Talk:Gurren Lagann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Anime and manga(Rated C-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


None of the single characters currently establish notability and it seems unlikely that they will in the future. As this is a fairly small series, the characters really should be able to be covered here. The really minor characters can just be mentioned in the episode summaries. The list of mecha is just unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a merge of the branch articles, but not into the main article. Just add them all to List of Gurren Lagann characters and remove any really minor ones from the other two articles.-- 00:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge the single characters into the appropriate lists, leave the lists themselves alone for people who know enough about the series to clean up. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The lists really can't be cleaned. Most of the characters are fairly one dimensional, so there won't be much after removing redundant plot summaries. It should be able to fit under a character section perfectly fine. TTN (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
They could be pretty handily cleaned up. The three character lists could put down to one, once redundant plot is removed. The mecha list can be trimmed and cleaned up into a passable article, it's already pretty valid spinout of the main article. I greatly oppose shoving all of this into a single section. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm not a regular editor of these articles I'm here to argue that the two main lists (of mecha and characters) should not be merged into the main article, since it has been already shown through community consensus that a character list is acceptable for most series that have usually around at least 12 episodes and/or a large number of characters, and that a mecha list is acceptable for series that feature mecha as a major plot point (which this series definately does). Compare to articles in other anime series, such as Code Geass, Gundam, Evangelion, etc. Lacking series notability is too ambiguous of a point to argue for deletion on its own. the_one092001 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, most of it is importantJ'onn J'onzz (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J'onn J'onzz (talkcontribs)

