Talk:Samurai Champloo

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.

Contents

[edit] Plot Section

...needs serious work. It doesn't give any sort of information about the plot whatsoever, it's more of a short essay listing instances of "you can't run away from the past", an opinion as to the theme. Its reading requires a LARGE amount of knowledge about the series. It's all about this person's opinion of the theme, again. --Naruttebayo 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Someone does need to pretty much redo the plot-- the plot is actually fairly simple, to a degree, yet the section doesn't get that across well. --Melissia 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to dispute a part of the plot section; currently, it is written that Mugen flips the coin and then Fuu tells them that it ends up as tails, but both Mugen and Jin look at the coin when it lands on her forehead first, so both already knew the result of the flip, without her telling them --HaikenEdge

I have been redoing the plot. I just happened to take a 3-month long Wiki-break. The old plot section was terrible so I'm rewriting it as an event-by-event description. It is not the author's place to discuss the themes that s/he thinks are there. It should simply be a history of the story. ask123 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Director Trademarks

I think that director trademarks should be removed and instead put into Watanabe's own page. I haven't changed anything because I wanted to get a second opinion first.

I would have to agree with you. I don't exactly know what are you referring to when you say "director trademarks" though. (Just back from long Wiki break so I'm totally out of the loop!) Are they in the "Influences and Cultural References" section"? As a bit of background on that section, there was a little dispute over it since it comes dangerously close to original research. Following this, I am going to delete the word, "Influences," from the name of that section. Citing influences without citations would be absolutely original research. However, if the writing is just of observations -- factual observations -- that should be fine. I, personally, have not touched the section since I am now revising the "Plot" section. I'll tackle it once I finish that. ask123 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game

The article states that the video game was scheduled for release yesterday. Did it come out? And if so, this shouldn't go in the article, but is it any good?  :) ~--Resister 03:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reviews so far are quite positive, which is a bit of a surprise as I never expect too much out of videogame adaptations of anime. --Antrophica 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I own the videogame: it's a very unique game, to say the least. I don't feel like writing a review for it, though... however, you may use swords other than Jin's katana and Mugen's Typhoon Swell, though they have limited durability. I believe they're all supposed to be more powerful than the origonal swords, in some way or another. One weapon, "Silver Axe", allows you to collect money faster, for instance. Another thing is, and this being the most unique one, you can buy vinyl records, which you can change during the game to alter what combos, attacks, and fightingstances you have. You equip two of them at a time, and change between them any time during combat. That's about as in depth as I feel like going into it, for now. The story is designed so that it could easilly be a real episode (or several episodes). Melissia 11:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a videogame, so maybe it deserves its own article. I'd get down to writing one, if I weren't having problems with my PS2 at the moment. --Antrophica 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I own the game, but I'm not exactly sure if I want to make an article about it. That paragraph above is probably the longest description I can immagine without giving spoilers, and I haven't actually completed the game, myself....Melissia 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If we can't write enough about the game we'll just make it a section of this article. --Antrophica 14:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If the videogame becomes extremely popular, then perhaps it does deserve it's own article. But, in typical instances, video game adaptations (or any adaptations of an original work for that matter) do not get their own articles. As with all adaptations, it's article should be included within the article on the original work, as stated in various per Wiki policies on the subject. Hope this helps! ask123 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On neutrality, comparisons with Cowboy Bebop and describing Watanabe as "famous"

Here it is. I have absolutely NO IDEA waht this is a about, but... --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"rw. - unless reality bended while I was asleep, comparisons may be made in an encyclopedia if they're constructive and unbiased"

Sorry, but comparing art is not the station of an encyclopaedia. Drawing similarities between Samurai Champloo and Cowboy Bebop, however self-evident they may be to you, is still interpretation. Comparative statements in art differ from, say, comparative statements in science which this is clearly not.

59.167.29.120

When your show has been playing on one station for five straight years because of high ratings, then you are famous. When your next project is greenlighted and licensed by a foreign distributor before it has even begun production, then you are famous. And I don't think we're comparing art so much as we're comparing fact. If anything qualifies for deletion because its interpretation, it's the "Visual metaphors" section, which I probably should never have written. --Antrophica 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The visual metaphors are fun though... just saying. -- Makaio 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought so, too, that's why I created the section, but they probably go against WP rules as personal interpretation is fancruft. --Antrophica 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, you didn't give a reasoned response to my statement. I said "Drawing similarities between Samurai Champloo and Cowboy Bebop, however self-evident they may be to you, is still interpretation". Your response was "no they're not." You haven't given any reasons why such comparisons should be made. I remind you that reverting articles due to dogma is against Wikipedia standards.

2. On the subject of "famous", I shall justify myself since you have mentioned it. Famous is a loaded term. What is famous? George Bush is famous. Would the guy at the bus station know of Shirichiro Watanabe? Maybe not, but he might know of George Bush. But then again, he might not also. You see my point, it is ambiguous.

