Talk:Saint Seiya: Episode.G

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Saint Seiya Episode.G)

Note about the non-canonicity of Episode G[edit]

For once and for all, Kurumada has nothing to do with Episode G.

1) On the cover of the japanese tankōbon of Episode G, Megumu Okada is credited for the "manga" (art AND story) while Kurumada is only the "author of the original manga" (meaning Saint Seiya).

2) In a little interview published in the 1st tankōbon of Episode G, Okada explains that Kurumada told him "Do whatever you want to do".

3) In 2004, Kurumada stated in an interview that Okada was "completely free for developing the story of Episode G", and that he was only supervising him a bit (meaning supervising the art of the manga, since Okada is said to be "completly free" for the story), but that gave a lot more time to "Kojiro 2" by his pupil, Yuri Satochi, than to Episode G.

All these facts means that Kurumada basically don't care about Episode G, and has almost nothing to do with it. Which means that Episode G absolutely cannot be concidered canon, since what is canon is what comes from the author, or what the author helped to write. These interviews are the proof that Kurumada really had nothing to do with the story of G, which is thus entirely from Okada, and which has even been contradictory with the original story.

Episode G is not canon, period. So please do not try to write the contrary. Folken de Fanel 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...alright, I won't be editing that anymore. I got your message, incidentally. You're right, I should have looked at the discussion page. I just didn't think the manga was popular enough to warrant one. In fact, I'm surprised it even has a section. Anyway...What else do you think should be edited/added? HadesDragon 10:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact Kurumada doesn't care about what Okada does with Episode G has NO weight on it being canon or not. Nor Kurumada or Okada said it's not canon. Nor Kurumada or Okada said it IS canon. Yet, Episode G is OFFICIAL. Until there is a direct statement of it being canon or not(like Kurumada or Okada saying "it's canon" or "its' not canon"), I suppose to write "Its status as canon is unknown" is the best solution. Sirtao 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in my country in this Manga says "Plot Masami Kurumada and Drawn by Megumu Okada", plus this I found a page with scans of Lost Canvas and Next Dimension, if the two Mangas are only in Japan, that means the people who scaned it it´s in Japan too, and in this page says "Plot Masami Kurumada", i don´t know, if you want the page, only tell me and I will post the link.

Episode G is NOT wrote by Kurumada. It's simply TOO different from his usual style to be his. It's more like "original concept" or "original plot" aka Kurumada saying the manga would been Golds vs Titans and leaving everything else to Okada. Just read Next Dimension and compare it to Lost Canvas or Episode G. TOTALLY different stylea of storytelling.Sirtao 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During a Press Conference in Brazil during Toru Furyua's current visit he was asked this question: What was his thoughts about the Tenkai-hen movie and about any possible sequel for it?

The movie Saint Seiya: Tenkai-hen Josô was supposed to come out a lot later then what it did. In Japan what we normally do with anime is that we first launch the DVDs and only after that it goes to theatres. At that time, one of Toei's producers wanted to make the movie and release it for cinema as quickly as possible and so that was the deal with Mr. Kurumada. That is why the movie came out earlier than expected. As for any possible continuation, I will not tell you what is going on or what is not going on, but Mr. Kurumada's wish is for Pegasus Seiya to go on and fight Zeus, defeat Zeus and then face the God of Time, Chronos. That is all I can say right now.

This is more evidence that shows Episode G is not canon, since Kurumada wants to make a chronos story himself.Refuteku 10:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H wants to use Chronos, but you don´t know if Chronos die vs the Gold Saints or they seal him, maybe he wants the bronze saints vs Chronos... and if you don´t want to say it´s canon, don´t put "some fans think that is not canon" because you can put in the other way "some fans think that is canon" that´s obviously, you don´t have to put it... the Status of Canon or not it´s UNKNOWN, if Okada is doing ALL, Kurumada is the man who will say is canon or not, ok?. It´s not a fan fic, it´s a proffesional work approved by Kurumada, you can´t say whatever you want.

