Talk:5 Centimeters per Second

Infobox

This article needs an animanga infobox. I remove WP Films infobox request. Hoverfish Talk 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

False character summary?

It says here She has been in love with Takaki since she began attending his junior high school, but cannot express her feelings to him. This is false, since Takaki himself transferred into the class and she did not. Anybody could comment on this? - pmc (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

name of the movie/article?

what should I name this movie now? Byōsoku 5 Centimetre (the current title on wikipedia, but is it Centimetre or Centimeter?)

Byousoku 5 Senchimeetoru (Transliteration title from Japanese title)

Byōsoku 5 Senchimētoru (another transliteration) Mgz 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want the transliterated title, then Byōsoku 5 Senchimētoru is the correct one. You can use Centimetre or Centimeter at will until there's an official translation, but use either Br.Eng. or Am.Eng. for the entire article. (WP:MOS) --129.241.127.227 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the transliterated "centimeter" in any part of the article other than after the Japanese pronunciation. I'm fine with the British or American spelling, but not the transliteration. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

>.< . help a wiki-newbie

I filled some info about language, country, distributor in the Infobox, but I have no idea why it didn't show up >.< . What did I do wrong >< --Mgz 02:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, don't sweat it. The reason is because that's a specific template called Template:Infobox animanga. It can't take parameters that aren't in the predesigned template. Maybe you could propose additions on the talk page for the template? Leebo⁸⁶ 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More Detailed Plot Summary?

I just saw the movie and I've noticed that the plot summary is very basic. Would it be necessary if I tried to write out a more detailed version or will the current version suffice? Chronicles1289 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do so, it would help out people who do not want to be disappointed at the end... Chimasternmay (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the current plot summary contains much too much conjecture. A lot of it is presented as fact, while most of the movie is supposed to be open to interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.1.148 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure its a TOWER in 2nd arc?

Is this a reference to the sliver of darkness seen against the rising sun under the orbit(ing/ed) planet? I could have sworn, especially from another part of the same arc, that was a planetary ring seen edge on... you can see it in the shadows left on the surface of that imaginary planet.

That's what I got out of it, anyways... if that's not the tower, where do I look for it? jeturcotte (talk) ~ 15 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Who interpret all the things in the movie??

Hey, i just read the article and notice that during the plot explanation, especially in Chapter 3 (Byousoku 5 Cm), during the part where Takaki and (presumably) Akari crossed each other on the road, there's an extensive interpretation on the scene.... Explaining the meaning of their encounter and what their action and symbols means... Now i don't mind if this is taken from Shinkai Makoto's explanation, what he think, and the meaning of the scene he himself created. But if the it is made by the interpretation of this article's writer.. i think it needs to be edited, because opinion should not be written in a Wikipedia article... Especially in movies like Byousoku 5 Cm, a movie full of symbols and hidden meaning that each person could interpret it differently.. Lolipedofin (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bandai Distribution

There's a conflict in the Bandai Distribution.

Bandai Entertainment picked up the North American rights to the film

The article The Fanboy Review is dated 2009/1/10. However this press release put out by Anime News Network on 1-12-09 disputes this source. --ShortShadow (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Review(s)

• Mania.com UK DVD review

--KrebMarkt (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Last part of Chapter 3

I notice the article says something about "possible futures" where Akari and Takaki end up together and I'm pretty sure there's no evidence supporting this. I'm not sure what part of the montage is supposed to show that, but if it's where Akari and another man meet up at Christmas, I'm pretty sure that's someone else NOT Takaki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepingEntity (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interview

From http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2011-08-16/interview-makoto-shinkai

Your films have highlighted commitment as a virtue in the face of separation, but have also drawn a line between commitment and obsession. Is this something you want your audience to take to heart?
S: I think it depends on the time that the work was made. When I made 5 Centimeters Per Second I was thinking what you said...but in Hoshi o Ou Kodomo I made a character named Morisaki who is obsessed, but even then I don't deny his existence. He continues thinking strongly and gets the power to keep on living. It's possible to make obsession a source of living will. This change in my thinking is reflected in my works. Maybe it will keep on changing as time goes by.
In stark contrast to what many other anime directors have said, your answers this morning show that you've put significant thought into reaching international audiences. You're also much younger than many anime directors; do you think these two facts are related?

