Talk:My Neighbor Totoro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. 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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Totoro is an animal!!

I have the book "The Art of My Neighbor Totoro" and on page 101 i think, a quote from Miyazaki says that totoro is not a spirit, he is an animal, and then something about him living on acorns... So, if thats true, then why did the Disney dub say that Mei must have met "one of the spirits of the forest", and not the "king of the forest" (like the japanese subtitles say)? Because apparently, totoro is not a spirit... (so maybe the article should be changed too?)

[edit] Totoro Userbox

Code Result Users
{{User:Lily_Towers/UBX/Totoro}}
^_^ This user is friends with Totoro.
Transclusions

[edit] Totoro Poster

Can someone find an actual Totoro movie poster for the infobox? The one currently on display is notorious for being a prototype with a different female protagonist (instead of two).Rebochan 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You could find a couple by googling Totoro on images... --Totoro Fan99 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it is not what the film looks like, but the book the Art of My Neighbor Totoro seems to only have the prototype poster. I do not understand why that one would be the only one displayed, since it was a prototype and changed later on in production. If someone else can find another Japanese film poster that was used during the release of the film in 1988 please do add. Alus 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

At least in Finland they just used that poster, despite the proto-Mei. Maybe there simply isn't another one...? --Bakuryuu (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totoro's Ocarina

Doesn't the tune that the Totoros play on the ocarinas sound scarily like the theme tune?--Totoro Fan99 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the theme song. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantonese Version

Back when I was a little nipper, My Neighbour Totoro was one of my favorite films, despite the fact that I couldn't understand it, as it was Cantonese dub. I point this out as I found out when I watched the English and Japanese versions that it was only the Cantonese version where the Totoros (sp?) actually speak (the medium one being high pitched, the smaller doesn't speak and the big'un is er, very loud)

I'm not going to add that to the article as a) I appear to have lost the video, and may have been an illegal redub anyway b) I need someone else to corroborate my findings

--Jayau1234 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they do talk. Well, a little bit. I have a real dubbed copy and they just kind of chant...something quite insignificant but adds to the "cuteness" of the characters. —++ hippi ippi ++ 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am cantonese and I too, am a fan of totoro,in the film where Satuzuka goes to school and her sister is out in the garden playing when she comes across,scatterd all over the gardens are nut,food for the woodspirits.It is there that you here the infant-sized totoro speak,the bigger one says "gee gee ja" and the smaller of the two says buom buom ba" (cantonese). I know this refers to an asian (Far East) drinking game where there are two players one is "gee gee ja" and the other is "buom buom ba",the first to pull out or not say their allocated name is out,but i'm not entirely sure if this has any relivence to the children's animation,and whether it's not just cute noises.If not it is a strange coincidnce. User:wongdai 18:19 31 march 2007

[edit] Interesting recent sighting

In Japanese: バス停にトトロ現る！　大瀬戸の山道さんが制作. In English: Totoro Statue Erected at Bus Stop in Southern Japan. >(^_^)< ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Satsuki"or "Satski"?

I have two questions:1)Is her name(the older one)pronaunsed(sp?)"Sat-su-ki" or "Sat-ski"?I'd like to know.2)What does Satski/Satsuki mean by "It wasn't a policeman(Japanese Orignal with English subtitles/I thought that was a policeman(English Adaption)"????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 68.220.174.8 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1) The u is fairly weakly pronounced, but it is there. As for 2) I guess this takes place when the Kusakabes are driving towards their new home with the car full of stuff. It would likely be somewhat illegal for two girls to ride in the back, so they decide to hide, but are relieved to find that the uniformed individual they pass is not a policeman, but a postman. --Bakuryuu (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!So would it be illegal for safety purposes?And,yes,I am refering to the beganing shorty after the song "Hey Let's Go".Also,I wondering:How come in the Japanese Version all the characters call Satsuki "Satsuki"EXCEPT MEI,who calls her "Ohrayja"?Is this a Japanese custom where sisters call each other "Older Sister"or"Younger Sister"?Does "Ohrayja" mean "Older Sister"or does it just mean"Sister"?Thank You for Reading!70.146.213.247 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ohrayja"? I've never heard of the word though I've lived in Japan for more than 20 years. Maybe you meant to say "Oneechan" (pronounced "onay-chan") which means "older sister". In Japan, younger sisters or brothers don't call their older sibling his/her name. So it would sound very strange to Japanese audience if Mei called her sister Satsuki. Younger sisters usually call their older sister "Oneechan", while they call their older brother "Oniichan" which means "older brother". There's no Japanese word for "sister" or "brother" although there are ones for "younger sister", "younger brother", "older sister" and "older brother". Older sisters and brothers call their younger sister or brother simply their name.
But this page is nothing like a BBS. Please do not post a comment which does not have anything to do with the contents of wikipedia again. This kind of question is not supposed to be here.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totoro and Shinto

