Talk:Viz Media/Archive 1

Archive 1

Viz Anime

How come this article doesn't say anything about the anime Viz has? Like Naruto & Bleach. The criticsm in the article should be made to include the criticism of Viz's anime. I would say that the criticism would be that Viz has been changing a lot of openings and closings into their own crappy ones (Rise, anyone?). I guess it's good that "Haruka Kanata" was used by Viz but still it's not in order and they skipped "ROCKS". (Wow I forgot to sign my post.) 333cool 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the cuts made to Naruto are somewhat void since they are exclusive only to the CN publication. They distributed Uncut boxsets with the anime in its original format.

In general, the criticism is mainly found in the editing practices of the manga titles they licensed. ~MegaZilla~

I see, thanks for the info MegaZilla. But what you said on your post, does that mean that CN should be getting all the blame because they edit the stuff? I don't see much criticism on them even for what they do to anime. BTW, is there enough sources to confirm that Naruto's "Believe It!" is a criticism for when it lasted? I know it's gone now, but I've seen protests againt "Believe It!" and it just makes me wonder. BTW I like how you sign your posts your own way and not use the four tides that everyone else does.333cool 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why's the title so big? 333cool 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right they do skip the openings, I wunna ban Jeremy Sweet. Jump Guru (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ani-Manga

So what the heck exactly is "Ani-Manga"? Shouldn't that be "Anime"?

Ani-Manga is a manga book series oriented towards younger readers. The difference is that instead of using the original manga, it pulls from the equivalent anime series. For example, while the InuYasha manga is the original Rumiko Takahashi work, the IY ani-manga is the script of the anime, written into prose form and changed slightly for younger viewers, set against scenes from the anime. It is believed that the color images and simpler language provides a gateway to "regular" manga. Oh, and Viz isn't the only company that does this: Tokyopop has a similar product, called "Cine-manga". Hope that answers your question.--Mitsukai 04:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Japanese publishers also publish these, especially with popular children's anime. In Japan, Ani-Manga/Cine-Manga are called "film comics" (フィルムコミック). Doinkies 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

partial Manga List section

Folks, we should be putting Viz' major titles here, not every single one. That's what the larger list is for. Hanakimi is not one of Viz' bigger titles, and should not have been placed there. Please ensure that we're putting only the major titles in this section.--Mitsukai 02:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bleach is licensed

Both Battle Angel Alita series are pretty big, IMHO. I'm putting them in the list. HertzaHaeon 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

We should add a criticism section for Viz Media, in part because Del Ray and Tokyopop also have critics and Viz has a lot of problems people tend to simply shrug off in private. Chiefly, my points are the localisation of early manga with heavy detracting art edits (Ranma 1/2), inconsistency of edits in modern Shounen titles, rephrasal of dialogue for younger audiences (as if manga were a kid's genre) and virtual monopoly of everything from the Shogakukan/Shueisha manga libraries without any competitive bidding. 169.237.214.137 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

this entire section is heavily author-interpreted and conclusion drawing. rather than just pointing out actual citable criticisms, most of the references cited are nothing but press releases and leaves whats in this article as opinion pieces. The content of this section has bias and NPO issues and needs to be looked at.RCHM 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

When you contact viz media how long does it take for them to give you a respond back?Shirleybiscuit

List of Anime and Manga

As per Mitsukai's comment above:

This list needs to be cut back to 'notable' or 'major' anime and manga, as it's getting out of hand. Instead of adding every title here, the articles should just be put in the proper categories, which will then replace this list.Ninja neko 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll go through the list and make sure that every existing article is in the Viz categories and then delete the list. --Squilibob 04:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job, those were a lot of articles to check, I appreciate it! Ninja neko 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NEWS

Look at all these shows! [1] --User:Mark Alvarez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.112.15 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you being paid to advertise them? You're citing a Viz press release quoted on the ANN website. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section dominating article

Currently the article body consists almost entirely of the "critcism" section, after a brief introduction. The rest is lists. There isn't even a history of the company—the intro says it was formed from the merger of Viz LLC and ShoPro, and is owned by Shogakukan and Shueisha, but where did Viz LLC (which redirects here) come from? Was it always a subsidiary of a Japanese parent company? All this article tells us is that some fans are unhappy with them for various reasons. — Gwalla | Talk 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes...it needs expansion. Unfortunately, a lot of the anime company articles tend to be neglected except for when people want to complain about the company. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally, there was a background profile of Viz Communications on Wikipedia; this was several years ago before the Criticism/Controversy section was so developed. Whether due to vandalism or a move error, all that information has been lost, and curiously all "history" of Viz Communications has been wiped from the current VIZ Media official website as well. I'm unsure why the history of the corporation is so murked, either by convention or coincidence, but outside of a few interviews with old company members it'll be impossible to write a verifiable summary. 169.237.123.208 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

