Talk:RahXephon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RahXephon article.
RahXephon is part of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Looking to help? Check out the Anime and manga To-do:


To-do list for RahXephon: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Articles that don't exist that this article links to:
    • RahXephon_Pluralitas_Concentio_O.S.T.
  • Improve associated character article.
  • New infobox image? Fair use rationales.
  • Legacy. Possible sources:
    • Hideaki Anno (RahXephon Complete book)
    • Reviewers
    • "Bu-chan" himself
  • Relevant external websites added to website category site (Dmoz or Anime Web Turnpike)
Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
Archive
Archives
(Also see the talk pages for other articles in the Category:RahXephon category.)
  1. October 2005 – October 2006


Note on italics: The title RahXephon is written in italics. When referring to the mech itself, RahXephon is written without italics. --GunnarRene 00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Uneven animation quality

Does anybody know why episode 20 is suddenly more simply animated, and cheap-looking? Did the staff run out of time? Is it an artistic decision? Astrophil 07:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "washed out" colors before the tuning? That was done for effect and the colors return later. --GunnarRene 14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Epsisode 20 is pre-tune. Sorry. --GunnarRene 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't remember lower animation quality in episode 20, just somewhat lower story quality (see redshirt. I've also seen the same claim about ep. 21. Can't recongnize this either. Can somebody remember which scenes in particular? --GunnarRene 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1420412&displaytype=printable on Everything2 says (beginning of third paragraph) that one episode "wasn't done in-house". The author does not specify which episode, or provide proof of his claim, so it should not be taken as anything but anecdotal evidence. Cybotoro 08:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've read that the last episode had some work done by Gainax. (Check the credits.) --GunnarRene 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the credits of my ADV DVD (region 1) and no mention of Gainax. --GunnarRene 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Turns out that the episode is question is 17 or 18, with 11 as a possibility. No change in animators on 11, but both 18 and 19 had different animation directors. And 18 had a LOT of assistant animation directors. --GunnarRene 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity

Do we have information on sales, viewers and other popularity information? --GunnarRene 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

[edit] Sales

  • User talk:Shiroi Hane#2003 anime sales/viewers: RahXephon Volume 1 was ranked 4th in the US DVD sales chart for the Jun 2003 issue of Newtype, with source: Diamond Comics, March 2003) Newtype March edition: RahXephon volume 6 is ranked #10 in DVD sales for Japan.

[edit] Publisher information

The publisher information is by definition somewhat self-serving, but it's covered by "Truth in advertising" FTC regulations and is a reliable source. I would prefer it though, if we could supplement that with some sales figures from other sources.--GunnarRene 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The series vs. the movie

After watching the series twice over the last week or so, and watching the movie tonight, I've realized that the information provided in this article is essentially a hodgepodge from the two versions of the story. It would cause some major changes to the layout of the article, but I think that the two versions should be addressed separately in the article, due to the noticeable differences between the story arcs and the way that some of the principal characters are portrayed, especially Quon. Just a thought. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I considered branching out a separate article on the movie because of the differences, but decided against it since it has so many scenes in common with the anime. I'm making a section on the movie now. --GunnarRene 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The RahXephon itself

I'm going to add a description of the RahXephon itself to the article. It will most likely need a lot of tweaking, and may need to be moved to the Characters article, but it seems sort of odd to not have any information about the title mecha in its own article ;-) Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Complete and Perfect Collections

Should something be said about the two different box sets of the series? The Complete Collection has been on sale in the States for a while now, and my wife got me an import box set called the Perfect Collection which contains both the series and Plurialitas Concentio. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't turn into advertising. Do you have a reference for the import set? --GunnarRene 16:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put something in the Reception section. I'm not sure we need to name the different box set versions, but at least readers will know that there are different versions of them. --GunnarRene 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What you've got is probably good enough, as it's been very difficult to find a reference to the Perfect Collection outside of one DVD shop specializing in import animes that I've found. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That, and it's hard to reflect a worldwide view. There is a point about voice actors, which is only relevant in English, and the versions of DVD sets is even less worldwide. I've seen 4-disc sets online even. The type of packaging is too susceptible to change. --GunnarRene 02:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Gundam SEED'?

