Talk:Angel's Egg

Symbolism

There are no official interpretations of the symbolism, yet i feel it needs be represented somehow in the wiki article, since it is such a crucial aspect of the film. In such, i have provided an off-site interpretation, referenced in the symbolism section of the article. Feel free to add references to other off-site interpretations In the same section. peace and grace Saderlius (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

I have to say I'm embarassed by some of the grammar mistakes I made in writing some of this stuff, I'd just like people to know that I actually do know how to use apostrophes! =P HeartOfGold 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Class

I changed the Class from stub to start, since there is clearly more content than a stub article would have. Ninja neko 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this article be named In the Aftermath?

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Article_names_and_disambiguation

"Use the official English titles for article names..."

Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No. actually "In the Aftermath" is not the same movie as "Angel's egg". That movie you refer to is an australian live-action movie which, for some reason, uses scenes of "Angel's egg" in between the live-action sequences, but it doesn't have the same story and i'm not really sure it was aproved by "Angel's egg" author.

I just came here exactly for that, to ask someone to add the information about "In the Aftermath" to the article(I also have heard the title: "In the Aftermath: Angels never sleep" to describe it), i'm not sure in which part of the article it could go. Here it is the IMDb profile of the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206827/ and the movie itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOHelXT3Q1s 201.127.67.166 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

This section appears to consist only of original research; blanking it. If there's evidence of a dedicated fan base (cosplay pictures, fansites, something), give a link. Same for the Wall-E similarities, as they sound pretty insignificant. --49.134.82.26 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mako Hyodo

Saying that Mako Hyodo would go on to have a supporting role in Sky Crawlers is just weird when Mako Hyodo has been in numerous Oshii movies as a key or central figure. I don't know what you should cite to get this across but it should not be left as it is now because it reads as if that's the only other connection between her and Oshii. 2601:603:4800:5D50:6427:9CBF:479B:6DB1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot section is subjective and inappropriate

The "plot" section includes massive amounts of subjective interpretations by whoever wrote it with no sources, some of which contradict established sources like referring to the fossil of an angel, which Oshii and other people have talked about in many interviews, as "skeleton of a giant, angelic bird". I think the entire plot section should be truncated down to the bare minimum, if not completely removed. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the plot section.

I am not opposed to the inclusion of a plot section, but the existing one was too problematic to be salvaged and leaving it as it was felt inappropriate. If a plot section is to be included, I think it should only include objective facts and the actual plot of the story. The previous version was basically nothing but subjective descriptions and interpretations, some of which were misleading or plain wrong.

If re-adding a plot section, please do not restore the previous version or base it off it. It should be written from scratch. The article itself mentions how the film is "strongly allegorical which has led to many viewers confused by the film's supposed meaning" and "difficult to understand, with visuals and narrative that is both cryptic, convoluted, and allegorical" so it seems plain absurd that one person's (objectively wrong) subjective description was being pushed as an impartial description. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Another user re-added the plot section which was mostly the same so I removed it again. It still includes the exact same example I highlighted as a factually wrong subjective interpretation "skeleton of a giant, angelic bird" as well as other problematic subjective interpretations. Please stop adding this. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a shorter "Synopsis" section. Does this have any factual issues? I'd rather that we still give readers a sense of what happens in the film, even at a high level, rather than having nothing at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if I can access the book The Cinema of Mamoru Oshii: Fantasy, Technology and Politics through WP:LIBRARY since there is a chapter about Angel's Egg. Perhaps there is something at the beginning of it that we can quote or paraphrase for a Plot/Synopsis section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Alternately, this has a passage of 139 words, starting with "The plot follows," that could be quoted or paraphrased. Thoughts? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I made a few edits and think the synopsis section suffices now. If one is familiar with Oshii's work, the most important parts are the story of Noah's ark and the bird "not existing" and the angel fossil, as these are recurring themes originally derived from Oshii's cancelled Lupin film that he reuses in many works, so I re-added those. Regarding references to the fishes and fishermen hunting them, that sequence is open to interpretation, and over the years there has been much speculation that the fish are the ichthys symbol and thus allegorical, which tied in to further speculation regarding the angel fossil in recent years due to Lupin part 6, so I believe making fact-like statements regarding that sequence should be avoided. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. The more up for interpretation a film is, the more high-level the plot or synopsis should be. Still have any interest in using the 139-word passage or however the book The Cinema of Mamoru Oshii describes the film? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The 139 word passage seems subjective itself so I do not think it is necessary. I personally think the synopsis suffices as it is currently. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Not related to the plot section, but please try to add citations with the corresponding parameters using citation templates. Xexerss (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt just cite sources. With the new re-release of the film coming up, more sources will discuss it. The Japan Society released a press release, which gives a short overview of the film. Every source will at least give a short overview of the plot, but I've as of yet seen a source discussing the ending of the film or any reference to Noah's Ark. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Who is Brian Ruh? Is this book an appropriate source?

