves decisive in the story's final moments.

The espers are not "benign": Takashi's screaming causes broken glass to rain onto the crowded street; all three espers attack Tetsuo unprovoked (in the nightmare scene, before he's even formally met them); Kiyoko manipulates Kei without asking her compliance; they later abduct her (via Kiyoko's possession and Takashi's teleportation) at the resevoir and use her to again try to kill Tetsuo at the Olympic site; and they are responsible for Akira's reawakening by their summoning 'trance' (when kneeling at his remains, which had been inert until their arrival). By that point in the story, they're acting in their personal interests, no longer following orders from the Colonel (who is surprised at their uninvited presence at the stadium). You might debate that they are "well-intentioned" in their efforts, but given their frequent moral ambiguity and their undeclared loftier motives, we should not suggest that they are harmless, or assert that their ends justify the means (...Isn't that a dictator's standard justification?), especially when the "ends" effected here are catastrophic.

Your added qualifier, "FAR lesser", raises questions of how they would in that case be useful even when combined. It's therefore better to avoid such quantitative specifics so as not to bring such thoughts into the reader's consideration. And the espers (primarily Kiyoko) gave Tetsuo a fairly good run in their psi fight (through Kei) at the scrap heap, so they're no pushovers.

Your insert of the word "decisive" is also out of context — rather, it offers no context whatsoever unless the sentence were made to read "decisive in the final battle" (or "a decisive victory", etc.), thus granting the framing device of a physical contest. Merely stating that someone's actions are "decisive" gives no indication of their relative strength, which is what the front-end of the sentence was talking about. eg., A skinny weakling can decisively step into a boxing ring and get decisively clobbered — "decisive" yet ineffective.

  • They affect a variety of psi powers...

That original sentence was fine as it was, and I have no idea why you changed it. "Affect" in this context means "to manifest", not your assumed misreading of "indirectly influencing by proxy". (The word manifest is already used elsewhere above, in Tetsuo's profile, which is why I had steered clear of repeating it.) Your substitution, "embody", is imprecise (too suggestive of metaphoric value), while your earlier rewording ("represent") was incorrect (unless speaking in eubonics, haha.)

  • support in life

This makes their relationship strangely sound far too sentimental in nature, more suited to describing a married couple or a parent-child dynamic, making Tetsuo seem too emotionally wanting, as if seeking more than just peer approval.(...) Also see below, re: "best friends".

  • and seeks to both prove and avenge himself as supreme

The phrase "...avenge himself as supreme" makes no sense. First, if it's an action taken on one's own behalf, it would properly be "revenge". Second, regarding the "as supreme" part, you're using the concept of vengeance out of context in a non-existent transitive sense: To avenge perceived injustices (by definition) can only be for retroactive reasons, not proactive toward an offensive goal. I've reworded it to your intended meaning.

Your earlier edit redundantly said that Yamagata "criticizes and scolds", then you trimmed it to "scolds" which is still in improper context — that word denotes an uneven social status between two parties (one of whom holds the higher ground, as in a child facing an authority figure's reprimand, or a husband relenting to a frustrated earful delivered by his wife), when in fact Tetsuo and Yamagata hold equal ranking in the group (setting aside Tetsuo's self-esteem issues), so saying that he's 'scolded' sounds absurdly patronizing. The word "criticize" (/demean/insult/etc.) is far more fitting.

Elsewhere, you're often softening things for a seeming fear of painting any character's unfavourable traits, as in peripherally labelling Tetsuo 'caring' by pointlessly clarifying that he "cares for" Kaneda who we've already clearly identified as "his best friend". — For whose confusion are you elaborating the fact that friendship would entail qualities like being supportive and caring, already implicit in the previous word "friend"? The addition of other tentative language like "however" and "nonetheless" (etc.) was indeed just filler material — compare my initial edit to see where you had scattered these about.