Perhaps we qualify it: "of Cowboy Bebop fame, where fame means he is known to people within Japan." But would a Japanese rice farmer with no television know of Shirichiro Watanabe? Perhaps not. But perhaps yes. how about "where fame means he is known within the anime community?" But how do you presume to know (where to know = fact), the collective tastes of the (so-called) anime community? You see my point, "famous" is ambiguous and is not fact and based on supposition and opinion. Therefore, we should not make this judgment call of referring to Watanabe as having "fame".

203.10.77.190

He's famous in the anime medium. That's enough. I'm not calling Watanabe famous out of dogma. I'm calling him famous because he is famous and your edits make those portions of the article so boring it'd put a hyperactive kid with a mouthful of chocolate to sleep. If you've got a problem with Watanabe being famous for Cowboy Bebop, then reword the sentence more interestingly. To me, this isn't a problem with whether we call Watanabe famous, because he is, so it doesn't matter if we state it or not. My problem is with your banal paragraphs that drain the vivacity out out of an interesting lead. This may be an encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean we're striving for pedantic terseness.
Additionally, you haven't explained why you think the comparison between Bebop and Champloo is artistic. "There's no running from the past" is a simple, clear cut formula of Watanabe's. It's like comparing Pulp Fiction to Reservoir Dogs.

--Antrophica 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, you didn't respond to my statement. I said "famous is a loaded term" and "famous is ambiguous" which invites you to respond by showing that 1. famous is not a loaded term but a defined one and 2. that we can apply this definition to Watanabe. You didn't try to define fame for me, nor did you give any reasons why Watabe should be considered famous. You said he is famous within the anime medium but my previous argument addressed the issue of trying to qualify fame by imparting it to niche communities.

To use a present example, you argue that Champloo is famous because it has been playing for five straight years. What if it had been playing for four years? Would it still be famous? Or three? Or two? Or four months? How many years must a series run before it is "famous"? At what point does fame cease? Where is the line between what is famous and what is not and why? You see my point, it is ambiguous.

You also contradicted yourself by saying "I'm not calling Watanabe famous out of dogma...I'm calling him famous because he is famous." Your general argument seems to be that he is famous because he is. That is dogma. I should report you to the Wikipedia admin.

2. The comparison between Champloo and Bebop is artistic because they are both works of art (I assumed this was self-evident). They are certainly not science. Art comparisons belong in comparative literature or art criticism publications, specialist media sites or fan sites. You should not, for example, see an encyclopaedia comparing the narrative structures of Shakespeare to Chaucer or the appearing briefcase in Pulp Fiction to the one in Reservoir Dogs. These kinds of statements derive from interpretation, not fact. Hence, I don't think they are appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry.

You seem to have a problem with the article because, in your opinion, it is boring, uninteresting and pedantic. In that case, I suggest you start a fansite of your own where you may indulge in florid, esoteric descriptions with as much vivacity as you like. But (and I speak for only myself and what I think, I do not speak on behalf of Wiki or anyone) I think it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to be written primarily with entertainment value in mind and with a greater priority than factual accuracy or neutrality. Facts and neutrality come first. Factual, neutral writing can be engaging but it should not sacrifice factual accuracy or neutrality to do so.

203.10.77.190

There's no need to keep apologizing me, even though this might seem like a mistake on your part once it's over. I'm a supporter of the genenral nonexistence of fancruft, so I'm not exactly the kind of person who would build a florid fan site. Part of the criteria for Featured Articles is that the article is well-written and compelling. The Samurai Champloo article certainly could use an overhaul, but while I'm trying to give it a fighting chance you're taking it away by reducing paragraphs to stubs because they compare elements of a director's previous work to another. Ridiculous. We may acknowledge identical elements separately, but not compare them within one article? Your pedantic terseness is a menace to the prose of this article. --Antrophica 06:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Then I wish you the best in your project to acquire featured article status for the Samurai Champloo entry.

203.10.77.190

Gracias. --Antrophica 07:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I especially look forward to seeing you present your case for featured status to the the Wiki community who will no doubt accept nothing less than reasonable, logical, undogmatic persuasion. Our discussion has shown me your level of rational debate and willingness to cooperate with other Wiki members and accept their input without insulting them. I am sure the kinds of statement you have made above will go down really well with the Wiki community when you ask them to bestow featured status on this article. Meanwhile, the article continues to...expand. 203.10.77.190

I'm glad you hold me in such high regard. --Antrophica 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, I have never seen anyone attract so much crap from people who are arguing over nothing. It's like your name acts as a magnet for bitching. --Makaio 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps it's the same person who's got my number! --Antrophica 05:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue has remained unresolved, the one who raised it storming off in righteous anger, seeking confirmation of own rather than a utilizing a constructive approach. In hope of engaging dialogue: Fame would be recognition and acclaim within one's activity, both of which Cowboy Bebop enjoys in good measure, having received a prestigious award and a long running time, along with international succes. The article says "of Cowboy Bebop fame," therefore it is evident that the fame is related to his previous anime work and therefore applies to people who are to some degree familiar to anime. The phrase also states the fame of the series, not the director. I disagree that the phrase in use is loaded and/or ambiguous, as it merely informs of the author's most influential previous work by which he is most likely to be recognized. Just what are the connotations the phrase is "loaded" with? Do tell, sir, since so far you have only expressed your opinion without explaining anything. You, rascal, you.