While editing the article I have come across many references to a book by Brian Ruh but some of the statements like the line about the film being a "collaboration" with Amano are factually suspect. Aside from that most of the references to this book are subjective statements supposedly quoting this person as a critic, but rather than presenting these quotes as examples of reception of the film, I feel like the article as it is now is presenting this person's opinions as fact (for example, the line "it is considered "one of the highlights of 'artistic' anime and [his] career as a director" does not even bother saying that this is one person's opinion, and also seems to violate WP:POV). Aside from the citations themselves being problematic, I must admit that I have never heard of this person. Searching their name did not turn up any results, they are not listed on Wikipedia, and when I checked book listings I could not find any other books written by them. I am removing some of the POV lines and replacing sources for factual statements with better ones where possible. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

An author does not have to be notable to be reliable, and the publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, is 100% reliable. Looking up the author, this says, "BRIAN RUH received his PhD in communication and culture from Indiana University. He writes about Japanese film and animation and is the author of Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii." So per WP:RS, the creator and the publisher are reliable, and I see no grounds to question the work and any contributions here related to the work. If appropriate, WP:INTEXT attribution can be used to indicate who said what, per MOS:PEACOCK. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS also lists WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:CONTEXTFACTS. Palgrave Macmillan does seem to be a reknowned and reputable publisher, but why would a British publisher have anyone even capable of fact checking a book about this topic? To quote "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" - This is clearly referring to journals fact checking their articles but to apply it to this case, I do not see films of Oshii being among the principal topics of this publisher. I would also like to hear more reasoning on this person himself being a reliable creator, as the statement you provided did not say anything other than "he has a PhD in an unrelated field" and what boils down to "he wrote this book" the latter of which is cyclical in nature: I am questioning if the book is a reliable source, and you are a stating that the book is a reliable source because the author wrote this book. Between this and the listing linked to being for Mechademia which is about Japanese culture and content yet written and peer-reviewed almost exclusively by western academics, please consider WP:BIAS. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not sure about the blanket statements about "critics" that only list opinions from western critics, and am rewording parts of the reception section as a result. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added a Japanese perspective with sources to the reception section as it had a highly skewed western bias before, presenting the opinions of western critics as an overall all-encompassing consensus when the film has been critically acclaimed in Japan both in the past and in later years.27.84.15.217 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Having Japanese reception is great, but the new reception section reads like WP:PROSELINE (critic X said this. critic Y said this ...) and needs some work. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other English sources seem suspect as well now that I am inspecting them. The Richard Susenski/Senses of Cinema source has highly questionable statements like calling Angel's Egg a "classic Grail quest motif" saying it "remains obscure even in Japan" at the time when that was not the case, and that Oshii "lost his faith in Christianity" is pure nonsense that the article itself already points out is a misconception, that the article claims is "well-documented". This does not feel like an appropriate source at all. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Senses of Cinema appears to be a reliable source. This is Richard Suchenski, and the background appears reliable as well. Please remember that as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources. Pinging Xexerss for a third opinion and will notify WT:ANIME as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if the reliability of the site has been discussed at WP:FILM/R before, but it seems fine to me and I also think that Richard Suchenski seems to be well versed in his field. Xexerss (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Suchenski's claim makes him unreliable per Wikipedia's standards, but more that he made a claim that is simply demonstrably false. It's a mistake that has led to a lot of misinformation in conversation about the film, but if I recall it was a mistake involving a mistranslation of something Oshii himself said (take that with a grain of salt). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The three claims I listed are all demonstrably false. Angel's Egg is not a "grail quest" narrative about obtaining something, I cannot even imagine how one could come up with such a statement. It was not obscure here in Japan and especially not obscure in 2004 when the article was written, the same year Oshii's Innocence was released and there was much talk about his films, 3 years after the big DVD release in 2001. In fact there was so much demand for the DVD it was reprinted shortly after this. And yes, Oshii was never Christian.

The article is riddled with factual mistakes and ignorant statements like "the number of non-pornographic animated films aimed primarily at critically thinking adults is extremely small" where just looking at 2004, when this article was written, one can see titles like Appleseed and Steamboy, The place promised in our early days, not to mention Oshii's Innocence.