I mean no disrespect to the person who included this content, since it's well enough written and raises valid points, but is it really necessary? Every other entry in the anime comparison section cites something that connects RahXephon and another work via either fandom or production (such as a well-known debate or a creator connection). No such relation is cited between RahXephon and Gundam SEED; there's basically just a comment about how there are some similarities here and there.

Also...

"Before making RahXephon, director Izubuchi had worked on many other Gundam shows but had not watched Gundam SEED."

RahXephon premiered before Gundam SEED; the quoted statement implies otherwise. In any event, though, the above mentioned SEED comparison seems incongruous with the tone of the others. Unless there's a citation linking the two via fandom or production, then perhaps it should be removed.

Sorry about the time paradox. I introduced that citation because I also wanted to make the Gundam SEED section relevant. I was not the one who actually made the section in the first place. I think I agree with at least moving it into the "other anime" section as an example of "special boy fights his own people with mecha" storyline.--GunnarRene 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

Note that there is a spoiler warning on top of this talk page. I exchanged "Ayato and Haruka" with "Kamina and Mishima". Does that seem awkward? I did it not just because I don't want to tag the movie section as a spoiler, but also because Haruka knows the other Kamina, Maya, from back in Tokyo. That was sweet. :-) --GunnarRene 06:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any anime shows, where the mother-in-law<->daughter-in-law relationship is so prominent as it is in RahXephon, especially in the movie. --GunnarRene 06:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that that I see is that Ayato and Haruka are referred to by their given names throughout the article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Good point. I think a restructuring with more out-of-world information, and moving some of the plot information out to the Characters article might be in order soon. --GunnarRene 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, keep the plot summary. Out of world is good in addition, not in stead of. --Gwern (contribs) 19:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

<back to left> Yes, the plot is a central part of the work, but it's possible to summarize in an out-of-world style, right? I didn't mean to move it all out, just the details. Perhaps we'll just keep it as it is now. Once the information on the RahXephon itself was moved out and all plot information is in one section, it seems cleaner and better structured. --GunnarRene 11:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You can do it in a theoretical sense, but in-universe has the advantage of not needing a copious external apparatus: if I wanted to summarize the plot of the Dune books from an out of universe perspective, it would take me a very long time, a lot of research and effort and digging, but there's enough critical appreciation and analysis of the books that I could do a good job while doing the mandatory sourcing from "Reliable Sources". I'm not sure one can do that with RahXephon in any meaningful way that doesn't either involve Original Research or a short crappy summary not worth the bother; in universe summaries are, however, self-referencing in a sense (since the summarized media is itself is the reference), and are doable even if that critical apparatus is not there. So it seems to me to make far more sense to start off with an in universe and comprehensive summary, and then as sources permit, gradually layer around and in-between it the out of universe perspective. Both styles have merits and blind spots: that's why they both exist. --Gwern (contribs) 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I have been asked to comment on this article and suggest some changes. I have gone through and cleaned up a few things myself and I think a few things need discussing. These two lines make perfect sense but I think that they are clumsily worded:

At the base, Ayato pilots the RahXephon and gets to know the personnel of TERRA. He moves in with professor Rikudoh, Haruka's uncle.

introduced by the time of episode 7

Perhaps the first line could be reworded to say begins to know and begins to live with. I don't know, I think it could use a rewrite somehow.

Also as an obversation, in the Central plot section, past tense is used throughout the section until the last two paragraphs starting at By the time Haruka infiltrates Tōkyō Jupiter... at which the paragraph then uses present tense. I don't think that it deserves to be changed but it's a little strange. Is there a manual of style for changing tense in a plot summary?