On art comparisons: This is a Wikipedia article on art. Your logic seems to indicate that there is no place in an enciclopedia for articles which are not built on mathematically based scientific facts. Guess what, science exists outside maths, and comparative literary critique (and social sciences) are methodic sciences just as well, their interpretative nature notwithstanding. If you go and claim that literary comparison belongs into specialized publications, go ahead and undogmatically reason this silly claim, because I could on equal grounds claim that mathematical scientific fact belongs to specialited publications because, it is self evident, and thus not really a science at all. At least I offer a semblance of a (stupid) explanation. Your argument goes: Both are art, so comparison must be necessarily be artistic, therefore not science. Ad absurdum: Gauss's algorhytm is sooo less cool than integrating. Both algorhytms are science, so the comparison I made is necessarily scientific. You fail.

Comparison of two works of art can just as well be scientific, if by scientific you mean methodic and objective. Narrative approaches, plot devices and such are objective, discernible literary FACTS and their comparison is objective. Since both works in question are similar in many points and in a chronologically successive order of creation, a comparison can be interesting and informative. How resources should be cited is beyond me, since plot devices and narrative approaches are in the work itself and evident therefrom. Whether identifying them is original research or not, that is the question here. --Rover Segundo 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're right, Rover; the issues aren't exactly resolved. Whether you like it or not, the word, "fame" is loaded. But it is not wrong. He isn't famous by the stanards of most people. Rather, he is well known within the anime community and has a distinct following. You are right to point out that the reader might be ill-informed if he did not know of this fact. But it must be presented properly as not to sound as if trying to pursuade the reader one way or another. It must also try not to be informal in tone. It is Wikipedia policy (and I happen to agree with it) that all entries must be encyclopedic and neutral -- in fact, one might say that rule is paramount among all others on this site. You do not want to give off the slightest air of trying to draw the reader into an opinion of bias or to pursuade them to like or dislike something. Convincing should not be required if the thing you're writting about is actually intereting. In this case, that opinion that is being offered is that Watanabe is "famous." What is meant is "famous in the anime community." There are many ways of saying that with specificity and in a way that will evaporate ambiuty. For instance:
It was directed by Shinichiro Watanabe, whose Cowboy Bebop earned him renown in the anime commuity<reference>. It was produced by the studio, Manglobe, Inc.
At the <reference> note, you can cite an article that indicates how well-known Watanabe really is in the anime community and beyond. That's just one way of doing it. But whatever way it's done, the word "famous" mucks things up. Yes, it's true, to anyone that knows anime, Watanabe's famous. He's famous in the sub-industry (japanese animation) he works in (as opposed to he global film & tv business) and even a good distance beyond that (i.e. global animation, comics, Japanese televison and movies), but "famous" to most people means something less than "famous" that you are indicating. Also, regarding this sentence, the phrase "so and so of _________ fame" is a succinct way of getting your point across, but it's also tonally informal and clunky for an encyclopedic entry. In any event, readers also get the link to his page, that I'm sure is full of accolades and plaudits. :)
The section on North American Broadcasting has a similar problem. People should not have to take for granted your recounting of the events that led to the various North American distribution deals. I, too, heard that the show made its way West in a similar manner, but that does not mean that this particular story is true (or wholly true). Also, the section is written in a way that makes the reader feel as if s/he's trying to be pursuaded of something. I'm sure that Geneon did in fact liscense the show early and it was probably beause of the success of Watanabe's prior show, Cowboy Bebop, but why not find a source anyway?
Also, it is just incorrect to say that any decision is solely based on anything. There are so many factors that go into most decision making that saying this particuar factor was the lone force this decion is a highly improbable statement, physchologically speaking. (It's also a statistical improbability. It would be almost impossible for it to go down that way without any other influences, no matter how small they were.) Therefore, that sentence strains credulity. For example, if Watanabe had wanted to create an avante-garde show that had little commercial appeal to children or adults, Geneon would probably not have licensed it. Following that, although his reputation may certainly have played a large role in the decision, it was not his reputation alone that led to it. Reading on, the Cartoon Network info seem fine, but, again, some quick citations to the various pages on which you found those data would make the article stronger.
The problems in the first paragraph have been fixed. Now moving on to the rest of the article. ask123 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that guy was right. This article is not yet up to the standards exhibited by other Featured Articles. Whoever it was that started this article -- it sounds like it was you, Antrophica -- the page looks great, but there will always be changes and tweaks that will need to be made. We are all fans of this show, but, that notwithstanding, I'm sure we can collectiely come up with an impartial (to everyone) article that's so good it won't have to do any selling at all.
ask123 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If nobody responds on this talk page in the next day or two to these neutrality and sourcing issues and the breaches (although they are few) of basic encyclopedic standards, I am just going to just be bold and fix them in the article myself. If these problems are not fixed, this article will continue to have a small, but significant number of embarassing faults. I mean it's a great article until you come accross these sentences that reek of pursuasion -- as if you're being be sold on something. And the funny thing is that the things you feel like you're being sold on are most likely true (or at least I think they are). The sales pitch isn't needed! All that's required is proper phrasing and reliable sources. And the fact that some of the editors here don't see that (as far as I can tell from the above thread) is hard to believe. With all due respect, anyone that thinks the aforementioned sections are fine as they are currently written has no clue of what encyclopedic tone and content entails (and needs to pick up a Brittanica for his or her reference). I love Samurai Champloo, but I won't let my passion for the show muck up an encyclopedic article on the show that could be a gateway for future fans. If the problems persist, then the article looses all credibility, regardless of whether the information it contains is true or not. ask123 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes

Should we start considering making episode summaries? Cause I'm going to make a page so we can start working on them. --Makaio 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I made a new archive. Hurray! --Makaio 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Just so you know, I came here hoping Wikipedia had a Samurai Champloo episode summary. So...get on it!

The first 12 episodes now have complete summaries with no pictures, while some pictures have been added onto summaries 13-26 to see the effect. The effect looks good so we'll probably add pictures to the first 12 summaries. -- Makaio 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ms. "In Need of Ep Summaries," if you sign your posts with four tildes, then we will know who we're talking to! Thanks! Cheers, ask123 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete cast section

WP:ANIME says: "A listing of the main characters follows the plot summary, with basic character descriptions and voice actor credits (if applicable; see Voiced by: {{{1}}} ) There is no need to create a separate voice actor section." We surely do not need every single minor cast member listed for the english dub. If these are mentioned on the characters pages, it can be removed. If they're not listed then can be added and then removed. --Kunzite 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Miss Ethereal 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak Agree. I came to this discussion page to say that it's really distracting. If someone (like me) is reading from top-to-bottom, the Cast page is useless. It should be moved to the bottom or deleted, with an external link pointing to the list elsewhere on the Internet. –Gunslinger47 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. –Gunslinger47 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the voices been added already? -- Makaio 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship methods

Moving the censorship methods section to the episode page because it has to do with the episodes and it doesn't need to be mentioned but once. -- Makaio 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision on October 2, 2006

Okay, I just removed a fairly large percentage of the article in one stroke, so I feel I should justify my actions. Suffice to say, I think the article was headed in the wrong direction as far as adhering to GA and FA standards. The article has no mention of critical or fan reception, influence, production, translation, or other sections normally found in GAs and FAs. I haven't found anything analagous to the "Visual metaphor" section in any other high-quality articles about television shows. We were approaching something like a section on themes, which is of course acceptable, but we weren't looking at the series as a whole, instead listing minor symbols as they appear in episodes. We might be on to something with the Fire/Water=Mugen/Jin thing, but even that seems more applicable to the character page.

I'd really like to help this article on a great series become a great article. I hope this initial step can lead us in that direction. El Cid 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up revisions

As an avid fan of the show, I was inspired when I saw this post, but discouraged that there wasn't much of a follow up to it. I noticed that Samurai Champloo's entry is missing many of the elements found in other anime pages and likewise wanted "to help this article on a great series become a great article." To that end I've cleaned it up a bit. I've added a section on the style and setting and another on distribution and reception. These were constructed using elements that were originally in, what seemed to me, an overly long introduction. I've also added a few things. I'm hoping to make this article a little more manageable and also a little broader in its depth. SpiderMMB 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lack of references is disturbing(?)

Please add them to the article where needed. Otherwise, parts of the article maybe deleted due to non-compliance.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I have just run through the article as it appears today - 5 December 2006 (UTC) - and it is currently referenced. If you aren't used to editing articles from motion pictures, anime, etc., it may not seem it - any unreferenced information in this article comes directly from the anime itself. I have added a note to this effect. --User:AsukaSeagull

Not good enough. You need specifics, and some of the stuff is dangerously close to being original research. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a stupid rule, if you couldn't directly reference the thing which the article is talking about. But you can. Please, though, feel free to flag those sections which you believe need references. --Melissia 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, Around 100 percent (give or take 0 percent) of articles about anime, movie, and Tv series reference the origonal material. It's much like saying: "You can't quote from Hamlet. you can only quote from things OTHER PEOPLE have said about Hamlet." --Melissia 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As there has been no response from the user who flagged it in a resonable amount of tiem, and since I believe the article itself does not need to be flagged as origonal research, I'm removing the flag. Instead, If you wish to continue protesting the supposed origonal research, please flag specific sections that you believe need sources, and those interested will look them up. Much the same as you would reference Macbeth itself when making an article about Macbeth, much of, if not all of this article references the Anime itself.
As I said, however, please feel free to flag appropriate SECTIONS of this article that you think is origonal research. --Melissia 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it "unreasonable time" when all you did was removed them and you gave me less than a day to justify, no less alert me via the talk page? I've given a month for people to verify items on Cowboy Bebop. A month is more than reasonable enough to find sources. Nobody gave sources, so it was deleted.
Also, you can't be serious in stating that "Around 100 percent (give or take 0 percent) of articles about anime, movie, and Tv series reference the original material." Ever heard of artistic license?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Off Topic) Broadcast over Free-TV Germany

I appologize for posting the comment here, but I do find it important for viewers of Germany who might be reading this discussion not to loose a good opportunity.