There is no reason to merge the pages, and most of the information is entirely relevent to the series itself. At the very least the character and mecha articles deserve to be here. Though the individual articles for, say, Simon or Nia are too small to be useful as is. They could be expanded if need be; the character and mecha lists are fully fleshed out and entirely functional however, the mecha article especially considering how important that aspect of the series is. And as mentioned, no one seems to mind the fact that EVA has two entire pages dedicated to the Angels and EVA Units individually, and another for technology. Comparatively the Gurren Lagann mecha page is far more succinct.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That would make the article too long! I don't think you understand how long it would take to explain everything. Also, this is a pretty normal practice for articles on anime and this series really isn't any 'smaller' than a lot of the series we've done this with.. Repku (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Notability? Oppose. You should be more concerned with an unsourced neologism page like yandere, not a "hot" anime like Gurren-Lagann, friend. ;) (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't just apply to AFD discussions, and "an unsourced neologism page" has no bearing on this discussion. If the individual character articles don't meet notability, they should be merged into List of Gurren Lagann characters (and the minor characters and mecha lists need to be merged too). The only way it would make the article too long is if they were merged with all the cruft left intact, something that definitely won't happen. Keep in mind, a merge decision would not be permanent, and any characters for whom significant real-world notability can be shown could be split back out at a later date. And as for "hot" anime series, have a look at the collection of character articles behind Naruto or Bleach. for Naruto, all unnoteworthy characters have long since been merged in with the character list, and with Bleach, the last few are getting the merge treatment. I Support this merge. —Dinoguy1000 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So then I presume the Evangelion and Angel lists, among others, will be merged too? How about merging those lists for Gundam technology, ships, factions et al? It's all "cruft" anyway right? There is no logical, practical reason to merge the mecha page, or the minor character page. I agree that the pages for individual characters, like Simon and Nia, are not up to snuff but the rest is fine just the way it is.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gundam articles are a long-acknowledged mess that have been getting cleaned up very very slowly due to a lack of manpower, though I once again point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your argument - the existence of low-quality, crappy articles with little or no potential for an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia is not justification for keeping or creating other low-quality, crappy articles with little potential. The mecha and minor character lists should be merged, since almost by definition, "minor character" = not notable, and all but, like, three (completely random number that I pulled out of nowhere) of the mecha in the series are utterly nonnotable, unimportant, throwaway mecha, and those few that are more important are better explained about in their operators' sections (e.g. Lagann is perfectly fine being talked about in Simon's section on the list). Allow me to stress once again, merges are not permanent - if, at a later date, you can demonstrate sufficient non-trivial, real-world coverage of some character or mecha in the series to the point that it passes WP:GNG, it can always be split back out into a separate article. BTW, lest I forget again, the antagonist list also needs to be merged. —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I could greatly expand the articles pertaining Simon, Nia, Lord Genome and Viral with information from the Gurren-Lagann production book, both Gurren-Lagann databooks, interviews with writer Kazuki Nakashima, director Hiroyuki Imaishi and character designer Atsushi Nishogori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be very welcome as production and (possibly) reception information, as long as you properly source all additions. However, these by themselves are not sufficient to establish individual notability, you still need to find and demonstrate a sufficient amount of nontrivial, reliable third-party coverage, e.g. in the mainstream media, or from industry experts. —Dinoguy1000 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the need for "third party industry experts" analysis since the Evangelion character articles, considered among the best in Wikipedia, are mostly a translation of the design process, character data and various thoughts from the staff itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's how it works on Wikipedia. A large collection of well-written, sourced and relevant information can't have its own article unless some editor on IGN says it looks shiny. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
IGN is currently doing reviews of Gurren Lagann episodes, so a makeshift "Reception" section can be put together from disparate comments found in the reviews (the same thing has been done for the Naruto characters). That, along with the "information from the Gurren-Lagann production book, both Gurren-Lagann databooks, interviews" should be enough for the articles to stand on their own.--Nohansen (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, after I'm done trimming all the plot and cruft from the mecha article down to a concise list that only objectively talks about them and their roles in the series it should be fine as its own spin-out article. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Against Stop screwing up every mecha/anime article on this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darfjono (talkcontribs) 06:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would this need to be merged?!? I've been going through the various articles that should supposedly be merged, and I think they are all very well written. Merging the suggested articles would mean they would all be reduced to an unadmirable length.Wikimichael22 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Support merging all characters into List of Gurren Lagann characters, Neutral on mass-merging every TTGL article into the main one: maybe it's too much. Seems to me that only the anime itself, its soundtrack and Kamina('s glasses?) have reached real-world notability. Strange enough, he's the only one without a dedicated article. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've seen enough of this potential edit war. That tag certainly doesn't belong on this page, as merging that information here would not only go against the precidents established by other Featured Articles of the Anime/Manga categories, but would also make the article too long. I have no qualms against that message being placed at List of Gurren Lagann characters, which is where I think it should be in the first place. DARTH PANDAduel 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems about right to me --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a lot of things to comment on, where to start? First of all, the merge tag should stay. Someone suggested a merge into the main article, and until this discussion has closed removing the tag, be it with a good reason or not, is just as impolite as editing someone else's comments. Secondly, the NGE characters are not among the best character articles of Wikipedia. In fact, none of them are assessed higher than C-class. If you want to see how a real good fictional character article looks like, check out Palpatine. Thirdly and most importantly, there seems to be a misunderstanding about notability. WP:N applies. No examples change the fact, that WP:N is top level community consensus. The question isn't "should the articles be merge?" The question is "do the articles satisfy the general notability guideline?" Articles that do not meet the WP:GNG are either deleted or merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Look, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be merged (in fact, I would be willing to merge them myself). However, there is absolutely NO way that you can merge these into Gurren Lagann as this page is already convoluted enough. Similar to what was done to List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, the other lists and character articles should be merged into List of Gurren Lagann characters but not into this main article. That's why I removed the notice. DARTH PANDAduel 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's, for the moment, assume everyone except the original proposer (TTN) agreed with that. Does it change the fact, that a merge into this page has been proposed? No, it does not. And the merge tag is doing nothing but advertise this discussion on the main page, where editors interested only in the main page, might see it (and perhaps agree with TTN). Removing the tag is denying him a way of gathering support. It's impolite, and since the tag isn't hurting anyone, unnecessary. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Following your comment, wouldn't it be proper, then, to leave the discussion tag up for ever, especially because this doesn't seem to be garnering any support? In what case would you be willing to remove the tag from the top of the page? DARTH PANDAduel 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If this discussion gets closed or archived. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
That's my question. What are you conditions for closing this discussion? DARTH PANDAduel 01:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A consensus must be reached. ("No consensus" is no consensus.) If we don't reach a consensus, we continue discussion, until we do. The other possible outcome would be everyone losing interest in the discussion. Eventually it would get archived and the links in the merge tags would not lead to an active discussion. At that point, they'd be obsolete. Keep in mind, this isn't an AfD. There's no time limit. However long it may take to reach consensus, Wikipedia has all the time in the world. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is important to note, though, that we can reach consensus for a result not originally proposed - such as the movement to merge to the character list above. —Dinoguy1000 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the specific character articles meet the notability guidelines; all of them only rehash the plot and only Simon has any real-world coverage. I'd support merging all characters/character lists into one single list article. The list of mecha is too plot-oriented, non-notable and crufty, although a section on the titular Gurren Lagann and its "upgrades" might be deserving. --Pentasyllabic (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about this proposal. So, this is a rough draft of what I think is necessary to describe the important characters of this series. It can be reworked, but it should hold the relevant information while leaving the episode list to take care of any specific plot information. Any of the minor characters like the two twins and the guy that constantly launches missiles can be described within a single paragraph under those if necessary. Is there anything that cannot possibly fit in that section that requires a list? TTN (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any point to having a character section at all if the entire cast is going to be condensed into a barebones list that offers no actual information at all? Seriously, why not just make the plot summary into a decent three paragraphs and add a list of voice actors to the bottom of the article for the same effect? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
What is your definition of real information? The only things the character list can contain are general descriptions of the characters and descriptions of their roles in the plot. There is no point in giving much detail to the plot when we have a suitable episode list to take care of the plot. That leaves the general descriptions (which will be improved upon, I just threw it together quickly) that fit here fairly well. TTN (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I was under the assumption that the two sentence character descriptions in that draft were actually what you were shooting for, without any future expansion needed. Nevertheless, even a more well-written and summarized list of characters would most likely be broken out into its own list article eventually anyway just because of the size of this show's primary cast. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
They can definitely be expanded to a certain point, though I'm certainly not thinking about large paragraphs or anything. The main details of the main characters should fit nicely as long as plot specific information is left out. The only reason a list would be needed is if we bother to include every minor character or if we include descriptions of their roles in the plot, which the episode list can cover. TTN (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see what the problem with the cast information is. Typically, articles on anime and manga only note members of the cast/production team that are notable - this usually boils down to directors and voice actors. Directors are noted in the infobox and prose on the main article, voice actors are noted in the descriptions of the characters they voiced. Thus, I see nothing wrong with TTN's treatment of that information. —Dinoguy1000 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong premise! It might be useful to learn what personal motivational rationale was behind this amazingly-trenchant lead sentence: "None of the single characters currently establish notability and it seems unlikely that they will in the future." I suggest such a blithe dismissal of this OVA anime series and all its spin-off projects (including two feature films) is fallacious; and even the most cursory perusal of the Web via a search engine will show tremendous interest in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. In fact, interest in the character Yoko Ritona is extremely dominant -- in spite of what certain "character cliques" would have you believe to the contrary. Having said that, I dismiss the validity of any claim that one huge article would be an improvement upon the present situation. It ain't broke, so don't fix it! MisterCat (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Popularity or size of the franchise don't automatically make the characters notable. His assessment is correct. "None of the single characters currently establish notability". Or do you see any reliable independent sources? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
And FYI, this isn't an original video animation series - its initial release was a television broadcast. ;) —Dinoguy1000 19:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the characters should be merged into a list of characters page however I think Simon's page should be left as it is.-- (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be merge Nia Teppelin, Viral (Gurren Lagann), Lordgenome, List of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann secondary characters, List of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann antagonists to List of Gurren Lagann characters and delete List of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann mecha and it can be transwiki.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Against If the layout of each individual page bothers you, CLEAN IT UP YOURSELF. On another note, I think the main character pages should remain separate. Don't delete the mecha page, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to make an actual argument for keeping them all separate, or are you sticking with WP:ILIKEIT? They all need to be merged because none of them demonstrates individual notability, as has been repeatedly pointed out above. The same thing happened with the various character articles for Naruto, Bleach, and Dragon Ball, in the face of much more opposition than is being shown here. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