Regarding your history page remark: Several of the plot details you had added belong in the plot summary, not in character description where plot points should be kept minimal and only used for basic orientation — it's not as though the character section exists in isolation from the rest of the article. Informing us that Akira destroyed Tokyo in July (rather than Novembruary eleventy-seventh) of 1988 isn't vital information toward understanding his character. The other edits you supplied are acknowledged improvements. ~ 12:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather fascinating post. Not for the nature of its actual content however, which briefly summarized is one of the more interesting collections of misconceptions and irrelevancies I have come across during my time here on Wikipedia. But rather, for its robust displaying of certain aspects of the human psychological condition. Specifically, the ways in which apparent emotional insecurities and/or immaturities can sometimes surface and manifest in the face of perceived criticism, and this within individuals who otherwise appear to be of a certain intellectual standing. Perhaps of some further note is the irony in the above post's intention to partially act as a reminder of the virtue of brevity during the process of editing Wikipedia articles. In the end, I am quite happy with the mutually acceptable compromises we have managed to reach however. I would also like to thank you for acknowledging the quality of my most recent edits. For someone such as myself who was taught English as his fourth language at a relatively later age, I think that is quite a compliment to receive.
But to be more on the subject at hand, a substantial percentage of your above argumentation relates to edits from your part which I either did not revert or which were not restored by yourself. As such, I am a little bit puzzled as to why you would invest such amounts of time and apparent feelings of competivity in providing it to begin with. Whatever the answer to this question however, it is obviously not relevant to the topic at hand, so let us instead simply move on to discuss the most recent of your edits, some of which I did have to revert a second time for the following reasons;
  • Exactly which "mystery" would this be referring to? This is where adhering lockstep to the Colonel's speech fails,
The word of "mystery" is not a reference to the Colonel's speeches to Tetsuo or the Doctor in the first place. It instead is a reference to the previous sentence within the same character profile -- namely the one describing how a 6-year old child proved to be naturally capable of annihilating an entire city and its population within the time span of a few seconds. As it is, there is no need for the addition of the "of his power" part, as the events described in the previous sentence already make it clear what the nature of the mystery is to any reader. Thus, an edit for brevity. Something I was recently re-educated in, and the lessons of which I think I have taken to heart.
*"support in life"; This makes their relationship strangely sound far too sentimental in nature
Subjective. What at the same time is not subjective however, is the content of the flashbacks shown to the viewer at key moments in the storyline, which distinctly show that the relationship/friendship between Kaneda and Tetsuo not only reaches back to their earliest childhood, but also that in these days Tetsuo already found himself greatly benefitting from Kaneda's presence due to his inability to stand up for himself in ways Kaneda would end up doing for the both of them. "in his life" thus represents a character defining aspect of the plot which is relevant to this character profile, and it is to be omitted at the expense of the informative quality of the section.
*The espers are not "benign"
A comment I am quite confident I could have defined as factually incorrect after a bit of proper debate. I will not be going into detail as to why I am so convinced of this however, as upon further review of the espers profile I have come to the decision that the part of "to the best of their ability" already sufficiently signifies the non-malevolent intent on the part of the trio. I subsequently agree on leaving the "benign" part out of the profile, which leaves us with the option to proceed to more relevant discussion.
*Your insert of the word "decisive" is also out of context
Far from it, actually. The actions of the espers are directly responsible for saving the lives of the Colonel as well as Kaneda on certain occasions, thus allowing the story to progress in the way it does from those points on. More importantly, it ultimately is their recalling of Akira with the request to take Tetsuo which liberates the world from a rampant preternatural force which no quantity or quality of military gadgetery could help defend humanity against. Hence, the word of decisive is factually correct content, precisely due to the nature of the context.
*unless the sentence were made to read "decisive in the final battle"
That is precisely what it was ment to read. If you feel unsatisfied with the current revision, then feel free to edit it until you feel the sentence does convey this message properly -- this is where my limitations as someone not native to the English language can sometimes catch up to me. Especially during periods where chronic lack of sleep is involved.
All in all, I am happy to have had this dicussion with you. I'd dare say the end result of our collaboration is an improved character section, when we compare it to how it was before as well as during my first edits to it, a few days ago now. Thank you. DieOfGoodLuck 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Leave the ad hominems at the door, dude. I wasn't being "competitive", only instructive – methinks you're projecting your own "insecurities" with the affronted psychoanalysis at top. Your responses throughout this list mistake that I'm objecting to concepts you were trying to express when in fact I was only contrary to the word choice. I certainly recognized the irony in posting such an overlong explanation for what amounted to perhaps a dozen words I had altered within the article, and for that reason wasn't sure if it was worthwhile explaining it all, but with some territorial editors here on WP it's hard to know. Without having examined any of your other contributions to Wikipedia, I could already surmise that English is not your first language due to the various strained usages (I'm wildly guessing you're Danish from the mild skew of the miswording) – either that or I figured you were a teenager fishing words from a thesaurus without having familiarity of their nuances, which is why I chose to better explain my changes here. (You'd already reverted things once, after all.) In any case, it was not my intention to sound belittling of your edits, although I can understand how my linguistic 'tutoring' may have been misread negatively due to its length.