Interesting for those living in Germany: Samurai Champloo is currently running on Thursdays around midnight (in other words, thursday through to friday). TV Channel is "VOX", the actually primary adult-anime broadcaster (RTL2 shows animes for younger audience, for your information).

Next batch of episodes will be broadcasted on the 8th of March 2007.

Another offtopic remark. LupinIII will be the next coming on Friday in the so-called DHCP-Nachtklub, featuring a batch of episodes starting from Friday through Saturday. Jackpayback 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Currency (Mon)

I am trying to actually write a book similiar to this but I need the basis of Mon in Samurai Champloo. Can anyone help? Vladimir Stalin 09:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussions relating to the Wikipedia article Samurai Champloo only. Thanks. Cheers, ask123 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuu's father?

There needs to be an update on who Fuu fahter actually was Moni(lilium) 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion Query

A few months back, I asked for references on a section of samurai Champloo, as it seemed to violate Wikipedia: original research and Wikipedia: Trivia. After a time, I come back, and find this:

Influences and cultural references
  • The recurring character Manzo the Saw, who both appears in and narrates several episodes, is a parody of the titular character from the Hanzo the Razor movies.[1]
  • Samurai Champloo is an example of the popular chambara film and television genre--the trademarks are a setting in the Edo Period, a focus on samurai or other swordsman characters, and lots and lots of thrilling, dramatic fights.[2] Chambara was used in the early days of Japanese cinema (when government political censorship ran high) as a way of expressing veiled social critiques, and it is possible to read Champloo as a satire of contemporary Japanese society. The show features cameos by other protagonists of the genre, such as Mito Kōmon in "Evanescent Encounter, Part 1", Ogami Daigorō from Lone Wolf and Cub in "Elegy of Entrapment, Part 1" and "Evanescent Encounter, Part 1", and Lone Wolf and Cub themselves in "Cosmic Collisions".[3]
  • In episode 5 (Artistic Anarchy), Mugen is heard to mutter (in the English dub of the series only) "damn, doing it with a squid" while looking at a book of ukiyo-e art. This is probably a reference to a Katsuhika Hokusai piece entitled Kinoe no Komatsu (The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife).[4]
  • In episode 13 (Misguided Miscreants, Part 1), Mugen's old pirating partner Mukuro has two ship mates named Ken and Ryu. The names Ryu and Ken together may be a hidden reference to the word Ryukan, which is their and Mugen's ethnicity, though it may also be a joke by the animators and script writers on the hit fighting game Street Fighter which has Ryu and Ken as the main characters.[5]
  • In episode 14 (Misguided Miscreants, Part 2), Jin's sword-against-gun battle with Mukuro is reminiscent of Sanjuro and Unosuke during the climactic final battle in Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo.[6]
  • In episode 3, Jin's introduction of his sword-skill attacking the 3 members of the Nagatomi Clan and his offer to Sousuke as a 'yojimbo', the 2 powerful opposing clans in the Village has a strong reseemblance to the setting in Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo, with Jin's entry at the town resembling the scene of Toshiro Mifune's appearance in restaurant the movie Yojimbo.
  • A character named "Sabini" is featured in the zombie-filled episode 22 (“Cosmic Collisions”), a possible reference to actor Tom Savini, most famous for his appearances in George Romero's classic zombie films.[7]
  • Watanabe has stated that the movies Zatoichi and Enter the Dragon influenced his work. Mugen using his scabbard as a walking stick as well as his inverted grip of the sword at the end of episode 14 may be a reference to similar practices used in Zatoichi. Also, in episode 25 (Evanescent Encounter, Part 2) Mugen's face is scarred after being slashed by Denkibou's claws, bearing a strong resemblance to a similar Bruce Lee scar in Enter the Dragon.[8] Also, while from a distance his hair retains its trademark spiky shape, in the close-ups of Mugen, his hair has become decidedly "Bruce Lee-esque".

Following Wikipedia: Trivia, Wikipedia: Verifiability and the Manual of Style, I edited it like thus:

Influences and cultural references
Samurai Champloo is an example of the popular chambara film and television genre--the trademarks are a setting in the Edo Period, a focus on samurai or other swordsman characters, and lots and lots of thrilling, dramatic fights.[9] Chambara was used in the early days of Japanese cinema (when government political censorship ran high) as a way of expressing veiled social critiques, and it is possible to read Champloo as a satire of contemporary Japanese society. The show features cameos by other protagonists of the genre, such as Mito Kōmon in "Evanescent Encounter, Part 1", Ogami Daigorō from Lone Wolf and Cub in "Elegy of Entrapment, Part 1" and "Evanescent Encounter, Part 1", and Lone Wolf and Cub themselves in "Cosmic Collisions".[10]
In episode 5 (Artistic Anarchy), Mugen is heard to mutter (in the English dub of the series only) "damn, doing it with a squid" while looking at a book of ukiyo-e art. This is probably a reference to a Katsuhika Hokusai piece entitled Kinoe no Komatsu (The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife).[11]
Watanabe has stated that the movies Zatoichi and Enter the Dragon influenced his work. Mugen using his scabbard as a walking stick as well as his inverted grip of the sword at the end of episode 14 may be a reference to similar practices used in Zatoichi. Also, in episode 25 (Evanescent Encounter, Part 2) Mugen's face is scarred after being slashed by Denkibou's claws, bearing a strong resemblance to a similar Bruce Lee scar in Enter the Dragon.[8]