lol since lists apparently have no size limit anymore(a major step back in the evolution of the encyclopedia) we should just merge a condensed version to the character list. Don't be stupid with the music thing though. Moving the three main songs associated with the series out of the main music section just for the hell of it isn't a productive thing to do. Stuff like that only serves a purpose if the show is longrunning and has a ridiculous amount of them music too large to be easily put somewhere better. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think lists have ever had size limits, in the sense you seem to be trying to convey (although there are recommendations for splitting articles and lists larger than a certain size, for performance reasons). There's no reason to merge the character list itself back to this article, that's a valid split. As for the music, it's not "just for the hell of it", it's per the MoS and project consensus. If you've got a complaint, you need to take it up there or at WT:ANIME, not here. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Been there, done that. All I ever get is Collectonian alone asserting nonsense at me. Since "consensus" has been established in the manual of style pages is there really a point to a discussion here? Save people the time and effort and just do it if you think it's right since no one will ever be able to say otherwise. That's what TTN does a lot and it works for him. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Collectonian is the only one who responds because she's the only one who feels like responding. If she wasn't backed by consensus, other project members would jump in and say so. And TTN has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past for simply merging character articles without discussing them first. The discussions are intennded to alert local editors and allow them time to respond and possibly prove that character x is, in fact, notable. Unfortunately, no one here seems interested in doing that, preferring instead to make absolute gems of arguments like "zomg dont kill my favrite article!!!!11". --Dinoguy1000 as (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I was actually just referring to merging the music section. The topic doesn't actually seem up for debate here, so having a discussion on it is kind of insulting and isn't anything other than an exercise in telling people they're wrong so you can cite this discussion later and say "Well, we had a discussion here and the consensus was obvious. You should've been there." And I'm pretty sure no one responds on the music issue because arguing with Collectonian over such a trivial matter is like using karate to put out a bonfire. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've already stated that I'm not suggesting the entire music section be merged, just the OP/ED info. I have a feeling (completely unsubstantiated, of course) that Gurren Lagann actually has had a decent amount of music/audio media released for it - if this is the case, a substantial music section is possible even without including the OP/ED info. And you have yet to convince me on why OP/ED info *should* be in the main article, as opposed to the episode list, which seems the most obvious place to put it... but I suppose that's just me. --Dinoguy1000 as (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well the show only has one OP and two EDs, so anyone coming to this article expects to find that single sentence worth of information somewhere readily available, like, right there in the Music section and not in a separate article entirely. It's just impractical. Compare this to One Piece which has like 50 pieces of various theme music, that's the kinda deal where it should be on the episode list because it makes more sense for that info to be there just because it's easier to categorize. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again, then, I'd suggest asking about it at the project. Consensus can change, and if you specify exactly what you're wanting and exactly why you think it should be done, you may get somewhere (Collectonian can actually be quite reasonable if you properly explain yourself). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