MS: To be honest with you, I made my current work for younger audiences and I wish for it to be watched all over the world...but I never truly thought about it. While making Hoshi o Ou Kodomo, I wanted to make it different from my other works. My older works required people to know certain details about Japanese culture in order to enjoy them, but I wanted to make [Hoshi o Ou Kodomo] different from 5 Centimeters Per Second so that people who don't know about Japan could also enjoy it. It's true that I wanted younger audiences to watch it and if they do so abroad that would make me very happy. But when I was in the process of making it I never really thought that I was making it for the world market, I just wanted to make something different.

--Gwern (contribs) 03:21 17 August 2011 (GMT)

Sources

I'll be posting sources here for an eventual re-write.

• "5 Centimeters Per Second" | A shimmering, delicate look at love —Jeff Shannon, The Seattle Times

– Maky ^« talk » 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photograph

How is a photograph of Iwafune Station relevant in discussing the first act of this animated film? There is no mention of the importance (and before my recent edits, no mention whatsoever) of the particular station to the events of this movie. There’s no mention of whether the actual physical location has any relevance to the plot or production of this movie. All there was was a claim that a poster depicted the station, and trivia about movie posters belongs in a marketing or production section rather than a plot summary. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This goes for the photograph in the Act 2 section, too. A photograph of a real-world location really has nothing to do with any movie’s plot. It would be better to use a still from the movie itself, and even then it’s debatable whether it would be warranted. Please review WP:IUP#Adding images to articles and confirm that these uses are in line with our policy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no problems with the usage of the images in the article. It ties events in the film to real places, which can help a person understand the film more by grounding it to real life. As for using a still from the film, that would violate the fair use policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the caption on the first image. I agree with Nihonjoe: the image helps tie the fiction to the real world. As for its placement, you're right that it might be more appropriate in a Production section where they talk about how they scouted locations or something, but I also feel it can work fine next to a description of the plot since the locations are part of the plot as well. The reason we can use actual images so liberally and not stills is that using copyrighted images for decoration only does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for fair use (which are much stricter than what is commonly known as fair use). I feel after your edit, both images in the plot section clearly tie themselves to the plot and thus meeting WP:IUP: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." However if you still have issue with any of the points we can try to address them. Opencooper (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if the locations are truly important to understanding the plot, the article should discuss the locations beyond a passing mention, no? If we can’t do that much, then maybe it’s actually not that vital here. I mean, Nakatane isn’t even mentioned once outside of the caption. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I still have concerns. The article does not discuss what is depicted, and there’s still no indication of the importance of the locations to an understanding of the plot. In contrast, the photos in Spirited Away#Development for instance directly relate to the article: it mentions a source of inspiration (with citation), and there’s a picture of it. Here, it feels like they’re just thrown in as trivia with no context, and it’s jarring. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to revert your change because current consensus was against the change (Nihonjoe and me against the change, versus you for it). If discussion stalls, the proper thing to do is ping the involved editors, which you did, so that's completely my fault—or to solicit input from more editors (see: WP:DR). I've notified WIkiProject Anime and manga. Your removal of the images is also confusing when you said that your issue is that the article itself doesn't discuss the depiction, even though the captions were now fine; so what you should have done instead is addressed that. I'm also typing a response for real now, I do get sidetracked or miss things on my watchlist, so sorry about that. Opencooper (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven’t seen the anime, so I don’t know what special significance the locations have to the plot, or how a description would add to the article. So I’m not sure how you would suggest I address it (and in my eyes, I did, by removing them). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