I edited it like thus because several reference marks were questionable, as they did not mention Samurai Champloo and seemed like they were there to support unsubstantiated original research a/or trivia. User: SpiderMMB disagrees with me and had made several reverts back to the original version above, claiming on my talk page that the references he included are appropiate, citing "It's an obvious parody by Watanabe" and "The references in question are not that doubtful in my opinion, they are pretty obvious." The references are listed below:

References
  1. ^ Hanzo the Razor, e-budokai.com - Classical Japanese Martial Arts.
  2. ^ Silver, Alain, "The Samurai Film", The Overlook Press, New York, 1977, pg. 37. 0-87951-175-3
  3. ^ Silver, p. 185
  4. ^ Forrer, Matthi. Hokusai. Munich: Prestel-Verlag, 1991.
  5. ^ Various, Street Fighter: Eternal Challenge. ISBN 978-1932796247
  6. ^ Compare Amalgam's entry for Jin, second and third paragraphs from bottom under "Takeda Jin;" with the last paragraph of Roger Ebert, "The Great Movies -- Yojimbo," Chicago Sun Times, April 10, 2005.
  7. ^ SAVINI.COM: The Official Tom Savini Home Page
  8. ^ a b Shinichiro Watanabe, "An Evening With Shinichiro Watanabe," Detroit Film Theater, Detroit, 8 February 2006
  9. ^ Silver, Alain, "The Samurai Film", The Overlook Press, New York, 1977, pg. 37. 0-87951-175-3
  10. ^ Silver, p. 185
  11. ^ Forrer, Matthi. Hokusai. Munich: Prestel-Verlag, 1991.

Several only reference either summary pages of the listed non-Samurai Champloo works, one goes to a official site of some director or actor, and another appears to go to a fansite of some sort. I deleted one book reference, and the other I held off for further verification. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there's not going to be anything on the web that says, "these things in Samurai Champloo are references to this." I've looked on the internet and it didn't turn up much. However, the reason that I think the references might not be an OR problem is because of the way the section is phrased. Many of the references say "a possible reference," or "maybe a reference," or "reminiscent of." I think that as long as the sentences are structured like this, then it shouldn't be a problem. There a few that say "this is," but we can just change those to have more ambiguous language. I think anyone who actually clicks on the link could see that these are possible references(i.e. click Thomas Savini and you can learn about his relationship to zombie movies). These are reasonable and not outlandish to anyone who follows the links. I think as long as the language is not definitive, and we let the reader reach their own conclusion, then it's OK to keep it. SpiderMMB 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there's not going to be anything on the web that says, "these things in Samurai Champloo are references to this." I've looked on the internet and it didn't turn up much. While Internet sources are a hit or miss, books and magazines are actually more stable, to the point where someone can at least go back to them. Unfortunately, none that I have mention some of the films and whatnot already listed here, but they do have a very interesting section on possible influences. But I can't make the edits to reflect this until the current dispute is settled. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that may be one of the reasons why trivia lists are discouraged. At the same time, however, I do (secretly) disagree that they should not be a part of the article, as that's one of my favorite parts of articles on films, novels and the like. I think the unofficial informality of wikipedia is a blessing, as well as its lenient oversight. Otherwise, there might be some bot that comes along deleting any section with the word trivia in it. I would say leave any of the references that are not too outlandish or wacky. If something is too strange, there is no problem deleting it per se, because the entire section is technically not supposed to be in the article. Hope this helps :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have references from books and magazines that talk about cultural references, by all means add them to the article. You don't have to wait until this dispute is resolved. I'm not against things in the references and trivia section being cited, I'm concerned about the section disappearing completely (which is what happened to Cowboy Bebop). Please feel free to add whatever you want, and we'll keep the current dispute to whether what you removed should be included or not. SpiderMMB 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Then add RELEVANT sources, not "Oh, it seems like it, ergo, put it in" type of deal then. Put in sources that say "Oh, Episode XX of Champloo is a take-off to Zatochi or whatever."--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you just offered to rewrite the section, because you had books and magazines with "interesting sections on possible influences." You said the only thing standing in your way was this dispute, and I am saying to you that this dispute is a non-issue. Go ahead and rewrite the section. I won't stop you; in fact, I look forward to reading it. SpiderMMB 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you DRosenbach and agree that there are problems with these types of lists. It should, at the very least, be shortened to "Cultural References" for now and then each bullet point evaluated for sober factuality. An embedded list within a prose article is not against any Wikipedia rules. The only requirment is that each cultural reference be noted without partiality. Also, there is no claim that any particular reference was intended (but in most cases it would be hard to believe that it wasn't). For example, there is nothing incorrect about the first bullet point except for the claim of parody. (By the way, there is no such thing as obvious parody -- it must be cited!) It may indeed have been meant to be that, but the simple and only fact that should be noted here is that the Manzo the Saw character is the same as the titular character from the Hanzo the Razor films. There should be no un-cited analysis. Just observation.
ask123 03:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Reworked

Just spat out a 1st draft of a pretty substantial reworking of the intro. I think it's more informative (i.e. "meaty") than before. I also took care of the conflict over the word "fame" (see above). Now it's more specific and (hopefully) more encyclopedic.