so is anyone merging at least the characters article together?????? i would do it myself but i don't know how. also i don't see why this turned out to be a huge discussion, this shouldn't even be discussed. it should just be done. So someone please do something.QueenofHearts (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It definitely should be discussed; TTN has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past for simply merging without first discussing the merge. That said, I'd agree that there's really no reason this should have turned into the debacle it did, but some people seem to think that if Wikipedia doesn't have an article on something (or if that article gets deleted/redirected/merged), then we're saying the item isn't "worthy" or some such nonsense. In any case, no real reasons to prevent the merge (i.e. no evidence of notability) has been put forth for any of the articles proposed to be merged (except for the main character list), and it's not looking like that'll happen any time soon, so I'd say we can go ahead with the merge. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the mecha article shouldn't be merged, instead it needs a cleanup. With cleanups, it should turn out to be a good article. Someone needs to expand the Simon character article (with reliable references), if not, I agree on its merge. Samantha Lim88 (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fight the Power?[edit]

The last three episodes or so used a song with lyrics containing "Fight the power", which would suggest that it's some version of Fight the Power by Public Enemy. However, an anon comment on the talk page from October claims otherwise, and I don't think I've ever heard the actual song, so I can't confirm this. Does anyone know any details (and, more importantly, are there any sources)? —Dinoguy1000 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fight the Power" is part of the lyrics to a few songs from the anime but the one particularly found in the last episodes is "libera me from hell." It is in no way made by Public Enemy. You can easily hear the whole version of the song on youtube. (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification... Needless to say, I really like the song. ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"Libera me from hell" is the operetta remix of "Rap wa Kan no Tamashii da! Onore wo Shinjite Ten wo Yubi Sasu Dotou no Otoko. Kamina-sama no Theme wo Mimi no Ana Kappo Jitte yo~ Kukiki Yagare!!" (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's a scary-long title... —Dinoguy1000 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, gotta love Gurren Lagann and it's craziness. In case you're curious it's more of a speech than a song title, translating roughly to: "Rap is a Man's Soul! So Perk Up Your Earholes and Listen REAL Close to the Theme of Lord Kamina, the Man of Raging Billows Who Believes in Himself and Points to the Heavens!!" - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "天元"[edit]

天元 does not mean Heaven. 天 means Heaven! 天元 could be in reference to the Tengen (era), or 天眼 (Tengen/Tengan), the Buddhist Heavenly Eye... I haven't seen the show, so I don't really know what it's about, but could someone explain to me what the significance of 天元? It could also mean Origin of Heaven... moocowsruletalk to moo 07:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Characters (mostly Kamina) frequently talk about "piercing the heavens with your drill" for the entire series. Seems unlikely they'd be talking about piercing the Tengen era or Buddhist Heavenly Eye - watch any one episode and you can guarantee at least one character will point up. (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not really a valid point. Tengen is used in the series's title; "busting through the heavens with your drill" always uses ten for "heaven", not tengen.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The intended meaning is clear from the final episode. 天元 refers to "Heaven(s) and Dimension(s)", since they basically just squeezed 天 and 次元 together. --Kajitani-Eizan (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know where...[edit]

I could find the lyrics, in English, to the High Voltage song underground(episode 1-16 ending, if i'm correct) ? I've been looking for these for a while, haven't been able to find them. (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC) - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


i thought the translation was "Dont believe in yourself, believe in me , that believes in you." but here it says different. instead, it looks something like this ""Simon, believe in yourself. Not in the Kamina that you believe in, and not in the Simon that I believe in either." notice how there is a only one quotation at the end. thats because there is no quotation at the end, only one in the beginningQueenofHearts (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

...:What? Kamina says two different things, hence why the translations are different. (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

first episode?[edit]

in the first episode, a guy similar to kamina is on a ship wearing team dai-gurren's symbol and has a drill aswell. the only difference is that he has hair similar to kamina's father andnot kamina himself. He also says "gurren laggan Simon! who the hell do you think i am!?" or something like that and owns a huge battleship gunmen. Anyways it cant be kamina but who was that guy?Haseo445 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That was Simon, a long time before the creators must've molded a fairly concrete design for his last part. But it's actually really similar to Simon's costumes from Let's Go, This is the Final Battle and on. Music is life. Live it fun. Listen to Ska! (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ah ok then.Haseo445 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that and I applied a bit of logic to the situation...

Scene: (voice 1) Screening Shield Class 8
(voice 2) Mirror Armor Platings Detaching
(voice 1) Block 3865 has been hit!
(Man wearing a cloak that looks like Kamina's) Damage.
(voice 2) Minimal, but our thruster flame's visible now!
(Cloaked Man) Stand fast men, let's teach them a little something
(Cloaked Man) Teach them exactly what they're facing
(Woman) Enemy fleet size is off the charts
(Man with Gold Glasses) So. All the lights om the heavens are our enemy now, huh?
(Cloaked Man) Yeah, but they're worthy opponents. (tosses and catches core drill) I'll use the fabric of space-time to wring them out of existence!
(Man with Gold Glasses) Alright! Prepare the Maelstrom Cannon! Target the Great Dimensional Waterfall!
(Cloaked Man) Gurren Lagann, Spin On!
(Cloaked Man) Who the Hell do you Think I Am?

-With the cloak, and the Team Gurren logo on the back, and the Team Gurren flag, I think it's safe to assume that the cloaked guy is Simon
-The Maelstrom Cannon is used on the Super Galaxy Gurren-Lagann, so it would have to take place before the Anti-Spirals stole it, or after they beat the Anti-Spirals
-Not to mention he says Gurren Lagann, a phrase that didn't exist until Kamina invented it

So, assuming it's Simon, some other assumptions I might make...