  • a substantial percentage of your above argumentation relates to edits from your part which I either did not revert or which were not restored by yourself.
I stress that I was not attacking you in particular, I'm only looking at the final product and editing the page accordingly. What you call "a substantial percentage" I can only see most directly referring to the two reversals made to your earlier "decisive...", so I'll explain that specific revision further below. Also, though I called attention to it above, I didn't bother restoring the "study by" paragraph because I didn't care to get into an edit war over it, but I still contend it's lazy and boring to quote the movie's exact wording, and therefore voiced it here for consideration.
  • The word of "mystery" is not a reference to the Colonel's speeches to Tetsuo or the Doctor in the first place. [etc.]
The "mystery" is undefined in the sentence or its environs. Saying that "some scientists thoroughly examined Fred but were unable to solve the mystery" (--full stop--) doesn't tell me what the mystery of Fred is. Oh, Fred has deadly superpowers? Why should this be considered a mystery when I've just been informed immediately prior that those selfsame scientists bestowed those selfsame superpowers upon selfsame Fred? ...The profile neglects to mention that the researchers were ignorant of the origin of those powers, or clueless in their experimental tinkering (as opposed to acting from purposeful knowledge to create an army of superhumans, for instance). The movie gives us this caveat of their limited knowledge mostly through the Doctor's numerous head-scratching musings and his insistence that he'll soon "figure things out", along with the Colonel's megaphone-delivered history lesson before engaging SOL (which is exactly where the "scientists...mystery" sentence is ripped wholesale from).
Since Tetsuo's psi power was induced by the Doctor's drug treatment, this suggests there is a certain level of comprehension already grasped by the researchers – in fact they're equipped with an expansive facility chockfull of proprietary gizmos – and the ending flashback scene also indicates that similar experimentations were responsible for creating Akira & friends, so the phenomenon is not entirely murky. The actual "mystery" concerns the scale of those powers singular to Akira's case, which is what I was attempting to underline. Movie dialogue first introduces this unknown by name as "the mystery of Akira" so that later references to "mystery" can be inferred by association.
  • "support in life"
To put it more bluntly: That sounded literally gay – i.e., connotations of "life-partner". This is not my "subjective" reading of the story itself but of your description of it: you're unwittingly making it suggestively "yaoi" by the fact that said phrasing applied to an interpersonal relationship tends to refer to formal commitments, or else is bandied about predominently in sappy discussion between female cohorts (in North American culture, anyway – cue Oprah TV panel). In short, it's emasculating.
  • and it is to be omitted at the expense of the informative quality of the section.
The lifelong span of their friendship "since preschool" is already denoted in the first sentence of Tetsuo's profile, Mr. Brevity. To elaborate with laser-focusing repetition above and beyond that is exactly what makes it read "gay". (...Maybe Tetsuo is sexually frustrated by Kaneda's spurning cold shoulder – that would explain much about his mad-on rampaging, haha.)
  • the non-malevolent intent [of the espers]
Had you used this wording instead, there would have been less cause for complaint. I'm not so much questioning their intent but their potential volatility given that these children are of research interest to the military precisely for their military value as weapons, which makes them less than benign. The espers also hold some blame in the closing catastrophe by their reviving of Akira, despite their stated intention of wanting to prevent suffering, which itself was merely assumed on their part (...which leads to the historical analogy of Japan's atom bombing and related moral arguments on both sides of the Pacific.) Kiyoko's "premonition" was very much a self-fulfilling prophecy when chosing to be confrontational with Tetsuo from the get-go (re:nightmare), but I suppose the plot needed a catalyst to keep the story from grinding to a harmonious halt.
  • Far from it, actually. The actions of the espers are directly responsible for saving the lives of the Colonel as well as... [etc.]
This is completely irrelevant to my stated point. I was not disputing that their role is instrumental in the proceedings, but was red-circling your ambiguous use of the adjective "decisive": by its lonesome, it is meaningless as a quantifier, operating only as a qualifier. "Decisive" only means to act resolutely, not to act well or to win an effective outcome. (Bush was decisive in invading Iraq, and how did that turn out?) To simply say that "Character-A is strong while Character-B is decisive" is a worthless apples-to-oranges statement because the result of that decisive quality remains undefined, contributing nothing toward weighing physical prowess – you're bypassing this anticipated comparison left hanging from earlier in the sentence. i.e.,The espers are "decisive in the end" in what capacity?? The former "formidable" was perfectly functional as a semantic gauge of respective psi horsepower, but since you're completely sold on sticking with "decisive", I'll have to modify the ending instead to marry it to a physically demanding action.
(...Yes, this has lamentably turned into another overlong explanation hardly worth the effort. I observe that Wikipedia is actually a message board in disguise, where 'debates' occur in overlapping edit layers rather than in linear sequence of a traditional forum thread.) 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In the 'Differences' section[edit]

