Talk:Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise

Year of Release?

when was this movie made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.220.218 (talk • contribs)

Animerica Sadamoto interview

Sources for character designs if anyone has time: http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/oldeva/1999-January/024322.html --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 8 November 2009 (GMT)

Manga Impact

Manga Impact: The World of Japanese Animation, 6 December 2010, ISBN 978-0714857411; pg 143:

Even as a child, Shirotsugu Lhadatt knew what he wanted to do with his life: he wanted to become a pilot. All grown up, he enrolls in the Royal Space force, an organization that is regarded as something of a joke and a waste of money following its lengthy failed efforts to put a man in space. Shirotsugu, lazy and disillusioned with life, wants to be that man.
The first feature film produced by Gainax, The Wings of Honneamise could be considered an animation manifesto. The design and style of the backgrounds, the varied tone, and the historical and political implications of the plot were hugely influential on later anime. The realism of the visual description is accompanied at times by surreal touches and a general atmosphere of decadence. The past, as imagined by director Yamaga Hiroyuki, has the features of a near future, a reality where cities have exploded into a jumble of streets and people, and religion coexists with the obsessive presence of the media.
Shirotsugu is a perfect representative of this schizophrenic reality: he is not only a young man inspired by a sincere spiritual quest, but also a weak man who drinks and chases women. In short, he is a son of the twentieth century, with all its paradoxes. Like its protagonist, Wings of Honneamise is an unbalanced yet original film, engaging and sincere. It is the result of an experiment led by Yamaga, and developed by a pool of leading artists, most notably Anno Hideaki as animator, Sadamoto Yoshiyuki as character designer, Sakamoto Ryuichi as soundtrack writer and Itano Ichiro and Maeda Mahiro as animators.
C.C. [Carlo Chatrian]

pg 206;

In 1987, noted pianist Sakamoto Ryuichi, following a series of prestigious partnerships with artists and performers such as David Sylvian, David Byrne, Nam June Paik and Iggy Pop, wrote the original music for two films: Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor and The Wings of Honneamise by Yamaga Hiroyuki. For the first of these, he won an Academy Award, paving the way for mainstream recognition of his film music, while the second failed to live up to box-office expectations. The lack of popular response to the complex Wings of Honneamise perhaps goes some way towards explaining why it continues to remain the celebrated Japanese composer's sole contact with animation thus far; his refined and elusive scores are a poor match for the commercial soul of the animated film. Nonetheless, Sakamoto's syncretism and eclectic style have made him an enormously successful composer for film and the score he wrote for Honneamise (along with Nomi Yuji and Ueno Koji) is an excellent example of his work. Mixing very different sounds and melodies (accentuating Oriental tradition with electronic material), Sakamoto creates a sonic world that echoes the visual universe imagined by Yamaga: Oriental in character, but clearly influenced by the Soviet Union an the USA. If the film is conceived as a sort of farewell to the Cold War, the music underlines its melancholy tone and the existential despondency inherent in its leading character, the astronaut Shirotsugu.
Developing a limited number of melodic ideas and featuring several superbly-paced episodes, the music occasionally recalls Blade Runner (1982, dir. Ridley Scott), from which Sakamoto quoted passages. The soundtrack is a fascinating one-off experiment, a creative model in music, which ends up enriching and deepening every shot.
C.C. [Carlo Chatrian]

--Gwern (contribs) 19:49 23 December 2011 (GMT)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that years before their Neon Genesis Evangelion series became famous, Gainax’s very first anime, Royal Space Force, was marketed in Japan by staging a Hollywood premiere? Source: How much you’ll love Neon Genesis Evangelion is inversely proportionate to how much you love yourself. It’s an old online adage about a TV show whose six-month run in Japan in 1995 almost instantly elevated it to a cornerstone of pop culture there. What was described as the world premiere of the film (Matsushita 1987 pp. 31-32) occurred at an event held in the United States on February 19, 1987 at Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood... (Ogata 1987 p. 22) The screening, intended to help build publicity for the film's release to theaters in Japan the following month, was arranged for and covered by the Japanese news media. (Patten 1987 p.3) Footage from the Hollywood event was incorporated into a half-hour Sunday morning promotional special, Tobe! Oneamisu no Tsubasa —Harukanaru hoshi no monogatari— ("Fly! The Wings of Honnêamise—Story of a Distant Star") that aired March 8 on Nippon TV, six days before the film's release in Japan. (Matsushita 1987 p.32)

