Talk:Saint Seiya Episode.G
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
[edit] Note about the non-canonicity of Episode G
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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.
Anthonydraco (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2 questions
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[edit] General clean-up
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)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Current Oceanus.jpg
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)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Galaxy Crius in Episode G.jpg
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)
[edit] TOO MUCH MINOR CHARACTER FILES AND LACK OF IMPORTANT FILES
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)
[edit] Added Garan, Lithos and new gaiden
I added the new files, please check grammatical mistakes because english is not my original language. Tintor2 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kreios' Soma, what is it?
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)
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)
[edit] Reference tagging and tense change requireded
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)