Can anyone explain what the following statement is trying to say and what it's doing in the 'Differences Between the Film and the Manga' section?

"Katsuhiro Otomo decried his fame and said that his conclusion of Akira was false in both the Japanese and American editions, and that he could never truly finish his epic. Nevertheless, Akira is widely considered a masterpiece of graphic storytelling." Liquidcow 11:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


There is no plot summary and a trivia section. This article needs a plot summary as per WikiProject Films' guidelines. It would be much appreciated that this section would be restored. Any comments on improvement should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now restored the plot summary. Greg Jones II 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Just to clear it up, I added that the correct pronunciation was Ah-kah-rah, and someone changed it to Ah-kee-rah. I could swear that's how the name is pronounced in the movie (ah-kah-rah), unless I'm just bad at hearing names...Eridani 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the other guy has it right; the キ in アキラ has a long e vowel sound and both ア and ラ have ə vowel sounds. Thus, アキラ is pronounced ah-kee-rah. Someone that actually knows the phonetic alphabet should swap the pronunciation for an IPA version, though. EvilCouch (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, EvilCouch... change it up... ask123 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that ラ is pronounced between "ra" and "la." If you use proper Japanese pronunciation, it's not a hard "r" (like the English "r" in "rate"). ask123 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone had swapped it back before I checked it out, however it was shown as "AH-kee-rah". The first syllable being capitalized suggests that it's being stressed. Stressing the first syllable is pretty common in English, but Japanese is an unstressed language. Thus, I swapped AH for a lowercase version. EvilCouch (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought I heard it closer to "ah-KEE-rah". Japanese is not an unstressed language, but it is not as stressed as English. --Eruhildo 04:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Japanese is not an unstressed language (as that is impossible -- all languages are stressed in some way), but it is also no more or less "stressed" than English. The stresses are simply different. A simple example is the pronunciation of the Japanese city, Hiroshima. In English, we often pronounce it: he-ro-SHEE-ma. But, the proper Japanese pronunciation is obviously: he-RO-shee-ma. Just different. If you want, I'm sure you can find a website listing the rules of stress in the Japanese language. One clear difference in stress rules between the two languages is in four-syllable words (e.g. Hiroshima, arigato). In English, the stress would be on the second-to-last syllable. But, in Japanese, it's on the third-to-last syllable. ask123 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Linguists disagree with you. EvilCouch (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that a Wikipedia article is not a source and does not represent scholarly opinion, you have to be specific when you say "stress" (or, in this case, "stress-free"). Do you mean loudness, pitch, duration? There are many factors involved in morae, depending on the language in question. There is stressful intonation to varying degrees in all languages, which helps the listener distinguish between words and determine what syllables are part of the same word. Some languages are so even-toned that the stress, so to speak, is very light and even. This evenness can be specified to a greater degree though (e.g. evenness in duration, pitch, loudness, etc.). To be more specific, Japanese is a stress-timed language and has even loudness. ask123 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just check out the Wikibook. And doesn't "arigatou" (ありがとう?) have five morae? But enough of this - let's get back to discussing how to improve this article. There is no need to discuss the Japanese language here. I think what's in the article now (a link to Help:Japanese and "ah-kee-rah") are sufficient enough, plus I've added the best I could do for the IPA of "Akira". I don't really think anything else is necessary, except maybe a better usage of the IPA. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Akira (2009)[edit]