Another reason for non-canon status, is that it contradicts with the original manga. The main plot or example. The Gold Saints are fighting Gods, the should have been disintegrated by one of their attacks. Just look at what Thanatos did, and he wasn't even an olympian. Then there's that thing about there being 52 bronze cloths instead of 48. --Refuteku 06:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrgh, honestly, just leave the manga status as unknown. It's not a fanfic. It's still a professional work approved by Kurumada, who supervises the art from time to time. Until Kurumada publishes a work that directly, undeniably contradicts it, like that Chronos story you mentioned, then we'll put it as non-canon. But right now, it's best left as "canocity unknown".HadesDragon 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Masami Kuramada himself said that Episode G *is* canon and that it was the official prequel of the series. He actually compared it to Star Wars, saying that this was to Saint Seiya what Episode I was to Star Wars. This comes from a interview conducted when Episode G first started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.149.180 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, as much as I'd like to believe that, I'd like to see some proof first. Where can this interview be found, if it exists?HadesDragon (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in an issue of AnimeLand a french magazine about manga and animation. I'm not sure which one since that was a few years ago (definitly prior to Lost Canvas) - but in any case G is officially sanctionned by Kurumada and he has a supervising role on it - saying himself it takes quite a bit of his time (at the time he listed G as one of the reason along with Rinkake 2 he couldn't start working on a new Seiya manga himself). That being said - I also think Japanese authors don't seem to put the same emphasis on canonicity and conistency than their western counterpart. It's not uncommon for spin-off to existing work to retcon and change a lot of thing while still being considered in the same universe. 90.9.166.2 ([[User

talk:90.9.166.2|talk]]) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What ever was said in the interview, Star Wars have tons of stuff that's not canon. Anyway, the official sources consider Ep. G and LC to be Gaiden or side works/spin-offs/another story. Remember even though Masami drew The Cygnus Story himself, it still a side work not fitting the manga time line. To put it simply, a spin-off is the best way to describe these works. It can fit the main timeline if you(fans) want it to, or you can consider it an original story if you(fans) want to do that too.

Chronos[edit]

I have no plan on joining the debate, but I'd like to point out that Chronos and Cronus are two different entities. Please see below for ref, especially Chronos article. It explains the confusion.

Main article: Chronos
Main article: Cronus

Anthonydraco (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronos is conception of time, and Cronus just avatar. 89.22.144.44 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions[edit]

Hi it is normal we don't have inter wiki to ja: ?
you say 10 volumes, but this manga is finish or it's 10 for the moment ? thanks

There isn't a Episode G article in the japanese Wiki. And since EpG is far from finish, I'm going to correct it.

Well, here you have 2 links: the first for the page saying "plot MASAMI KURUMADA" and the next with the scans of Lost Canvas and Next Dimension... http://community.livejournal.com/stseiya_fanfics/ http://pics.livejournal.com/sagakure/gallery/0000d75k

and that of the different style, the Lost Canvas y wrote by Kurumada and it´s different than Next Dimension, Episode G is different too for the reason there is no Athena to kidnapp and you know all of what will happend in the future, he can´t change the canon history!

Getter Robot Gō, Shin and Ark have Go Nagai's name as author. But he did... well, NOTHING in them. Getter Robot is all made by Ishikawa since Getter Robot G. Same for Amon Apocalypse of Devilman: it's Yu Kinutani's work. But they still have the name of the original author Go Nagai on it. I think it's common use in Japan.
And I'm not talking about Athena getting kidnapped when I'm talking about STYLE, but I'm talking about the WAY events are told, how the characters speak. The Characters in EpG or Lost Canvas speak in a totally different way from the character in the original Saint Seiya, in next Dimension, in Ring ni Kakero or in B'T X. There is NO WAY Episode G or Lost Canvas could be wrote by Kurumada. Zero. None. Anybody analysing them with a critical eye would understand it.Sirtao 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, if you mention only old series of Kurumada like Bt´x, rin ni kakeru or Saint Seiya original, it´s obvios that this series are the old style of Kurumada, if I see lost Canvas or Next Dimension, I think it´s all diferent between the old series, he´s not the same young Mangaka that do Saint Seiya in that year! He change his style! plus this, how can you say "the form of the characters to talk", i´m thinking you are saying that you can analyze when a series is wrote by Masami Kurumada only reading how they talk!??

No, Kurumada IS the same. Please see Next Dimension. Same style. Even worst, actually. Lost Canvas, Episode G? TOTALLY different style. Different narration-style, the way the characters talk... the author it's a different person. TOO different is the style of these manga to be Kurumada's.Sirtao 11:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for the series you say at the begin, in the wikipedia page of getter robo says that is created by Go Nagai and the other guy, how do you know that he doesn´t do anything?? Wikipedia is wrong you say?? and Devil Man (in wikipedia) says "Devilman is one of Go Nagai's most popular creation", is wrong?? ok, Wikipedia, the most popular page with information about a lot of things and changed for good for a lot of people, for you is wrong!