About the relevance of the images: they're used to show the real-world locations of the settings; just like in the Spirited Away article which talks about how the locations were inspirations for Miyazaki's designs. The plot takes place in these locations so real-world images of them are quite relevant in tying the article on fiction to a real-world context. I also don't feel the article needs to discuss images at all. For example, articles almost never talk about a book's cover, or about the portrait of a biographical person. These images have their own uses which do not necessarily have to be justified in the prose like a textbook does. That's why they're to the side and have their own captions and can even be cited. Of course, ideally the text would clearly explain how each image is relevant and you're more than welcome to find the sources to tie those together and explain that in the text. (though if the plot itself mentions the locations, it doesn't need to be cited) Opencooper (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You’re drawing a false analogy. When we show a book’s cover, we’re discussing the book. When we show a portrait, we’re discussing the person depicted. But here, when we show these locations, we’re discussing a story that could have taken place anywhere but just so happened to be in fictionalized versions of these locations. Is there some special significance to having the story set in these particular places that makes them more than incidental? I sincerely doubt that they’re here because the reader wouldn’t understand the plot without knowing what a train station looks like. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It didn't just happen, the creators specifically chose the locations, which makes them more than incidental. The article also does discuss the locations: "Takaki departs from Iwafune Station" and "Takaki is now in the third year of senior high in Tanegashima". Anyway, like KnowledgeKid87, I don't think its a big deal, I like decorative images, but since AngusWOOF agrees with you and you seem to want images with a higher threshold of relevancy (which we likely don't have), I won't object if you remove them. (though I can't guarantee someone else won't) Opencooper (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out what images from the film would be iconic as with Friends / Central Perk, or Seinfeld / Tom's Restaurant, or even the Forrest Gump bench. If the particular school or train station has some significance, like it's the creator's school or most frequented train station, then beef up that section, but otherwise it could be any ol' Japanese high school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Opencooper: If it’s true that the locations were specifically chosen for some purpose, then great—find a source, and we can include images of the locations in a discussion of that. And no, a passing mention is not a discussion.The Plot section does not and should not discuss the locations, unless the locations have some greater relevance to the plot than a place where stuff happens, which does not appear to be the case here (aside from relative distance). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a huge deal, we could use an image still from the movie but that isn't of free usage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The photos are incidental. Iwafune Station is not a critical stop. It isn't the train crossing at the climax of the episode where they part from each other, nor the inspiration setting for the entire series or episode as with Higurashi When They Cry / Hinamizawa or Locodol / Nagarekawa, or the house in From Up On Poppy Hill. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Example of train crossing picture from The Artifice review: [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Image in question is near the end. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Locations

While we’re on the subject of the relevance of locations… should there be some more context to them in the discussion of plot? As written, it feels like it’s assuming the reader is familiar with at least the geography of the region. Like, Akari moves to Tochigi—what does that mean for someone who’s never heard of it? Or am I worrying too much? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I’ve made some edits along these lines: for instance, Akari moves from Tokyo to the nearby prefecture of Tochigi. I hope it’s helpful and nonintrusive. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 5 Centimeters Per Second. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936424.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Numeral romanization

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles § RfC: Romanization of numerals in Japanese articles

I’d like to comment further on my recent edit reverting User:Sjones23. I can find nothing in either MOS:JAPAN or Hepburn romanization about converting Arabic numerals into romaji. It’s a numeral, not go (五). A “5” in Japanese is a “5” in English, written the same way and often using the same characters. Even if we had used a full-width “５” (we didn’t), a numeral is a numeral. If this is a thing we’re doing, we should probably update the MOS guidance before anything else. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if a numeral is a numeral, we still would have to write what five actually means in Japanese since non-Japanese speakers would need to know what 5 is. I'm going to ask User:AngusWOOF or User:Nihonjoe, who are uninvolved, on this matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Numbers mean the same thing in any language: a number. If you see “5” in a Japanese sign, it’s not telling you to “go” anywhere. The movie’s title uses 5 (5, 5), not five (五, go). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In almost all Japanese-related articles (like video games, anime and manga), we usually put all numerals or lettering in romaji. For example on how a numeral is spelled out in romaji, take a look at the intro to Final Fantasy XIII (a video game FA). Is the XIII in the title romanized in Japanese as just "XIII"? Wrong, it is romanized as "Sātīn". Other episode lists also romanize the numbers, whether they are written in kanji, arabic or roman numerals. Also, the Japanese Wikipedia article's hiragana clearly writes it out as "びょうそくごセンチメートル" (or "Byōsoku Go Senchimētoru"), so even if the numeral is not written in kanji, the romaji stays the same regardless ("five" or "5" has and will always be rendered as "go"). As such, I believe we should spell out the Japanese numerals since non-Japanese speakers would understand what five means. I've already asked AngusWOOF for his thoughts on this matter. I've also notified WT:ANIME on the matter as well for further input. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