I don't believe the section "Totoro and Shinto" is necessary. Totoro has nothing to do with anything religious. Even though there appears shrines and a tree with a shimenawa, it doesn't mean that Totoro has shintoist themes because you can see shinto shrine everywhere in Japan. Regarding appearance of shrine as Shintoism is just a misunderstanding by foreigners who have little knowledge of the Japanese way of religion. Obake has nothing to do with shinto either. No Japanese people regard obake as a part of shinto. If you call Totoro religious, almost all Japanese anime and manga will be religious. Do you call Inuyasha religious just because Kagome lives in a shrine? Or do you call Yu Yu Hakusho religious because Yusuke became a ghost and there're many yokais in the show? Or do you say Shrek has Christian themes just because there's a church? Calling something shintoism just because it is traditional is nonsense. Even if Totoro seems to have shintoist themes to the westerners' eyes, it just means Totoro is a movie set in the Japanese countryside and it is nothing worthy of special mention.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may believe most Japanese people are shintoist, but it is not necessarily true. They go to shrine on New Year's Day not because they believe in shinto but simply beacuse it is Japanese tradition. The same thing can be said about the appearance of the shrine in Totoro. The appearance of shinto shrine or that of obake cannot be connected to shinto. Believe it or not, it is true that there's no Japanese word for "shintoist" although there is the word for "Buddhist", bukkyouto. In other words, Japanese people don't regard them something like "shintoist". To Japanese, shinto is not something you believe in or you don't blieve in. There's no bible or dogma. Shinto is nothing like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. It is even doubtful whether it is proper to say that shinto is a religion.
Totoro is nothing religious. Repeat, the appearance of the shrine doesn't mean Totoro has shintoist themes. I must say that to see Totoro religious is only a biased viewpoint. If there're no dissenting opinions, I will erase the section "Totoro and Shinto" on the 24 of April, a week after my first note on the issue.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
True, Totoro is not religious, but there are significant Shinto themes throughout the film. The Totoro are forest/nature spirits, the tree where they live is part of a shrine, and so on. Having Shinto themes does not mean Miyazaki was trying to get across some religious point. Rather, I imagine he was trying to evoke images of a lost past (as it is set in the 1950s) when things were simpler, and trying to get people to remember their roots and not forget their traditions. As you wrote yourself, Shinto is not so much a religion anymore (except to a very few), but more of a set of traditions with some religious elements. Totoro can have Shinto elements without being a religious film. I don't think anyone is arguing the film is religious. You're the only one who's said anything about that. I do find it odd how you reply to yourself above, and appear to be arguing with yourself.···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't talk to myself. I wanted to say some more. That's all.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I reverted the deletion of this section (see following thread), I have no familiarity with this topic and no opinion whether this section belongs in the article or not. Paul August ☎ 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Friedrich. All the spiritual creatures appearing in Totoro (totoro/troll, cat-bus, etc.) have as little resemblance to traditional Japanese/shinto spirits as monsters from Nausicaä in contrast to those from Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away that have more expressly Japanese looks and names.