And that's it, not much wrong with this article, perhaps it is ready for a peer review. --Squilibob 03:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time. It might be ready for review once the to-do list is cleared.
The guideline on writing about fiction suggests that everything that happens during the story be told in present tense, because the work "comes alive" every time someone reads it. As for things that happen in epilogue or are referred to as happening in the past, AFICT we can use past tense. But the tense shift could be more natural, I guess. And the section might benefit from becomming shorter and less "in-world". --GunnarRene 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR: Tokyo Jupiter and Meiji era

I'm moving this original research to the talk page. It's interesting, but it's a non-trivial interpretation and is not sourced. --GunnarRene 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The impermeable barrier between Tokyo and the rest of Japan with the Tōkyō Jupiter effect might be interpreted as representational of a perceived cultural barrier between the urbanized, seemingly more Westernized primate city of Tokyo and the comparably more rural and traditional rest of the country. This analogy would make the Mu into a representation of the Japanese view of Westerners from just before the Meiji Restoration to the reconstruction following World War II: similar anatomically except for a few minor variances, an invading force, both militarily and culturally, an initially technologically superior enemy that causes the Japanese (or in RahXephon, humans) to require rapid advancement in military technology, and a scapegoat used to inflame nationalistic (or in RahXephon, non-Mu) jingoism.

[edit] Removed some NGE/Rah points

The only points here that are sourced are also redundant with something further up in the section Neon Genesis Evangelion. It's not just that the article is getting long; the debate has now been left to actual reviewers. I'm moving this here so that somebody can either source or remove the claims. --GunnarRene 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The points aren't original research, but it might be seen as original research or POV to say that "these points are uniquely similar to RahXephon and NGE" without having a reviewer saying it. --GunnarRene 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities in content
  • The main antagonists, NGE's Angels and RahXephon's Dolems, are both colossal other-worldly creatures. [1][2] The Angels had a "Blue Blood Type" at the height of their malignancy, and the blood of RahXephon's Mulians and Dolem is also blue.
  • NGE's NERV and RahXephon's TERRA are both similar tactical defense forces specially formed to fight these supernatural enemies. [1]
  • NGE's SEELE and RahXephon's Bähbem Foundation are both organizations that sponsor the defense forces (NERV and TERRA, respectively). They are also secretly following their own agenda in order to bring forth an apocalyptic new age of mankind. In both cases, the legitimate political bodies (the UN and the Federation) have formal responsibility but little real control.
  • NGE's Rei and Quon are both emotionally remote, soft spoken characters who both are keys to a master plan. In the RahXephon OVA Thatness and Thereness, Quon Kisaragis's dialogue with her other self seems to visually reference Rei Ayanami's dialogue with Armisael, the sixteenth angel in NGE.
  • Elvy's cross necklace is the same as that of NGE's Misato. Both characters are outgoing women who hold important command positions and enjoy drinking beer.
  • Ayato's very first line is translated as "All is well in the world, I guess." This may be interpreted as a reference to Evangelion, as NERV's logo bears the words "God's in his heaven, All's right with the world" (from Robert Browning's poem Song from Pippa Passes).

[edit] Information move

  • The plot section has been made more linear. I'm not sure it's brilliant real-world prose yet, and it may not separate well enough between the various story versions.
  • The section on the RahXephon itself moved to Characters in RahXephon
  • Media information moved to List of RahXephon media, except for production and content information on series, movie, manga and OVA. All the rest, as well as the list of manga volumes, is in the media list.
  • Some original research and individual points moved to talk page.
  • New template for RahXephon-related articles.

--GunnarRene 00:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related?

Are Quon and Ayato related? And is there anything between them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganderman (talk • contribs) .

1: Yes. 2: Depends by what you mean by "thing". See Characters in RahXephon. --GunnarRene 11:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are they in a romantic relationship?- Ganderman

No. Ayato's only romantic connections are Haruka and Asahina. Quon is very trusting and physically intimate with Ayato, which could easily give the impression that (at the very least) she has feelings for him, but there is no romantic connection between them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked this question because of something similar in Eva. In Eva, two chracters are said to be be related, but is never said. This lead me to think that Anno (creator of Eva) made it open-ended to if they were related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganderman (talk • contribs).