One important note: I had to kinda guess the end date of the show's airing on Fuji TV, so if anyone has more specific info on that, please speak up! Cheers, ask123 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Detail to the Plot Section

Just added more detail to the plot section but I only got halfway. More to go... ask123 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Comparison to Kung Faux

Deleted the comparison to Kung Faux, since there are many cross-genre works of media out there. Simply being cross-genre does not warrant a comparison to Samurai Champloo. Furthermore, the pop music used in Kung Faux is mainstream 90s hip-hop by artists like Queen Latifah and RZA. Champloo uses mostly hip-hop/electronic music from lesser-known, hip-hop-inspired artists. The point is that their music styles are totally different. They are not very similar aside from their being in the "pop" genre and being either "hip-hop" or "hip-hop influenced." And since so many works' soundtracks fall into those categories, it is not that special. Kung Faux's music is more like Afro Samurai. Those two shows would warrant a comparison, particularly since they both share many soundtrack artists (unlike here). ask123 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Demographic Listing

I changed the genre listed as "Shonen" to "Seinen", since Samurai Champloo is most decidedly not for the same age group as Naruto, One Piece et. al. User:Kernan_rio

Although Samurai Champloo is enjoyable for adults and contains many adult ideas, it is not a "seinen" anime series; rather, it is a "shonen" one. I originally questioned this taxonomical designation until I looked further into the issue. The series was originally serialized in the magazine, Shonen Ace, not in a seinen publication. While I, as an adult, get much enjoyment from the show, the series primarily targets teenage and twenty-something males, and any educated person in those age groups can keep up. For these reasons, we have designated the series shonen, not seinen. Cheers, ask123 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and I I'll leave it at that =). Well, my main issue was that Champloo is no more shonen than is Cowboy Bebop (which is under seinen). Of course, I haven't read the manga, so I'm not sure if it has the equivalent content of the anime, so I'm not sure. But I guess I was thinking of shonen consisting of the examples given on its Wiki Page (e.g. Dragon Ball, Naruto). If so, I would say that Samurai Champloo would be certainly for a more mature age group than the latter examples. User:Kernan_rio —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a gray area. There is no question that Champloo isn't intended for audiences as juvenile as those targeted by Naruto and Dragon Ball and other shows more typical "shōnen" anime and manga. It isn't as adult oriented as Cowboy Bebop, but it isn't far off. It's definitely closer to the Bebop end of the spectrum than to the Naruto one. Perhaps some wording can be added to indicate that there is a difference here. I certainly don't want readers to think that Champloo, on the one hand, and Dragon Ball, Gundam, One Piece, Naruto, etc., on the other, are remotely similar in categorization... because they aren't! ask123 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I added "seinen" to the list of demographics but am hesitant to add it to the text of the article. I noticed that article for the Neon Genesis Evangelion manga considers it "shōnen." This I find compeltely crazy. There is nothing remotely shōnen about the series except for the magazine in which it was serialized. Still, let's try to find consensus before proceeding. I dare not touch the Eva page lest a throng of fanboys tackle me to the ground... ;) ask123 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, NGE can be hardly called shonen, but perhaps the manga has toned down content that may be suitable/targeted for a younger audience? Well, the only way is to read and actually judge it for oneself. kernan_rio 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Although, in the case of NGE, the manga preceeded the tv series. I know that often mangas based on seinen anime series tone down the themes and target a younger audience. Basically, the creators go for ancillary profit from another demographic. Conversely, anime series based on manga are not as often "toned down," but rather same-demo adaptations. Still, this is just my observation and I would have to read the Champloo manga to be sure this is the case here. ask123 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


This has been cleared up... The "demographic" field has been appropriately moved to the manga part of the infobox. Only manga receive demographic categories anyway. The publisher chooses the category so a manga serialized in Shonen Jump is shonen, regardless of how much certain readers think it's seinen. Anime, on the other hand, does not get a demographic category. To give it one, after all, would be original research. ask123 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] We need consistent genres and categories