In either way, unless the author of the section have reliable sources to back up his interpretation of this film in there, it should be removed. A couple of sentence that cite McCarthy's article may stay, but the rest appears to be a product of original research. --Saintjust (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the only reference to religion in Totoro that I ever heard (well, read) seriously discussed is to Buddhism - when Satsuki and Kanta are caught by a storm, they huddle together in a little roadway shrinette to Jizo. I agree with the above posters that the section is somewhat redundant and also based on a view of religion that doesn't quite fit the Japanese' view of Shinto. I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On top of Michael Friedrich's arguments above, the entire section smacks of original research to me. I say move the one sourced statement to some other section and delete the rest. -Amake (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced more of the section and removed one paragraph for which I can find nothing in support of it. This was from only 10-15 minutes of searching for online resources. I haven't even cracked open any of the many offline resources I could use. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the section now.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What the hell?!? I've reverted your removal of a very well sourced section. Please do not remove it again. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the section is so short and has very little to do with the film itself until the very last sentence, it is hard to find a reason to keep the section. Perhaps it is better suited in the Hayao Miyazaki article and expanded with examples from his other films as well? Torsodog (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is well-sourced now, and provides an interesting background for the characters. I don't see any reall reason to remove it.MightyAtom (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep the section in wikipedia.
"Shinto is the traditional religion of Japan and as such Hayao Miyazaki’s films often have Shintoist themes." <-- This is not the fact but only an opinion of some people.
"Miyazaki himself has identified them as nature spirits" <-- Nature spirits doesn't mean the film has something to do with Shinto. It only means that Totoro is a symbol of nature in this sense. I'll say what Totoro is to this film is what a Grim Reaper, which is a symbol of death, is to Children's and Household Tales.
If you truly understand what Japanese people think about Shinto, you can never say that Totoro has something to do with Shinto. Even if Totoro could be said to be a kami (I never call Totoro a kami, although I call Totoro a spirit), that would not mean this film itself has shintoist themes, just like the appearance of the angel in Princess Knight does not mean that the manga, Princess Knight, itself has Christianity themes.
Connecting Totoro to Shinto is a heavily western-biased way of seeing tge Japanese culture. The word, shintoist, is a western-biased word to bigin with since there's no such a word in Japanese.
Repeat, the appearance of a shine or that of a kami does not mean the film itself has shintoist themes. I know some (who I don't believe are familiar with the Japanese culture) see Totoro having shintoist themes, but that's only their opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there should not be opinions in it without special reasons. The section must be removed.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like it is going to turn into an edit war. The information is sourced, so that is taken care of. From there it is just a matter of if it is relevant to the article. It should probably be left as it is until a group decision is reached.MightyAtom (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how this is relevant to the article if the section only refers to the movie in ONE sentence out of the whole five sentences the section is comprised of (not to mention it is the last sentence). Furthermore, this section is so vague that if I changed around the whole ONE example this section gives cites, I could add it to almost any movie made by Miyazaki. Like I said before, if this section has a place, it is in the Miyazaki article and not in this article.Torsodog (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The revised section is better, and has lost the most blatant examples of what Michael was talking about. However, I'm still not sure whether it really should be there in the first place - somebody above pitched the idea of transplanting this to the Miyazaki article and to expand it to include all his works. I think that might be a better, more coherent solution, and in that case, we could just briefly mention Shinto on this page, possibly with a wikilink to the corresponding section of the Miyazaki article. Although, on the other hand, a "Shinto" section in the Miyazaki article would clash somewhat with the "Environmentalism & Anti-war" section...