the ORIGINAL Getter Robo was MADE by Nagai and Ishikawa. More Ishikawa than Nagai(whose being busy with his other mangas like Great Mazinger did almost nothing), but it was work of both of them. But Getter Go(and Shin and Ark) is ALL Ishikawa's work. Official sources say this AND you just have to read Nagai's mangas to understand it. Compare Violence Jack, DevilLady, Mazinsaga, ZMazinger and Cutie Honey'90 to Getter Go and you'll see the differences... the storytelling style, how the characters talk, the topics... everything is different from Nagai's works.
Devilman IS one of Nagais' most popular creation. Also, don't trust TOO MUCH Wikipedia: the first idiot can came here and change everything just because.Sirtao 11:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It´s obvious that Kurumada talk with the two mangakas and give them some things like "do the fights like you want, but don´t kill characters that don´t die in the original Manga"... that means that the Manga is canon, because is autorized by Kurumada and don´t contradict the original, we have a 2% clues that is canon and a 00% that isn´t... no matter how poor the % are, they are more % canon than % not canon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.91.32 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but both Episode G and The Lost Canvas contradict the original storyline alot, there's no question about that. --Refuteku 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Canvas, yes, because Kurumada is covering the same time period in Lost Dimension (or at least I think so). Although EG is not without its contradictions, Kurumada has not covered that period ( at least not yet), and most of the contradictions...yeah, in summary, EG is probably uncanon, but the official stance should be that it its status as canon or no is undisclosed.HadesDragon 21:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The official stance from the official sources say it is a side work go here and read it carefully: http://f20.yahoofs.com/hkblog/9zUIF62BBQeL9gpnfOHmoh9Ax6b2U8c-_40/blog/ap_20091020122422523.jpg?ib_____D9_9T.yOH

General clean-up[edit]

I went ahead and did a cleanup of he article as a whole. It was full of gramaticcal errors and such, and since I saw it wasn't gonna be fixed by anyone else anytime soon, I went ahead and did it. The information is all still there, just reworded. I also separated the Titans' profiles into paragraphs, to make reading easier. HadesDragon 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Following this fellow editor's example, I tried to further cleanup the article. The top of the page is so full of maintenance tags that the article hardly seems credible. Perhaps we should discuss the reasons why such tags are in place in order to resolve the issues and bring this article up to B-rank status at least. I believe the two major issues at the moment are:

  • References: the ANN citations are already gone, but does anyone see anything else that might need better referencing?
  • Accessibility: any ideas on what might need to be further explained in order to make the article more accessible?

Cyn starchaser (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Current Oceanus.jpg[edit]

Image:Current Oceanus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Galaxy Crius in Episode G.jpg[edit]

Image:Galaxy Crius in Episode G.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOO MUCH MINOR CHARACTER FILES AND LACK OF IMPORTANT FILES[edit]

In my opinion we are giving article to a lot of minor characters like wolf Nachi, Lionet Ban, Troll Iwan and may others. Note that this characters fight only once (most of them) and some only appear in one chapter or episode of manga, even Ban once said "Finally my first line!" in the 12 temple saga. We could merge some to Minor spectres and minor saints and then create artcle for more important characters of other mangas like some titans, Bennu Kagaho or create an article for Tenma explaining NDIM and LOSTC. Tintor2 10:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Garan, Lithos and new gaiden[edit]

I added the new files, please check grammatical mistakes because english is not my original language. Tintor2 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kreios' Soma, what is it?[edit]

There has been some disagreement on what kind of weapon Kreios' Soma actually is. And I would like to ask everyone editting this page for opinions.

I am not sure if it is allowed to link any image here, so tell me if I can. If possible, I'd like to provide an image of all the Titans' Soma here, for the convinience of the discussion.

The question here is: what is Kreios' Soma exactly? Currently, it is shown on the page as scimitar. If it has been officially stated as scimitar, I'd like to see some reliable source cited. Otherwise, I'd like to ask for opinions here. Other possibilities are shotel, khopesh and sickle. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info, a pic of all the Titans' Somas: http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/e263/andromeda13/SSEG/Volume%2004/Chapter%2017/340.jpg

Shotel: http://medieval.mrugala.net/Armes/Images/Shotel%2005.jpg

You can find the pics of scimitar, sickle and khopesh just right on WikiPedia.

Please pay attention at Kreios'. Somehow, it doesn't look quite like a scimitar, since a scimitar only curve slightly. But the Soma's blade makes almost a 90 degree angle with the hilt, and its blade is fully cresent. The Soma itself also has a crossguard.