Improved to Good Article status by Iura Solntse (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Very impressive work with that article! I quickly fixed some MOS:LQ issues, and now the article should be good to go. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't see an inline cite for the location of the premiere (Hollywood). You have the Ogata source written in above, on this template, but in the article there's no inline cite for it taking place in Hollywood, nor for the theatre and date details. It's also unclear what this means: was marketed in Japan by staging a Hollywood premiere. Perhaps just was marketed in Japan by means of a Hollywood premiere? Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi! Yoninah, thank you for your review of this nomination. I looked at the phrase "What was described as the world premiere of the film occurred at an event held in the United States on February 19, 1987 at Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood" and noticed that citation 180 had been positioned right after "world premiere of the film." However this same citation (Matsushita 1987 pp. 31-32) also documents the information that this premiere was held at on February 19, 1987 at Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood so I went ahead and moved the position of citation 180 from its previous point to after "on February 19, 1987 at Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood.” I would be fine with your suggestion of changing "was marketed in Japan by staging a Hollywood premiere" to "was marketed in Japan by means of a Hollywood premiere" but to explain why I used the phrase, the reader will see cited in the article under the Marketing section that there were questionable aspects to this premiere, that it wasn't really the same version of the film that would later go into wide release in Japan but a renamed and to an important extent rewritten dub titled "Star Quest". That was why I used "staging" because it has the meanings of both putting on an event and doing it for the purpose of creating a certain impression (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staging). Thanks again!Iura Solntse (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for moving the cite. And thanks for the explanation. I guess it makes more sense based on what's written in the article. Restoring tick per IceWelder's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

With a readable prose size of ~23500, not counting 9,000+ words of notes, image captions, quotes, and tables, this article clearly violates criterion 3b) of the GACR. To remain a GA, this article needs to undergo a large amount of cleanup, with a particular emphasis on summary style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There has recently been concern expressed that the article in its current form is too long for readers, with the indication that its good article status will be placed at risk of revocation so I will work toward a plan of a.) editing the main Royal Space Force article so that sections are summarized to an acceptable overall length and b.) creating new articles on related topics based upon the previous versions of those sections. Iura Solntse (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at a comparison between the reviewed version and the current version, it seems like a huge amount of direct quotes have been added, particularly in the screenplay and themes sections (the latter completely new), quite possibly in violation of MOS:QUOTE ("Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement") and thus failing GA criterion 3b). I am additionally unsure why near-tripling the number of notes in the article was necessary—most seem to fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:TRIVIA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So would it make more sense to revert it back to the reviewed version when it became a Good Article? GamerPro64 03:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, but I believe the initial nominator has below started transferring information, so we'll wait until they're finished and assess then. 15:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have begun a process of reducing the reading length of the article through the creation of a new sub-article Academic analysis of themes in Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise and the corresponding condensing of that section in the main article with the addition of further subheadings for easier reading. I'll continue the process with other sections in the main article. Iura Solntse (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've created a second new sub-article Critical response to Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise while condensing and adding further subheadings for ease in reading to the corresponding section in the main article. I’ll continue the process with other sections of the main article. Iura Solntse (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK helper gives me 21112 words, 127400 characters at the moment. That's definitely an improvement but I'd say more trimming is needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of moving content to other articles (or 'sub-articles' as you've called them), I'd say it's a better idea to just trim down or delete parts of the article. It's important to remember that not everything belongs on Wikipedia and simply transferring content to another article just de-centralises content, making it harder for readers to follow, which seems contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Willbb234 14:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