Oh, since we're reviewing parts of this article, I noticed that the "cultural references" section seems to be a direct copy-paste of some other work, to the point that the footnote numbers of the original remain in the text, now completely useless. The text displays a greater deal of whoever-wrote-it's ideas about Japanese society then it does of the actual portrayal of Japanese society in the movie. I also find the inclusion of "passive cultural references" (huh?) to be a bit redundant - it seems like it just lists points that prove this is a film made by some foureeners. I'm baffled it doesn't include the most obvious giveaway - them strange foureeners speak some weird Moonspeak, don't they? How's that for a "passive cultural reference"? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might make sense to remove the section and merge it into "Environmentalism and Anti-War" section on the Hayao Miyazaki page. But as long as connecting Miyazaki's films with Shinto is an opinion, not the fact that everyone admits, the sentences must be polished and such a sentence as "Hayao Miyazaki’s films often have Shintoist themes" cannot remain as it is. "Some critics believe Hayao Miyazaki's films have Shintoist themes" is better.--59.141.42.53 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe we need the section on the page.
"Totoro's home is in a sacred tree, demarcated by a shimenawa rope, on the grounds of a shinto shrine with a torii at the entrance to the shrine grounds." <-- This sentence is not something that needs a sepecified section. It only refers to where Totoro lives. It should be in the "Characters" section. In the first place, that Totoro lives in a sacred tree doesn't mean that Totoro has something to do with shinto. Then do you say squirrels living in the sacred tree of a shrine are shintoists? Totoro may live in the sacred tree just because it is big enough for them to live in. Connecting Totoro and Shinto just because of where they live. It's too simplistic an interpretation.
"Shinto is the traditional religion of Japan and some consider many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films—including Totoro—to have Shintoist themes, even though he denies this and the themes are likely not deliberate" <-- This is not about Totoro but the films by Miyazaki. This sentence should not be here, but on Miyazaki's page. I don't believe we need this sentence, though.
"Many people interpret Totoro as a kami spirit of the Shinto religion. Miyazaki himself has identified them as nature spirits." <-- This is the only part that has something to do with the film but is still so short that it doesn't need a specified section. It should be merged into Miyazaki's page along with the previous sentence.
"Shinto kami are often guardian spirits of the land, concerned with natural phenomena like wind and thunder and natural objects like the sun, mountains, rivers, trees, and rocks." <-- This sentence is out of question. It doesn't have anything to do with the film at all.
It seems that it only Mr. Nihonjoe who wants to keep the section. Most of the people here think the section is irrelevant to the film and that we don't need it, don't they? Why don't we make the decision?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote, it seems like this is personal for you,Michael Friedrich. Maybe your personal and emotional opinions are too strong to see this objectively? It is a small section, well sourced, and adds something to the overall article. I vote that it stays, and indeed could be improved. Perhaps re-named "Totoro and Japanese religion/mythology", and include the bits about Jizo? I also agree with TomorrowTime that the whole cultural section is out of whack. Realistically, this whole article needs some serious revision. MightyAtom (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the existence of the section irritates me and I hate to be called shintoist just because I go to shrine. But it is also true that the section has very little to do with the film, as I said many times. You can find Jizo everywhere in Japan and the apperence of the one does not mean the film has something to do with the religion. It only means that the film is set in the country of Japan. And Jizo is not a shintoist thing but something buddhist, which means that referring to Jizo and referring to shinto are not coherent. This fact also proves that this film doesn't have shintoist themes.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I think Michael Friedrich's breakdown of the section is right on. The section has so little to do with the film as it stands, it should not be in this article. Now, if someone was to add to it to make it about religion and mythology in general and added more than one weak example, then I might be more OK with it. Furthermore, if someone was to move it to the Hayao Miyazaki article and drew from his ENTIRE body of work to provide examples, I would be much more ok with it. In this article, however, it seems like the section itself proves how little the movie has to do with Shinto and why there shouldn't be an entire section devoted to it. Torsodog (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that most people here agree to remove the section. If there're no dissenting opinions by the 30th, I will remove it. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Summup:

  • Michael Friedrich - strong delete
  • Nihonjoe - strong keep)
  • Saintjust - delete per Michael Friedrich but could be kept if the section is well sourced
  • Paul August - no comment
  • TomorrowTime - delete
  • Amake - merge
  • Torsodog - merge into other section or article
  • MightyAtom - keep, no reason to delete it
  • 59.141.42.53(dion.ne.jp) -merge
  • Torsodog - delete per Michael Friedrich.

By far, here are the tally for delete 3, merge 3 keep 2.

Well, in my opinion, I don't see any reason for the section to be deleted. It is well sourced now and has an interesting feature for whom do not know about Japanese culture. It could go under "cultural references". The movie is much more than family and a rural place of the 1950s Japan. Although the nature spirit is made up by the creator, it could be associated with Japanese folklores which also are strongly linked to shintoism. Besides, why does Michael Friedrich declare he "will" delete the section on the date? Who bestows such the privilege to Michael Friedrich? (sarcasm). Given the above discussion, the matter of deletion is not up for him, but by consensus and neural editor should deal with this (is the small section so significant to dispute?) So, I would say "keep" it. --Appletrees (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in Japanese culture, just read Japanese culture. It is completely irrelavent whether the section is interesting or not. Though Totoro can be a symbol of the nature, it does not mean the film itself has something to do with shinto. How many times do I need to say this?
"it could be associated with Japanese folklores which also are strongly linked to shintoism." <-- Which folklore are you referring to? This is only your opinion. Nothing worth mentioning in the article.
"why does Michael Friedrich declare he "will" delete the section on the date?" Who bestows such the privilege to Michael Friedrich?" <-- Anybody can edit wikipedia and you don't need anybody to bestow the previlege to edit it on you. It is me who started this discussion and who is the eagerest that the section be deleted. Is is strange for me to remove the section? As for the date, I chose the 30th because it will have been a week since Nihonjoe, who strongly insist on keeping the section, posted his last comment. MightyAtom also agrees that that the whole cultural section is out of whack. He also says that the whole article needs some serious revision. Revising the whole article, I wanted to start it with removing the section, which has nothing to do with the film at all. You can add the information to Miyazaki's page even after the section is removed.
You insist on keeping it because "it is well sourced now", but as MightyAtom already said, it is just a matter of if it is relevant to the article. It does not matter whether it is well sourced or not. Did you read the discussion?
It seems that you insist on keeping the section just because you are angry at me. Isn't that right? I don't find in the comment you posted any other good reasons why you want to keep the section.---Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny, you're speaking like someone whom I've known but you have a hot temper. It seems that you insist on keeping the section just because you are angry at me. Isn't that right? I don't find in the comment you posted any other good reasons why you want to keep the section. --> Why would I be angry at you? That comment is very childish and irrational. We have not even met before and I don't know you. I like this animation, so it has been on my watchlist. My input here is not to show how much I hate(!?) you or to rescue Nihonjoe being on the corner. Besides, saying "stay away from the article" is a unwise comment of yours. I have an interest in the way of how it conveys several aspects of Japanese unique culture. That could be a motivation for someone to create the article and read the content to get to know Japanese culture. And your irritation has nothing to do with its existence of the section and makes you very subjective. As for Japanese folklore, mythical creatures like notably crow and monkey, fox in Japanese folklore are related to shintoism. You seem to be Japanese, so know well how to pick good examples. The fact that you initiate the discussion doesn't mean that you can decide the period of time for discussion and delete the section as you want. As I said somebody neutral would be in a better position to do so. Moreover, I did not insist on keeping it as it is, but suggest it to be under "cultural references". My mention of the section being well sourced is based on the assumption that the section is relevant to the movie. If you remove the section, how could you explain the characters come from? Just imagination of the animator? I do not know why you're so upset at the section being here. Shintoism is not mere a religion but a part of daily life in Japan and is illustrated in the movie in a warm tone. --Appletrees (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your speech sounded like you were upset at me because I decided the data without discussion. I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. But I don't understand at all why you feel like you're talking with someone you know, though.