First, that’s a Roman numeral, not an Arabic numeral. Second, that title is in English, and the romanization is English in the Japanese syllabary. So no, that does not show a trend. I also don’t believe there is ever any confusion over what 5 “means.”
As for the Japanese wiki, they have their customs, and we have ours. I would assume they use hiragana to show pronunciation, like furigana (which is less technically possible). But I suggest posting to WT:MOS-JA rather than consulting individual editors on a single title, since this would be a question of project-wide formatting. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your points, I think that there may be a bit of a concern for non-Japanese speakers who is unfamiliar with the language and wants to learn what "5" means. Anyway, I've just asked for more people to discuss this by posting messages on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga because I feel that it should have more than us two talking about it, particularly for such a popular anime film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What else could “5” mean other than the number? I’m confused by your concern for confusion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is clear-cut. The purpose of giving a romanisation is to explain how to read the Japanese, so whether a mark is a kanji, kana, numeral (of any variety), punctuation, or whatever, the romanisation shows how it is read. Being able to understand the mark already has nothing to do with it: someone who happens to read Chinese will already know everything except the "centimetre" bit, but the purpose is not to explain what anything means, but how it sounds. There are a number of comments above that make no sense at all, because of this sort of confusion: no-one "wants to learn what '5' means", they want to know how to read the title in Japanese. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Then might I suggest editing MOS:JAPAN to encourage the romanization of numerals? It currently doesn’t. I haven’t checked if it’s been attempted in the past. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Imaginatorium that in this case it is clear-cut. The italicized romaji is there as a guide on how to pronounce the name for a person unfamiliar with the topic (in this case that includes me, because I have never heard of the film). In a similar fashion, the Japanese Wiki article has a corresponding bracket in the first line of the article. It has the 5 written as ご and serves the same purpose of telling a Japanese person unfamiliar with the topic how to pronounce the title. Repeating the numeral provides no benefit to the reader. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: I disagree regarding benefit to the reader. With the numeral, it’s clear that the romaji “Byōsoku” corresponds to the kanji “秒速,” and likewise “Senchimētoru” to “センチメートル.” I argue that being able to easily match up words and symbols is a benefit, which would be lost if the reader also had to puzzle out which character went with “go.” But I seem to be in a minority of one, both here and in the MOS discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am curious what you think that line is for. For me, and I am sure most people, the purpose of it is to be able to hold a conversation with someone in Japanese and say "I am familiar with Go Senchimeteru" (or whatever it's full name is in Japabese) because I read about it on Wikipedia." Without knowing how to pronounce 5 in the context of the title, do you expect me to hold up five fingers as a substitute symbol that is also easily recognisable as meaning "5"? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I just restored the Hepburn for ご, which is 'go', but I capitalised it to agree with the rest. I think there is clear consensus for this -- I can of course see 67's point that in certain circumstances all sorts of anomalies might give all sorts of clues to this or that, but this is not an argument for not giving the reading in Hepburn in the advertised place. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I’ve just edited MOS:JAPAN to resolve my original complaint with this edit. That page now advises doing this. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

Is that section really so important to the subject of this article? I could see it where Chinese copying is the subject, but here it is a useless piece of trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it certainly isn't a major enough part of the film to get its own section, especially since a subsection titled "Controversy" implies that it is regarding the film itself. It would be more appropriate for an article on Chinese copying/animation or on the film itself. (Which won an award supposedly) Opencooper (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Japanese culture

"As a result, they form a strong bond; they speak to each other using their given names without any form of honorifics, which is a sign of deep friendship and familiarity in Japan." This is a bit of a stretch. I've been living Japan for about 3 years now and speak the language. For young people at the same age first name is natural for anyone you've met more than a handful of times. It's not a sign of DEEP friendship at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.12.102.71 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Title meaning

Someone please add a section explaining the meaning of the title. "5 Centimeters per Second" isn't something you usually hear, in English or Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra.JP (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about the other parts

I read this ((((The film consists of three segments: "Cherry Blossom", "Cosmonaut", and "5 Centimeters per Second")))))

but there is no explanation for what year Cherry Blossom and Cosmonaut were produced? Mohmad Abdul sahib☆(message☎me!) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)