I added some info on the movie but I think it should have it's own page. If there is one I couldn't find it. --1silver11 (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Kai[edit]

Who voices Kai in the Pioneer dub? I haven't found any websites crediting his 2001 actor, not even the IMDB and the Anime News Network. I remember someone credited Matt K. Miller with the role, but I didn't see him anywhere in the credits. Bluerules 00:22, 12 March 2008

Cultural References[edit]

This fantastic film is also referenced in "Trapper Keeper" episode 60 of the Comedy Central series South Park. It originally aired on November 15, 2000, as stated in the wiki article referring to said episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Extreme coincidence[edit]

Anybody find Tetsuo to be extremely similar to Shinya Tsukamoto's Tetsuo? Perhaps Shinya's character was meant to be based loosly on the character in this anime... Victis Kato (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Article lacks a critical viewpoint[edit]

While the Akira article rightly says that 'some' critics consider it a milestone in anime history, other respected reviewers do not rate the film so highly (e.g. Why is this controversy lacking in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeryUSA (talkcontribs) 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a weak article and a weaker reviewer. You should not pay attention to every webpage that is put online. The next thing would be to criticize the importance of GOD and Jesus suggesting that they are overrated and failed concepts. A classic is not a personal opinion but they are called classic because they are best of the bunch or they are loved as classic by the masses. If I disagree to something it doesn't mean that that thing is faulty but rather that I had a bad mood that day or may not have grown up or not experienced yet. (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Plot Summary[edit]

Maybe we should just make it focus on a few characters. My suggestions would probably be Kei, Kaneda, Tetsuo, and The Espers. How's that? (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second that the plot summary needs some work. I have never seen the movie or read the manga, and the current plot summary makes very little sense. It is at once too detailed and not detailed enough. Characters are introduced with no explanation and important characteristics are taken as if everyone knows them. I can't revise this myself, but I cna point out that it is almost useless unless one already knows the film (in which case one doesn't need it). - Fenevad (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


In the game Saints Row 2 there are some pretty obvious references to akira -

One of the Japanese (I assume) sports bikes is called the "Tetsuo"

And a bike unlockable by defeating the Japanese Crime boss is called the "Kaneda" and has a high-tech look almost exactly like the one in the movie. (Although it is a different color)

Notable? --Nitro378 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Date for the Live Action film[edit]

Currently the live action film dates the first of two films to be released in 2009, then says 2011. The former should be changed to "was the expected date, but", surely? Or am I reading it wrong? J4cK0fHe4rt5 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Akira (film) and Akira (manga) SHOULD BE MOVED!!!!![edit]

I am AKIRA2019 and I think Akira (film) and Akira (manga) SHOULD BE MOVED! I've tried 3 times so far, but now I'm in a fucking edit war with Wikipedia. However, I read that if someone can get enough support, Wikipedia will let that person move a page! PLZ support me. The reason I want to change the name of the pages is that the manga and movie ARE NOT called Akira! That's the name of the character! The mm (movie and manga) are called AKIRA! (capitalization is not in anger, it's because thst's how they're spelled in Japan.) I also believe that if that's what it's called in one cuntry, that's how it should be called in another! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKIRA2019 (talkcontribs)