I've asked many Saint Seiya fans, giving the choices above, and the first choice they'd eliminated was scimitar. They'd picked either shotel or sickle. And shotel and sickle are very similar, almost practically the same. So, if there's still no reply, I'll pick either of these and proceed with editting. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tagging and tense change requireded[edit]

The 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' thing has been at the top of our article long enough already. Too long, actually. I added most references some time ago, but only up to the volume 4, which is the latest I own. I neither have money to import all the rest, nor the energy to tag. Many of you obviously have all the volumes published. If you can, please tag references in parts that don't yet have it, especially the parts that mention things beyond volume 4, so that we can remove the atrocious 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' thing from the top once and for all.

One more thing: although in practice, tense in fiction can be either present or past, according to WikiPedia writing style and guideline, fiction is written in present tense. There are many parts that require cleaning up in this article. Changing the entire article to conform WikiPedia's format is going to be a lot of work, but I hope we could fix it little by little when we spot any.

For reference, please enter keyword wp:tense in your search. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megumu Okada's commentary from volume 1[edit]

I couldn't believe my ears when this "G" project was brought up.
I met the editor for the first time as the heat of summer ended and it was finally starting to cool down. It was a meeting about an original work, but I was very busy then and didn't have the time to make something like that, so it seemed that I would have to decline. During the meeting, the editor told me "actually, I'd like you to handle a work that's related to an original". It was "Seiya". It has been my first experience dealing with a work "related to an original". Not that I did not want to do something like it, the opportunity had just never come up. And so it was that "Seiya" became the first original I did for another author.
I don't think "Seiya" needs any introductions by now, because it is famous world-wide. I am making a continuation of it (or, to be more accurate, a story set before it, its "history"). I am also dealing with the work of the master Masami Kurumada, who is one of a kind for me. To be honest, I really worried about what to do, but the chief editor and the RED editorial department finally rid me of those troubles; the editor made a bold decision. And while pouring gin into my glass in a late-night bar, the great master Kurumada told me "Good. You should do it with all your might."
It is still a work that worries me, but then I'll think "I'm glad I started it." I want to put every effort into it to be able to think "I'm glad I did it" when it is over. And it would be the greatest happiness if the people who read it think "it was interesting."
Megumu Okada


This quote is only my translation of the text that was published at the end of the first volume of EG, so if anyone notices any mistakes, do point them out. I can post the original Japanese if necessary. Cyn starchaser (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B class assessment[edit]

The rating remains the same since production still has the same issues listed by it's previous assessor. Unless it is commentary from the author himself, it shouldn't be noted. Currently, the production section after reference 8 reads like a style/themes section and should not be included. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment. Should that part of the production section be cut out entirely, do you think, or possibly reworked into other sections? Cyn starchaser (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. If the production section is really short, you can merge it into the manga section. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issues
  • "This resulted in a manga that is, visually, substantially different from its predecessor: character designs are slim and androgynous and details are enhanced to an extreme". Does not seem to be author's view, but someone's observation
  • Short paragraphs -Restructure prose and article

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding episode G being non canon or canon[edit]

Seems that Episode G is now confirmed canon to the main story.

Here http://seiya30th.com/series.html

A website launched for the 30th anniversary for the franchise all of the Saint Seiya material was mentioned.

Besides the main story everything else excluding episode G were only given the original creator Masami kuramada in the description.

While Episode G: Draft Masami Kurumada , drawing the Memmu Okada .

Okada is only credited for the art while kuramada the story I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymen12 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nope, Kurumada only supervises Episode G--Refuteku (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Megumu has only been credited for art and him the draft so yeah unless the official site launched for the 30th anniversary of the series is lying it now holds official canonical status though i am also aware of his supervision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymen12 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An official statement is needed for it to be canon. Like how Akita Shoten said ND was canon with the release of the first volume The reason it says draft is because Kurumada was planning to do a Gaiden series with the Gold Saints after he had finished working on the Hades chapter. But this was changed to the SD comics, and the idea was shelved.--Refuteku (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite you said he only supervised it just as he has for the anime or lost canvas for that matter yet they weren't presented as episode G was.They had "original creator" or so masami kuramada and the rest the ones truly involved in the production of whatever spin off it may be the fact that episode G had only credited Okada for the art and kuramada for its whole draft is a clear indication of its standing amongst others.Also iirc he stated that Okada was free to write it as he wanted and that it would serve as a prequel for his manga as well.So yeah that sums it up as far as I'm concerned and Akito shonen says the same thing if I'm not mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.94.206 (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we fans know, he did the "initial" draft for Ep. G and only supervises it since then. Nevertheless, and official interview or statement is needed.--Refuteku (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Saint Seiya Episode.G. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Seiya:_Episode.G&oldid=1204297768"