VIZ vs Viz

I would appreciate if somebody explained to me why the article is called "Viz Media", but not "VIZ Media". Isn't "VIZ" the right title? I'm confused. --deerstop (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia Naming conventions and guidelines, we name companies as normal proper nouns and do not use their capitalization stuff. So VIZ is Viz Media (which is the actual legal name), TOKYOPOP is Tokyopop, and FUNimation Entertainment is Funimation Entertainment. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --deerstop (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And GONZO is Gonzo (studio) ... and endless others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about IKEA? --deerstop (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. Is it an acronym like B.A.T.M.A.N.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question...and I think Sesshomaru found the reason. It is indeed an acronym. And man does that article has some serious NPOV issues...ewww.... AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And what's the difference between IKEA and VIZ? :) --deerstop (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IKEA is an acronym - Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd. VIZ is not, its just a stylistic trademark way of writing the word Viz. By the guideline, acronyms can be kept all caps, but stylistic writings are ignored and put in proper casing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. AnmaFinotera, you hit the nail on the head. Which reminds me, I asked a request of you here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's clear now. =) Thanks again. --deerstop (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Borders

I think we should mention the relationship between Borders and VIZ Media, LLC. Jump Guru (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources on hand for it? AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can get a handfull of them if you look up Animerica. Jump Guru (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem addressed

To help deal with the POV issue from the criticism section, I've axed it and merged the content into the "history" section, mostly under the sub-header "publication style". I also rewrote it to be a bit less negative in tone and remove some OR. It probably still has a couple issues, but that's the best I could do without spending an afternoon reading market analysts. The new section should also be expandable with factual content about Viz's various manga imprints and whatnot, which would help the article immensely. --erachima talk 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Manga lines

I was just thinking about makiing a section for manga lines. There is several of them: Pocket Comics (obscure), Flower Comics (obscure), etc. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For Viz manga lines? It would be appropriate to cover that topic, at least briefly, but as usual, sources are needed :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

Are the ratings notable? I was going to make a section but I wanted to ask you first. Iit has a lot of reliable sources. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't. It isn't really important or relevant to Viz as a company, nor very unique to them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

New strategy for airing Naruto

I hear that Viz will be offering streaming viewing of Naruto for free a week after it airs in Japan. That's a pretty innovative strategy, and I am sure there are already enough refs for that to be mentioned and well-referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ShoPro HQ

Here is the contact info for ShoPro's HQ - http://web.archive.org/web/20030402033415/www.shopro-entertainment.com/contact.html - ShoPro was absorbed by VIZ media. This info may be pertinent. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo usage

Someone has been adding the Viz Video logo repeatedly. The user in question, HappyLogolover2011 (talk · contribs), has been adding this with a caption that says it came on Elmopalooza and Sesame Street videos from 1998-2001. I think it is unsourced and violates our crystal ball policy. Can someone look into this mess, please? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall VIZ having anything to do with Jim Henson or the Muppets. Also, according to Amazon it was Sony that distributed the VHS. I can confirm that it is an old logo of ViZ circa 1995 as they are on my two Ranma 1/2 tapes, the Jim Henson connection is dubious. —Farix (t | c) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It may also be possible that "Viz Video" and "Viz Media" are two unrelated entities. It seems pretty unlikely that the videos in question would be part of the subject of this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Neon Alley

Why does Neon Alley redirec here, when there isn't a single thing in the article that mentions anything about it?. While I understand that neon Alley is a Viz media service and us such should re-direct here (or have it's own article), is highly missleading hen there is nothing in the article that talks about it 205.241.56.114 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I really think we should reissue the article, mostly because the service has launched and has been pushed and promoted at various conventions and websites, with some notability. I feel that even a small section of it wouldn't really be enough to cover what is essentially a "tv channel", despite it's unique nature of being streamed. Checking the deletion log, there wasn't really much discussion on it to begin with, so hopefully we can have a discussion regarding whether or not it should be added again. Mendinso (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)