-The anti-spirals said the other races were just like Humans - down to taking the exact same steps, and having dozens of Laganns making it as far to the multidimensional mind trap
--Specifically, that they all strived to evolve and reach the heavens
-If other races were like humans, it's reasonable to assume that some (perhaps many) of the races had to be physically kept from expanding, just like the Spiral King
-Those other races that had a Spiral King like ruler never had the chance to rebel and overthrow him - the ones that did were destroyed by the Anti-Spirals
-So now we have thousands of spiral races with immortal ruthless rulers who have strong Spiral Power

My theory: The battle that's taking place is Simon fighting all the evil rulers. Maybe they wanted to gang up on him before he destroyed them, or maybe they were attacking each other and Earth intervened, who knows. Maybe this "Great Dimensional Waterfall" is a source of power they hope to use against Simon. But Simon has to go planet by planet, defeat the evil rulers, and free the repressed populations of each planet.

This shouldn't interfere with the extra footage at the end of episode 27. Humans can make peace with the galaxy because they've all been freed from their oppressors. Simon permanently retired after taking care of that problem. (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Or... maybe Gainax was simply doing its trademark rewriting-the-plot-on-the-fly (very well documented in the case of Evangelion) and that scene was initially intended as a flashforward to fighting the Anti-spirals? --Gwern (contribs) 02:13 3 January 2011 (GMT)
More supporting scenes: The second movie supposedly says this at the end: "The kid thinks that Gurren Lagann is going off to fight again, and asks if they will win." Why would a toddler 20 years from the anti-spiral's defeat think that Gurren Lagann was fighting? He looked homeless (and very young), so it's unlikely he had learned it in school or remembered anything about it. On the other hand, he could have seen some TV movies about it. It's just one possible way to tie the scenes together. (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Word of god says that the prologue was supposed to be accurate foreshadowing of the ending that changed as the scope of the story changed. (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tanslation of "Lagann"[edit]

The word "Lagann" is translated to "Face", for example "Movie Version Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann: Face Chapter", which is wrong. La(螺) means "spiral" and Gann(巌) means "Rock" or "Steep". Maybe former translator mistook Lagann as 裸顔, a nude face. So I edited the relevant part in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On this note, I'm not sure it makes sense for the opening lines of the article not to literally translate "Gurren Lagann," or rather to act as if this is a legitimate translation for "Guren Ragan." It's still in Japanese. (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Image of Simon[edit]

i know it must be annoying bring it up here, but it seems no one is listening.

in the Simon section i feel we shoudl add a picture of him of the time skip.DeathBerry talk 17:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


the wikiquote is linking to the wrong page, and i don't know how to change it =p How to link it to with the wikiquote logo still on? Arthur (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeeha or Giha?[edit]

I could swear that the official spelling in the anime is "Jeeha", but a screencap would be nice since another user pointed out that the spelling in the licensed manga is "Giha". Anyone? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The official manga translation is suspect to... sucking. Similar problems arose with Bandai's translation of the Eureka Seven manga, so I'd go with the anime spelling here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be far from the first to suck (name no names), but that's really not the point. The anime is the primary media here, so its spelling is what should be used (unless an article happens to focus specifically on the manga, like a list of chapters). This is why I asked. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you tell how a village is spelled from spoken words in Anime? Has the name ever been written out in it? --H Hog (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't from spoken words. However, I could swear that it is spelled out at some point (but now that I think about it, perhaps it is only in some promotional material...?). This is why I asked for a screencap above. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
So wait... since when does "I could swear it was like that in the anime" take precedence over "I have scans of how it's written in the manga"? --H Hog (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Because the anime is the primary media (and in this case, the manga isn't even particularly important to the franchise, unlike the secondary media in a number of other franchises I can think of). However, as I also said above, I'm not sure if the "Jeeha" spelling actually comes from the anime, or from promotional materials, or from reviews/previews/plot summaries, or what. That's why I'm asking for screencaps. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Giha comes from the manga/anime. I said something similar in the archives. Jeeha is the phonetic approximant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually "Jiiha". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


we should replace logo with the DVD cover. I constantly see a the gurren lagann DVD commercial in syfy channel so the japanese one must be out by now. We should look for it and place it over the logo. NO one knows what the series is with just the logo. WP:BOOK actually supports it.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. i'd probably have done it already if fair-use rationales didn't scare me so much. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
well Template:infobox animanga actually encourages it aswell. so i'm looking, unfortunately i cannot find the Dvd cover so easily.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