"Shintoism is not mere religion but a part of day life in Japan" <-- This is true. But I don't think that it "is illustrated in the movie in a warm tone." No Japanese people would consider Totoro as shintoist. Even if people from other countries consider it as shintoist, that only means it is something Japanese. Many Westers easily consider something Japanese as something shintoist but this idea is not necessarily the case. I don't even believe it is proper to call shinto "a religion". I suggest that it be called "belief" or "feeling" (this is not my idea but one developed by a famous scholar whose name I don't remember). It is very hard to explain it and also very hard for people outside Japan to understand it. If I start to explain it, it will be as long as a dissertation... But I still say the appearance of Totoro, a spirit, cannot be connected to shinto that easily.
I do not oppose creating a new section "cultural referances". But I suggest that only simple information should be there. I do not want the section to include the idea that the film has shintoist themes, which is not a fact but only an opinion.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If my first statement sounded unnecesserily unfriendly to you, I apologze for that, but your declarition of deleting the section in the given time assigned by yourself appears to be more than a strong notification. In my understading of Shintoism is right, it is not only associated with totemism and animism but also embraces several features from various religions which has localized into Japanese thinking. So the coexistence of Buddhistic elements and seemingly Shintoistic supernatural beings is very natural for Japanese people but not for non-Japanese. You said that different and unfamiliar features to people outside of Japan is just because that is a part of Japanese culture, so saying the people to acknowledge and accept it as it is and as Japanese do is not easily understandable. So there needs to be some explanation on where the characters come from and why they come around the little girls. You said other Disney or American animations do not convey any religious feature in its movies but they do acknowledge that the country is based on Christianity with various forms (well even violent TV animation series show main characters going to church), or avoid the matter from bringing up hot issues on religions. So they don't need to explain to themself much about it in "English Wikipedia" if a subject of an animation is significantly related to a religion. That goes the same as to Japanese Wikipedia, therefore, Japanese readers do not need to explain the creatures' existence. However, since here is English Wikipedia primarily for English speakers, not everybody of which are akin to Japanese culture. Some interpretations by reliable newspapers or analysis by critcs on what makes the movie characters of Japan are much appreciated if this article needs its expanion. You perceive the Shinto section as an original research, but I've heard that Japan has many critics specializing in the animation genre unlike any other country, so I think someone (Nihonjoe?) can easily find needed documents on the feature. Of course, certain elements of the movie have resemblences of Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz which are easily indentified by viewers but what about the bearlike Totoro and dustlike creatures? Or Buddhist status? The movie is not religious but certainly has the Shintoistic themes, so what worthy to delete the section? Rather expand it with other interesting elements such as Buddhism in Japan, and contrast with Alice and Dorothy and folklores? --Appletrees (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't do things by vote, so the "count" is irrelevant. The information in the section is perfectly acceptable, is referenced well, and we are reporting that there are people out there who see Shinto themes in the film. Whether you (Michael Friedrich) disagree with them is irrelevant. The sources show that there are people who see those themes, regardless of the intention of Miyazaki. As there are people who would likely be interested in this, and because there are reliable sources which back it up, there is no legitimate reason to remove the section or move it to another article (though I do support a similar section in the Miyazaki article if someone wants to do the research to populate it). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume Nihonjoe's brusque comment on "count" seems to aim at me. Well, Michael Friedrich claimed that there is the only one (Nihonjoe) insisting on keep the section, so the "count" is needed for me to figure out people's opinion here. I already said pretty much of the subject, so I only point out on the count. Unfortunately we "do" rely on "count" by vote in many cases per my Wiki experience, and for some people the "count" is a good ground for their claim.--Appletrees (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