I did not remove this source and have no intention of doing so, but I hope there can be more discussion about what counts as a reliable source, because this source seems to be of very low quality. I feel that many editors tend to look at some sort of checklist and say things like "this western publisher is considered reputable (because it has published many reliable books on western topics), therefore it is a reliable source (even for niche Japanese topics)".

I am not familiar with the site or the writer and cannot speak for their overall reliability, but the article being used as a source is of demonstrably low quality being filled with factual errors as I have listed above. The rest of the article is mostly subjective statements, but if one considers how this person's opinions are based on such factual mistakes, it seems prudent that the reliability of these should be regarded as questionable as well. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I reviewed what Ruh-related content has been removed since the editor got involved. This was the old version, and it appears that the below Ruh-cited passage got removed from "Reception":

• "Angel's Egg did not do well with critics on its release, and Oshii stated that "it kept him from getting work for years".^[11] However, it is considered "one of the highlights of 'artistic' anime and [his] career as a director.^[8]"

Charcoal feather, Xexerss, Sarcataclysmal, is this removal appropriate? The diff is here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

So I checked the book, and the source is a Sep 1997 article by Animation World Magazine so I just cited it directly. The material from Roh's book lines up with information from other sources as well, plus the citations he uses are mostly print magazines from the 90's.

Some of the arguments the IP editor makes above are quite specious - the DVD was sold out ergo the film was not obscure. We have a press release by the Japan Society which literally calls it "a rarely screened and hard-to-find cult classic". The IP editor also seemed to take umbrage with calling it a "collaboration" when the Japan society calls it "A groundbreaking collaboration between two anime legends". With the 4K re-release and potential screenings, we can expect to see more organizations discussing the film. The IP editor also added some clear WP:SYNTH by calling it something a "misconception" while the original Animerica article makes no reference to misconceptions, merely interviews Oshii about various issues, including his views on religion. The film absolutely has biblical allusions as sources attest to. So some of this material needs to be re-written. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Double checking. In Japan edge : the insider's guide to Japanese pop subculture on page 39 it says: "Angel's Egg suggests the death of director Mamoru Oshi's youthful faith in Christianity.". The book was written by Carl Gustov Horn, who conducted the interview with Oshii for Animerica. So this is the opinion of the writer and editor, and seems to have been quoted as fact elsewhere. Oshii hints he may have been a Christian, but never directly says he ever was, so he is a little vague on this. We should stick to the sources and be more precise. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Focus shift: Dani Cavallaro

The article previously cited a book on Oshii by Dani Carallaro and having read it, I noticed major issues, and questioned whether it was a reliable source. Checking online, i could confirm no details on her, and only found articles asking the same questions and raising very serious doubts about the quality of her scholarsip. Worst, the sources she uses are largely blog posts, which makes her book a form of laundering of unreliable sources. In contrast, Brian Ruh's book seemed a lot better. I can confirm he's a real person and the sources he cites are largely print magazines. As such, I removed Carallaro's work entirely and kept Ruh's book.

Who is Brian Ruh? These are two newspaper covered the release of his book:

• Ghost Tracker Part 1, Part 2 - The Reporter-Times. Sun, Oct 03, 2004
• Animated About Anime Part 1, Part 2 - The Star Press. Mon, Jan 10, 2005

Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite the articles about the quality of her scholarship? Her book was published by McFarland & Company. Is there a question of whether or not McFarland engaged in editorial oversight per WP:QUESTIONABLE? It looks like she has also been published by Bloomsbury Publishing. Looking at Google Books as seen here, Cavallaro has been named multiple times. Looking at Google Scholar here, their books have been cited many times. "Confirm[ing] no details about her" and if she is a "real" person seems like a spurious suspicion. Is this something we need to work out on WP:RSN? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I was actually excited to read her work because I had an interest in the subject matter, but upon reading it I was shocked to realize how bad it is. She mostly cites self-published online blog sources which alone is enough to disqualify her. No one can confirm even the most basic of biographical details about her, or any supposed qualitifactions. See here or here for more. Contrast that with Brian Roh above, who has had coverage in print sources, full biographies explaining his academic career, and his book mostly cites print magazine sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That looks like a blog? I see Journal of Anime and Manga Studies under ISSN 2689-2596, but that appears different from this website. I'm not sure about using a blog (even by an expert) to upend Cavallaro as a reliable source in totality. I feel like a WP:RSN consensus is needed, and without that, I am not sure if it is proper to cast Cavallaro as dubious to cite here. Pinging Xexerss for their thoughts since they seem to continue editing this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I kind of lost the thread of the whole discussion, but as for Cavallaro, taking a quick look, I am more inclined to think that she is not a reliable writer. Xexerss (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think Carallaro is not a reliable source. Charcoal feather (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)