NO. i'll go there now.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Found it. but i forgot how to place the image. i'll go check a WP to help me out.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Film name translations[edit]

Just like how the Eureka Seven film's title in English is not "Pocket Full of Rainbows", the English names for the Gurren Lagann films aren't "Crimson Lotus Chapter" and "Spiral Stone Chapter". The names for these films appear on materials released for the series (art books, CD covers, etc.), and it turns out the subtitle for the first film is "Childhood's End" and the subtitle for the second is "The Lights in the Sky are Stars". As examples: "Childhood's End" & "The Lights in the Sky are Stars".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

featured artical question[edit]

I'm new to talking on artical talk pages, but I was wondering, what would it take to make this artical a featured artical? regards--Orangesodakid 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In order for an artical to achieve the artical status of a featured artical, it has to meet the featured artical criteria listed at Featured Artical Criteria. In order for this artical to be a featured artical, it needs lots of sourcing and a general overhaul. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It also needs to be written properly. The writing in the plot and character synopses here is just horrendous. A featured article is meant to showcase not only the topic, but the quality of the article. - (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


-- 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are these 'better suited' for the talk page? Interviews & conferences are perfectly legitimate links. --Gwern (contribs) 13:09 18 January 2010 (GMT)
There are already seven ELs in that section, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links. These two interviews are more suited to be incorporated into a reception section, not just as an external resource like the other ELs are.-- 20:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL - the controlling guideline here - does not say "you can have 6 official links and another, and then every other addition must be DELETED WITH FIRE'. I don't see how 2 interviews suddenly turns the section into a nidorous heap of links.
And feel free to incorporate them into the reception section, instead of exiling them to the talk page, there to be eventually forgotten & archived. --Gwern (contribs) 21:37 18 January 2010 (GMT)
Look, if you're fine with the idea of them being better suited in the reception section, then don't add them to the ELs in the first place. External links are not there to just be a collection of links like WP:NOT states, but as an external resource. I don't know if this would be considered obvious or not, but experienced editors know that the talk page will regularly contain additional resources to improve the article, which could also be material previously removed from the article due to sourcing issues or something like that. I mean, WP:EL states quite clear on this subject: WP:ELPOINTS: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum.-- 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I feel like I've run into a clone of Collectonian. WP:NOT does not say 2 links makes a link directory - it actually says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article"; WP:FURTHER specifically permits this; nor does WP:EL say 2 links is excessive and must be removed.
Not to mention this is what External link sections have been used for since the very first one 8 or 9 years ago, but I know mere tradition or custom carries little weight with anyone these days. --Gwern (contribs) 19:43 23 January 2010 (GMT)


Movie Movie ANN Movie ANN Shelf Life --KrebMarkt 06:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

ANN Movie 2

Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann[edit]

Why is this article's name shortened? Should it not be written in full? (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't want to make everyone have to look up the full title every single time they want to link here, and guideline is generally to go with the most common name rather than most 'correct', since 'correct' in some cases can be pretty ridiculous (like with names of royalty). --Gwern (contribs) 22:24 21 November 2010 (GMT)

Obviously fake story[edit]

I removed "A "leaked" episode 28 came out for a short time on the Internet. Due to "sexual explicit scenes" the episode was rated to be TV-MA, for mature audiences. The media got a hold of it and threatened to sue Gurren Lagann if this was not removed from the web. It was later removed and never found again. The episode "briefly" showed a sexual scene, showing Simon and Yoko engaging in sexual activity." as it was obviously fake. I hope everyone's ok with that

Episode 8 missing on Netflix[edit]

Since this seems to affect a distribution, I inserted it. There's a discussion on Yahoo Answers, as well but I can't find any new article about it. (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

US release[edit]

The manga is being dropped by Bandai Entertainment; --Gwern (contribs) 22:36 3 January 2012 (GMT)


There's tons of spoilers in this plot summary. Is there any spoiler tags? It's not that old of a series... (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You should check out Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Basically, Wikipedia doesn't care.--iGeMiNix 08:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gurren Lagann. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)