[edit] A good external link to add?

http://evaxephon.com/gallery1.html

Considering that the 'Similarities to other anime' section makes note that RahXephon bares similarities to Evangelion, it seems to me that this site would be relevant to the article. The site's content would exemplify the article's claims of Evangelion influencing other works.

I understand that the pages of that site are not published by a source that is officially recognized as a reliable source, but I still believe that the nature of the site (similarities between the two anime) makes it relevant to the article (similarities between the two anime). EvaXephon 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason it was removed is as I explained on your talk page User talk:EvaXephon and in this talk page archive: Talk:RahXephon/Archive 1. If you have something to add to it, feel free to move the relevant talk sections back to this talk page.
The Eva&Rah section used to be a place where Wikipedia editors offered their own opinions on the matter, and in that case, your site served as an example of people comparing the shows. In the new section, only actual anime reviewers are given a voice, not Wikipedia editors or random people on the internet, and in this case the link is less useful. I have offered my personal opinion the varying quality of your site, but that's not the primary reason it's been removed; that's WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:EL. Perhaps you could argue that your site is a so called "convenience link", if you want....
How about you submit it here instead:
Since that link is in the article, your site would be indirectly referenced from the article.
In any case, we'll let this talk section hang around and see if a third person has an opinion.--GunnarRene 11:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"The site's content would exemplify the article's claims of Evangelion influencing other works." If we were in a bind and had no other sources, maybe. Unfortunately for the link, the section doesn't need more examples, because the anime reviewers themselves do a good job of exemplifying Evangelion's influence. You don't need a reference in the introduction when you substantiate and reference the claims in the main body of the section.--GunnarRene 11:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks for explaining, and thanks for suggesting that I submit it to the turnpike instead. Sorry for reviving an old issue. EvaXephon 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Perhaps I archived the talk page a bit prematurely, but it was getting a bit big. Nice to see you back on Wikipedia. :-) --GunnarRene 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
EvaXephon: don't feel bad. That's a pretty impressive collection of similarities - I had wondered why RahXephon felt so similar when I watched it. --Gwern (contribs) 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] clean up

Guys this article needs a total rewrite, there is a lot of useless shit here. There is no need to mention every review and series it is even remotely like.

Japanese culture can be put in (for example) a trivia section.

Either way, way too long and way too unfocused. Needs to be refined and stuff that matters kept, while the other 80% removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.7.37 (talk • contribs).

I disagree completely; I think this is one of the better anime-related articles on Wikipedia, and could be a featured article candidate. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Which parts of it would you like to see removed or moved into other parts? It might be slightly long but it's shorter than quite a few featured articles, and shorter than George W. Bush for example :-). I tried to aim for as much out-of-universe information and style as possible, while still remembering that the characters and plot is the most important part of a narrative. --GunnarRene 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We might remove a couple of the series comparisons, possibly. But I say absolutely no to making a trivia section. In general, we don't like to have trivia sections because they collect trivial information of no importance. The cultural references are an important aspect of the article's subject and should be kept, but perhaps shortened. Be bold and start trimming, then we'll see if we agree. :-) --GunnarRene 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. So now people are complaining about it being too referenced? I guess it really is true - you can't win. --Gwern (contribs) 21:53 29 November 2006 (GMT)
I say no trims, it's fine as it is. If any substantial improvements need to be made, I say submit the article for either GA status or a peer review and let those who take on the task do the evaluating. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As of this moment, the readable prose has about 6 200 words, which is within the 6 000 to 10 000 word limit that is suggested in Wikipedia:Article size. I think this length is fine, especially since the article has many sections that cater to different encyclopedic angles. --GunnarRene 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's an extremely loose and only suggestive guideline anyway. It should be however many is needed to cover the subject fully and do the Right Thing. --Gwern (contribs) 01:23 1 December 2006 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/h/Talk%7ERahXephon_c479.html"