See the editing guideline summary style, Willbb234. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that guideline just backs up my point. Only "major subtopics" should be split into other articles. We would need to assess if each subtopic that is split off is considered "major", otherwise it might not be appropriate to split off. See WP:NOPAGE - we need to use our "editorial judgement" here. Willbb234 09:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If you feel that other articles are non-notable, feel free to take them to WP:AFD, Willbb234. That is outside the purview of GAR, which only focuses on if the article accredited with GA status still meets it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created a third new sub-article Marketing and release of Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise while condensing and adding further subheadings for ease in reading to the corresponding section in the main article. I’ll continue the process with other sections of the main article. Iura Solntse (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created a fourth new sub-article Music of Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise while condensing and adding further subheadings for ease in reading to the corresponding section in the main article. I’ll continue the process with other sections of the main article. Iura Solntse (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble with the "condensing of the main article", Iura Solntse. I am seeing little-to-no improvement in the article actually under discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created a fifth new sub-article Voice acting in Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise while condensing and adding further subheadings for ease in reading to the corresponding section in the main article. I’ll continue the process with other sections of the main article. Iura Solntse (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you felt the need to add further subheadings, Iura Solntse, but the article now infringes upon MOS:OVERSECTION, so that's another thing to work on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they took the boilerplate advice please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings in the {{Very long}} template literally. Charcoal feather (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created a sixth new sub-article Cinematography of Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise while condensing the corresponding section in the main article. I’ll continue the process with other sections of the main article. Iura Solntse (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Charcoal feather, Trainsandotherthings, Willbb234, and GamerPro64: I'm considering delisting based on the lack of significant improvement and the inability of Iura Solntse to WP:ENGAGE meaningfully beyond copy-pastes. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would delist at this point, simply because the article is still just too damn long, especially the massive notes section. I think the sub-articles are unnecessary and the material in question just needs to be made more concise, but that's neither here nor there as far as GAR is concerned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There has been a 7250-word / 31% reduction in size since the start of this GAR (not counting notes), which I think is reasonable and steady progress. Communication was suboptimal, but they evidently did listen to the feedback (subheadings improved once that was pointed out), and they have now started to engage. I see no need to delist at this time. Charcoal feather (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Since I began the summarization process on July 17 I have reduced the length of the main article thus far by 125 KB. Regarding the notes I have thus far removed 63% of them from the main article. The summarization process is being done in reverse order (beginning with the last sub-sections of the main article and working backwards to the beginning) in order to reduce the likelihood of introducing errors into the citations and references so the changes to the article may not be readily apparent yet from its earlier sections. My goal is to reduce the main article size or at any rate its readable prose size to that it was when it first received the good article designation. As was pointed out the adding of subheadings was based on the suggestions of the "very long" tag that had been placed previously on the article however after these additions were criticized I did not employ subheadings on the most recent summarizations (the Cinematography and Animation sections). Iura Solntse (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now reduced the length of the main article by 140K since the summarization process began with the latest edit of the art direction section and removing some of the subheadings criticized earlier. I’ll continue to work backwards towards the beginning of the article with further summarizations of additional sections. Iura Solntse (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

After having summarized the design section the main article is now nearly 151K shorter since the beginning of the process on July 17. As mentioned earlier I'll continue to work backwards towards the beginning of the article with further summarizations of additional sections. Iura Solntse (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have thus far removed 157K of length since the summarization process began including 74% of the notes section. As mentioned earlier my objective is to reduce the article length to that it had when it was originally appointed good article status and with the latest edit to the screenplay section 67% of that objective has now been reached. I’ll continue to to work backwards towards the beginning of the article with further summarizations of additional sections. Iura Solntse (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have thus far removed 167K of length since the summarization process began including 78% of the notes section. As mentioned earlier my objective is to reduce the article length to that it had when it was originally appointed good article status and with the latest edit to the pilot film section 71% of that objective has now been reached. I’ll continue to to work backwards towards the beginning of the article with further summarizations of additional sections. Iura Solntse (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This GAR has been open for three months, and thus the due date is upon us. I still do not feel that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" (GA criterion 3b)). Pinging those involved in this discussion: @Iura Solntse, GamerPro64, Trainsandotherthings, Willbb234, and Charcoal feather: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well if you believe that its still not up to GA standards you can always just delist it. I honestly don't know what else there is to do besides someone willing to comb through the entire article. GamerPro64 04:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot delist if that is not the consensus, GamerPro64. On that note, do you believe this article meets the Good Article criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The article has improved considerably during this GAR process and is still being trimmed. It's still not perfect, but I do believe it complies (perhaps barely) with GA criterion 3b. I also disagree that we have a due date. Per GAR instructions: reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.