>> But I still say the appearance of Totoro, a spirit, cannot be connected to shinto that easily.<< Maybe, but it also can be dis-connected that easily. Also, in response to "No Japanese people would consider Totoro as shintoist." Well...I just asked my wife, and she disagrees with you. She said Totoro lives in a sacred tree, they are nature spirits, and so they are kami, and so they are connected to shinto...so please don't make such strong subjective statements. You do not speak for all Japanese people, anymore than I speak for all American people. And I still think the whole section should be kept and updated into an overall mythology section, so that is where my opinion officially lies.MightyAtom (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be possible to interpret Totoro as a kami, but it is an interpretation. Not the truth. Miyazaki himself denies that the film has anything to do with shinto. Even I would say it could be possible to interpret Totoro as a kami if you asked me, but when people watch the film I'm sure they never find shintoistic themes in it deliberately. I don't think your wife had ever come up with an idea of interpretating Totoro as a kami before you asked her the question. I think what she meant was that it is possible to interpret Totoro as a kami, not that Totoro is a kami.
The film is open to interpretation since there's no explicit explanation for what Totoro is. But the section "Totoro and Shinto" sounds like it is true that Totoro has shintoistic themes although it is only an interpretation.
I think one of the reasons why English-sipeaking people think Totoro has shintoistic themes is the translation. The father calls Totoro as "a spirit of the forest" in the English version, but he calls him "nushi" in the Japanese version. Nushi means master or owner. The one who lives in one place for a very long time will be called nushi. Fishers call the biggest fish in a lake or in a pond "nushi". Satsuki also calls Totoro a spirit in English but she calls him obake in Japanese. Obake means Yōkai in this case. Some yokai are related to shinto and called kami for sure, but not all of them are so. It seems to me that the English translator conciously emphasized shinto in order to make the film exotic and attractive to American audience.
You may think it is characteristic to shinto to consider things beyond human knowledge as god or kami, but it is not necessarily the case. For example, Ainu also consider animals as kamuy (god). The brown bear is kimunkamuy (mountain god), the owl is kotan kor kamuy (village god) and the northern pika is kutoronkamuy (rock mountain god). It is also able to interpret Totoro as a kamuy instead of kami if you ask me since Miyazaki once said he was interested in Ainy. Consider Totoro as a kami of shinto is only an interpretation.
I don't want to allow the section as it is. But I don't think I can remove it either. I'm thinking about changing the section like this.
<no wiki>==Cultural Referances==<no wiki>
  • Policeman: When they are driving towards their new home, Satsuki takes a man in uniforms for a police officer and hide. This is because it is illegal to ride on the carrier of a truck in Japan.
  • Shoes: Satsuki keeps kneeling when she moves around the room to find acorns. People in Japan never go into their houses with their shoes on.
  • Ohagi: Kanta brings race cakes his grand mother made. They are called ohagi, also know as botamochi.
  • Bento: Satsuki bring a box lunch with her to school. A box lunch is calle bento in Japanese. An umeboshi is often on the center of the rice as is the case with the film. It is called "hinomaru-bento" because it looks like the Japanese flag.
  • Totoro's home: Totoro lives in a tree demarcated by a shimenawa (braided straw rope for shinto). The tree is called shinboku (sacred tree). Shinto is the traditional religion of Japan and some consider many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films—including Totoro—to have Shintoist themes and interpret Totoro as a kami spirit of the Shinto religion. But Miyazaki says "this movie [Totoro] has nothing to do with that [Shinto] or any other religion."
  • Nushi: Father calls Totoro "Mori no nushi", meaning "the owner of the forest." It is translated as "the spirit of the forest" in Disney's dub and as "the king of the forest" in Disney's sub. Animals, ghosts or whatever lives the longest in one place is called "nushi," as fishers call the biggest fish in a lake "nushi".
  • Obake: Satsuki calls Totoro "obake" in her letter to her mother. Obake means both ghost and yokai. Whatever posseses a power beyond human knowledge can be called obake.
  • Crab: Satsuki says "Mei is wating for the acorns to sprout, and it's starting to make her crabby." This comes from a Japanese folktale called "Sarukani-gassen" (Monkey-Crab War), where a crab gets a seed of Persimmon from a monkey and watches it everyday waiting for it to sprout.
  • Pray: The Nanny repeatedly says "nanmaidabu" when Mei is missing. "nanmaidabu" is a corruption of "namu-amida-butsu", which Japanese people say when you pray for Buddha. "namu" means to embrace, and amida-butsu means Amitābha.
  • Jizo: The statues standing behind Mei when she was found are called Jizo.
  • Yakiimo: In the ending credit, when Satsuki is burnig leaves Kanta is holding sweet potatoes. People in Japan often do this when they make a bonfire of fallen leaves in autumn.
What do you think of this?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Turning it into a list is not good. If you can rewrite it as prose, and then source everything you have listed above, I'd support it as long as the Totoro and Shinto information remains as is. That information is sourced, and while it is an opinion that Totoro is a kami or nature spirit, it is an opinion that many people share, and articles have been written about it, academic papers have commented on it, and the original creator identifies them as the latter. And all of the material there is sourced with multiple reliable sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't get why you do not think turning it into a list is good. I think it is because it is easier to read and you can easily scan information you want. If you rewrite the list I made above as a prose, it will be too long and it is hard to read. The information about shinto sure is on the list. I don't think there's any better ways we can agree to. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Because lists should be avoided wherever possible. There are some things which lend themselves to lists, but this is not one of them. This information could very easily be prose-ified. Also, this looks more like a trivia list, and those are not recommended, either. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why do you think lists should be avoided? Is there such a rule?
How do you think you can change the information into prose? Please let me show it.I meant "Please show it to me." Sorry.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
All the information above is related to the film and the culture of Japan. I don't think it is only a trivia list. If you don't think my idea is good, you have to give us an alternative idea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can read more here . ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. But you still need to show us your idea. How do you intend to change the section? Please don't tell me you are thinking of just leaving it as it is.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible bad revert on my part

While tracking down what I took to be vandalism by the IP 67.161.32.117, I reverted to a previous version. In doing so I may have inadvertently reverted some good edits as well. I will review all the other edits I reverted for possible good ones. SInce I have no familiarity of this topic, a review of my revert by other editors would be most welcome. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)