This is the English language wikipedia, and we follow standard english convention for names, as per MOS:TM. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Titles of books and other media for another guideline agreeing with the pages being named "Akira" as opposed to "AKIRA". Goodraise 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move This move is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the use of capitalization in articles and article names. Having the name in all capital letters is a stylistic choice of the Japanese creators. When other third-parties publishers mention or cover the film or manga, they always use normal capitalization for proper nouns. In other words, they only capitalize the first letter while the rest of the word is rendered in lowercase. --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to note that the person with user-name AKIRA2019, is not affiliated with, Cheers. Damn-Deal-Done (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Akira (film) and Akira (manga) SHOULD BE MOVED!!!!![edit]

Oh, goddamn it! Wikiipedia put a message right on mine! Hey, Wiki, if you're gonna be on my messages without me knowing it, then show me where a general discussion page for these 2 articles are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKIRA2019 (talkcontribs) 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no "general discussion page" as Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You were, however, given a warning for edit waring by moving this page. That is SOP for such cases. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

'Anti-government" linking to anarchy?[edit]

In the first paragraph of the plot summary the word "anti-government" leads to the article on anarchy. I haven't read the manga but I don't remember anything about anarchism being mentioned in the movie. I don't think it was even said what the political affiliation of the terrorists were. Could someone who's read the manga clarify this? (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anarchists have a more specific ideology than just anti-government (such as anti-capitalism, anti-religion, etc.) and the anti-government group in the movie are only shown as anti-government, without the other ideological biases that would qualify them as anarchist. There are different kinds of anarchists, like anarcho-capitalists and christian anarchists and every other variation, so it is best left as "anti-government" as they are merely resisting the form of government that neo-Tokyo has at that moment in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Voice Cast section table[edit]

Uh, what are all the parenthesized names in the voice cast table supposed to represent? There's zero explanation on the table section. DP76764 (Talk) 04:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent news about the live action film[edit]

Albert Hughes drops out, Keanu Reeves rejecting part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Gilliams top 50?[edit]

That quote of the movie being on a terry gilliam list is a misnomer. He didn't write that list. He only made comments on a few select films, on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Split live action film[edit]

I propose to split the live action film into its own article.--Cattus talk 19:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Splitting wouldn't make sense until the project is farther along. In the meantime, however, I would recommend removing casting reports and other news that no longer apply. They make the section a bit confusing for someone looking for the current state of the project. I do not think past rumors about Leo DiCaprio or Joseph Gordon-Levitt are relevant anymore. Perhaps even the bit about Keanu Reeves (although more than a rumor) should be excluded now that he's turned it down.MattMauler (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now until the project pushes through.--Lenticel (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think most the information already included in the article about the movie is unnecessary, even if the movie actually gets made. Do we really need every casting rumor in even a dedicated movie article? I think a few sentences that the movie had many casting rumors over a course of X years would be much better than what we have now. I'd actually propose thinning out that section of the article rather than spinning it off. Denaar (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the opposing votes and the low relevance of the section I've trimmed it down to 5 short paragraphs, explaining the current known status of the project and the fact that it had a long list of associated directors, writers, producers and cast (I refrained naming anyone but the latest known writer and director). I've tried to keep most of the relevant references around, so they can be later filtered or better orgsanized. I've also kept the George Takei comment, since it was about the only actual thing to happen around the movie. Elideb (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the original references before the re-write pointed to empty articles, and some quotes were incorrectly sourced. I've reviewed some of them, fixed the right out wrong, edited a few more. I also made a mistake when moving around the references, but it has been corrected by another user. Elideb (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Box office "success"[edit]

I tagged the following statement as "dubious": "The film set attendance records for an animated film in Japan." According to MPAAJ records (here), not only did Akira not break into the top ten in 1988, the animated Doraemon film from that year did, which means this is likely a mistake. Michitaro (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since no one offered evidence that clarified or proved this assertion, I removed the dubious statement. Michitaro (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I have also added a "dubious" tag to the infobox's BO figure of 6 billion yen. That figure is given by such unreliable sources as this, but reliable industry sources like the MPAAJ show it didn't even break into the best ten in BO. Since the the number 10 film got only 1 billion yen, Akira was far from 6 billion (the Japanese industry at that time did not release official BO figures for films that did not make the top list). The Japanese Wikipedia article gives the BO figure of 750 million yen: ja:AKIRA_(漫画), though it does not give a source. Michitaro (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It's almost certainly wrong, but wrong for so long that it's taken as fact all over the English-speaking web. Here's the edit where it happened, which quotes IMDB. 6+ billion yen would make the movie a Top-10 grossing anime film and a Top-100 grossing film in Japan box office. We can probably find plenty of those lists without Akira, in Japanese and English.
That figure is wrong and ought to be deleted. - Primadog (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Found a citation for the 750 million yen figure:

6 アキラ 750 (million yen)
キネマ旬報, Issues 1000-1003 page 171

Primadog (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

An IP has repeatedly changed the box office figure to 7.5 billion yen, or 75 million dollars. Unfortunately, it is true that the citation Primadog found on Google Books is hard to read (I need to go and check the original), but the 7.5 billion figure is impossible. As I showed above, the Eiren figures prove that no Japanese film made over 4.5 billion yen that year ([1]). For the time being, I have returned it to 750 million yen, but if people feel it best, we can leave it blank until the KineJun figure can be confirmed. Michitaro (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We know for a fact that it isn't "750 10-million yen" (whatever that means) as that IP keep claiming, by cross referencing rest the box office gross on rest of the page:

前年対比八四,七おと .... 1.050 4 "-、:, 1,050 6 アキラ 750 7 ラブ'プ、トーリーを^に 500 8 源氏物^ 380 9 4 尺ケカ時代

Several series with "1,050" box office gross sits just above Akira, which we can identify from the EIREN rankings as 帝都物語, 男はつらいよ 寅次郎物語 女咲かせます, and またまたあぶない刑事ふたりぼっち.

Both EIREN and キネマ旬報 lists their gross in million yen (単位:百万円). That IP was bullshiting. - Primadog (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture of city[edit]

It's fanart. The city was not nearly as detailed in the actual movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New section: Themes[edit]

This film is well-recognized for its complex theming and story-telling, and the lack of a section regarding the movie's thematic concerns is jarring at best. I wouldn't recommend copying the themes described on the manga's article, as the film differs considerably structure-wise from the manga and therefore can be interpreted in different ways. Any ideas (particularly sources), people? PatTheMoron (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Scholar, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic can be a good start. I'd bet that some of sources already on the article may deal with it. Some one just needs to give a further look. And, yes, do not copy&paste from the manga article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's turned up on Google Scholar related to the movie. However, I was able to find some very intriguing articles on interpretations of the film (the cycle of destruction, the role of Kaori etc.), but all are non-official articles by fans. As SephyTheThird pointed out to me, fan opinions on anything aren't allowed as per Wikipedia's Original Research policy. However, here are the articles in case you're interested:

Tak a look, and see if they could be used. Thanks! PatTheMoron (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


They were kind of written funny, can somebody change that, or is that part of manual of style now? -- (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary discussion[edit]

All right. I don't want to start an edit war on the article with regards to the plot summary. While I agree with most of the additions, here's the definition of WP:FILMPLOT:

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction‍ '​s non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. 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. Lastly, events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot. See how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials for more in-depth suggestions."

However, that particular film is an adaptation of a 2000 page manga obviously and its plot is unconventional per that guideline. With all of the recent editing going on, I've been attempting to keep the plot summary short (i.e. below 700 words), but as of right now the current word count is over 900 words. As such, per WP:BRD, I'm going to open up a discussion about this here. How should we go about editing the plot summary to contain important elements to the plot while leaving out less important information within WP:FILMPLOT guidelines? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say to focus on cutting down the play-by-play. I'm not sure if the plot is "too complicated to summarize" though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

LIVE-ACTION FILM SECTION: People Involved?[edit]

In the Live-action film section of the article, there's a sentence that reads, Since the project began, several writers, directors, producers, actors and actresses have been attached to the project, and then it cites 12 sources as a means of covering all the writers, producers, directors, and actors that were involved with the project. It seems kind of underwhelming. I think those 12 sources should be expanded upon to better benefit the section so readers can know who was involved in project instead of just opening a new tab for each source. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akira (1988 film). 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)