I'd like to get this over with quickly. Now the top and bottom stylistics shouldn't differ so much. Here's what I mean: how is Samurai Champloo a comedy as a film genre but not also same name category? How it is action as a category and not also same name film genre? And I see it categorized as historical and jidaigeki? Think one of these is a sub-cat of the other. Can someone explain this madness? 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can. Since there's no anime genre categories that adequately represent Chambara, I did the next best thing and chose a combination to represent it: "Action anime" and "Historical anime". You could drop the "jidaigeki" category if you like, but I don't think it's necessary; it'd be like removing the "1984 films" category from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind just because it's categorized as "Anime of the 1980s" (meaning, one isn't a subcategory of the other so it isn't redundant). The same thing happens with Fantastic Children; the genre is science fantasy but there's no "science fantasy anime" category so "Science fiction anime" and "Fantasy anime" are used.
I'm amazed you didn't bring up "how is it categorized as Films directed by Shinichiro Watanabe when it's not even a film". That's just wrong.--Nohansen (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Point being, the genres exist so is there a reason as to why they are not there? And you're sure that historical and jidaigeki are not direct sub-cats (like Space Western / Sci-fi Western)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Jidaigeki and Category:Historical anime and manga are inside Category:Historical fiction; but Category:Jidaigeki is not a sub-genre of Category:Historical anime and manga or viceversa. So they're not redundant.
What do you mean by "the genres exist so is there a reason as to why they are not there"?--Nohansen (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'm just saying add [[Action film|action]] and change [[comedy]] to [[Comedy film|comedy]] for now. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Chambara" is an action genre, so adding "Action" is not really necessary.--Nohansen (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok if I change the comedy link to reflect my proposal? And what is a better sub-category than the action cat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually can't think of any sub-cat better than "Action anime and manga". "Martial arts animanga" is no good and there's no "Chambara anime and manga" sub-category. Category:Jidaigeki is the closest to Chambara, and even that's not totally accurate (but that's a different mess altogether).--Nohansen (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say remove action, but keep jidaigeki in its place since this show is realistic, for the most part. Now can I perform this edit along with the comedy update? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Nohansen, I see you did this edit so how should we proceed? Create a new category in its place? And I'm awaiting a response for my proposal to the comedy link. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to link to the "Comedy film" article. I understand that linking to film genres works when there's no other option (i.e. [[Martial arts film|Martial arts]]), but Samurai Champloo is not a film and "Comedy film" is no more informative than the "Comedy" article.
As for a "Kengeki"/"Chambara"/"Chanbara" category: Best leaving that to the good people of WP:FILMS and WP:JAPAN.--Nohansen (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
How does [[Comedy (genre)|Comedy]] sound? And I feel tempted to remove Category:Films directed by Shinichiro Watanabe and Category:Action anime and manga per what you said. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Comedy (genre) leads nowhere, and Comedy genres is a list of genres; so, no good.
And why are you tempted to remove Category:Action anime and manga? If that's how you feel, O.K. Apart from what I said at the beginning, ("Since there's no [Chambara anime and manga category], I did the next best thing and chose a combination to represent it: Action anime and Historical anime) I don't have any other argument for its inclusion.--Nohansen (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oopsy! You're right about the non-existent link. Then can I suggest Comedy-drama for the article? And I would like the action cat removed because, as I said above, there is not such an emphasis on action (discounting all inconsistencies of course) as there is in other series. May I finally proceed in my edit or is there something you'd like to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say.--Nohansen (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We still have the InuYasha and Trigun discussions to finish. May you respond to them? I'd like to get them both over and done with ASAP, if possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Something just came to mind; the article is categorized here so I've come up with a newer proposal:

[[Comedy-drama]]; [[Samurai cinema|Chambara]] [[historical fiction]]
Thoughts? Perhaps the box can use rearranging? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Chambara" implies "historical fiction", so there's no need to add the genre. In other words, since Champloo is a "Chambara" and an anime series, that qualifies it for Category:Historical anime and manga. That is to say, being classified as "Historical anime" shouldn't compel us to add "Historical fiction" to the genre box. Take a look at X (manga): I have it categorized as "Apocalyptic fiction", "Crossover fiction", "Environmental fiction" and "Religious themed fiction" (because it is so), but I'm not about to clutter the genre box with all that when just two words will suffice ("urban fantasy").
I feel the genres and categories of Samurai Champloo are fine the way they are. If anything, we could add the "Kengeki" / "Chambara" / "Chanbara" category. I think I'll look through Category:Jidaigeki (to see how articles many are misplaced) and the samurai anime and manga (to see how many are "Chambara").--Nohansen (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. Are the genres at Rurouni Kenshin ok? What is "Kengeki" by the way? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Kengeki" is the 'original' name of the genre. "Kengeki" means "sword fight", so "Kengeki eiga" means "sword fight movies". The common name of "Chambara" is an onomatopoeia for the sound of swords clashing and cutting (chan-chan bara-bara).
Rurouni Kenshin: Again, the "jidaigeki" genre makes "historical fiction" redundant. In fact, since Kenshin has it fare share of action, it is more "Chambara" than "Jidaigeki".
"Jidaigeki" are short on action and heavy on romance and politics. But that's not to say "Chambara" are mindless action either: Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and Sanjuro, and the Lone Wolf and Cub films are Chambara, after all. To contrast, The Twilight Samurai is a jidaigeki.--Nohansen (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to know a lot more than I when it comes to categories and genres. First, would you like to do your edits to Rurouni Kenshin per this conversation? User:Erachima was the one who initially did the genres there and I just sort of followed this method. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHAMpuru not chanpuru

befreo you change my correction of chanpuru to champuru, its CHAM not chan >< some one didn't read the trasnlation right or used to wrong charecters.

Thank you in advaced :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setokira (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)