Jump to content

Talk:Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFinal Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 12, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
February 11, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Comments

[edit]

Article requirements:
Green tickY Start: reasonably complete infobox; lead section with overview of album; track listing; reference to at least primary personnel by name; Categorization by at least artist and year.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on article class. To request a reassessment from the Album project, when concerns are addressed, please see "requesting an assessment". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Found an academic paper on the film, by Jane Chi Hyun Park, Ph.D. candidate in the Radio-Television-Film program at UT Austin:

Abstract: "My paper provides a case study of the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (Hironobu Sakaguchi and Moto Sakakibara), which premiered in the US in June 2001. The biggest selling point of Final Fantasy was its revolutionary role as the first feature film with a human cast created entirely by digital technology. My paper considers how and why the film might have failed to perform as well as predicted at the box office by examining its convergent elements at the industrial, formal and cultural levels. More specifically I look at the transition of the film from videogame to film, its narrative and stylistic similarities to and differences from mainstream American films, and its representations of racial and sexual difference, particularly as embodied in its Amerasian white-coded female protagonist. How might the mistranslation or non-translation of these elements into the Hollywood model signify for the future of film and videogame convergence?" Link

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AniRaptor2001 (talk • contribs) 14:39, January 2, 2010

Box office Bomb

[edit]

Alright then, let's see about this. "Box-office bomb" is a well-used term, and this film certainly qualified; if it's a matter of finding enough sources that actually refer to it as one I'm sure that won't be an issue. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these are great sources to use, but there's at least consensus out there that the film did poorly. That statement should merit inclusion. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half of those are not RS, but yes, a source or multiple sources should be added that state that, because otherwise it seems like synth. Of course, this whole article really needs more expansion (which is one reason I grabbed some stuff from Aki's article, as it seemed to have at least gotten some attention with all that sourced stuff it had. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

[edit]

This article is flagged as having multiple issues. Maybe I'm just not looking at it properly, but I can't see any. Looks like a standard C class article to me.

  • 1) Where does anyone want additional sources? There are no specific citation requests, and I can't see a place where one is lacking.
  • 2) The plot is not much longer than the average film articles plot, but if your really annoyed by it I'm sure a sentence or two could be removed quite easily.
  • 3) Exactly what needs to be cleaned up and what exactly does anyone want added to the lead section?

I volunteer to do as much of the work myself as I can. I saw the tags and wanted to start on it straight away, I just can't find a place to start. Please specify what you want done or I will remove the tags. Freikorp (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "I will remove the tags" sounds combative and uncooperative. Articles are tagged for issues. Asking for details is fine, but making it sounds as if you will just remove the tags because you don't see the issues is not assuming good faith. Being a C class article does not mean it can't be improved, nor that it should not be tagged for remaining issues. The plot is 795 words long. This exceeds the length indicated in WP:MOSFILM, any really for a film of this length, it should be closer to the 500 range, not nearly 800. For clean up:
  • Cast list should not be in table format, and as it is just a list of actors and roles, it should be merged into plot
  • Several "raw" and incomplete citations are peppered throughout the article. All need to follow the same format, which for this film should be the use of {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc as it was the first valid citation style used. The dates also all should be properly formatted in a consistent fashion (America since its not a UK film).
The lead should summarize the entire article, which it currently does not. The citation tag can probably be removed at this point as almost all unsourced material has since been removed. As a whole, the article needs expansion (of course) and to be brought in line with WP:MOSFILM. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Wasn't trying to sound uncooperative. Now that I know what to do I will work on it as time permits. Freikorp (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Have a headache today so probably grumpier sounding that I intended :-) I keep meaning to work on this one as well (since I am apparently one of the few who loved the film LOL), but other projects keep interfering. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, after reading the article I got the impression myself and Roger Ebert were the only two people who really enjoyed it :). I merged the cast list into the plot, which I (barely) shortened to under 700 words, don't really have much experience writing plots so if you want it shortened further you'll probably have to do that, not really sure what to keep and what to get rid of. I've cleaned up the references as well, we'll see who gets a chance to work on the lead paragraph first :). Freikorp (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll try to give it a rewatch this weekend to clean up/trim the plot some more. I've written quite a few sections since I work mostly in film, anime/manga, and novel articles, but it usually takes me a good three passes to really get it tightened up from my initial plots. I'm working on pulling together a bunch of sources from magazines and newspapers from the time. I suspect most will still pan it, but at least we know better ;-) Also found a great one for production information on how they did "filmed" it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reference 15, this link http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=dept_main&dept=Technology, appear to go to a general page and not the one intended. Xtzou (Talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what happened there, in any case the sales figures for north america are backed up by the next reference. I'm removing the variety link and slightly rewording accordingly. Cheers for noticing that. Freikorp (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shimeru (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Most of the writing isn't too bad, but the article could use a copyedit. The Plot section gets a little overwrought at times (especially in the last paragraph), while the Reception section is a bit choppy.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Placing this on hold pending a copyedit. I think it's very close.

Shimeru (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any better after those edits? --Peppagetlk 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm passing it. Shimeru 20:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development information currently not in the article

[edit]

The following source should be translated and used to expand the current incomplete article:

  • [1] (from the Final Fantasy IX Settei Gashuu V-Jump Special Edition)

Doesn't seem that interesting except for the red box at the bottom right where Sakaguchi says something that probably has never been qutoed anywhere else. Anyone willing to help translate even one page is welcome! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the link. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientological themes

[edit]

I think it's noteworthy to mention that the story of the movie is almost a retelling of Hubbards OT3 material.

Movie plot: A war on an alien planet causes alien spirits to land on earth (against their will). They posesses humans and feed on them.

OT3: A war on alien planets causes that alien spirits come to earth (against their will). They possess humans, doing harm.

In both versions, the alien "ghosts" were forcefully "ghostified", and were beings of ordinary flesh before. In both versions the spirits/body thetans are doing harm not because of evil intent, but because they are "confused".

And in both versions the only way to get forever rid of them is by "cleaning" your own soul/thetan from these beings (by auditing/finding the right "spirits").

Is there a reliable source available? Is the OT3 material not supposedly secret? Of course, there may very well be a link between the two, but we'll need a source if we're to include it. Rodface (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reviewer who makes the same connection: "And the story is solid, though it does at times bear a frightening resemblance to the "Xenu" origin story told to higher-level Scientologists" http://www.lytrules.com/Reviews/FinalFantasy.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.154.103 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source fails RS. You are going to have to find another one from an established reliable source. Freikorp (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to game franchise

[edit]

I'm no expert on FF games but as far as I know there's little or no continuity between them. Given this, how is this film related to the games other than by its title? It's not obvious from the article.78.86.61.94 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall there was some disappointment amongst fans of the game that the film had almost no connection to the games. By all means if reliable sources are found backing up those claims we can add a paragraph on it to the 'Reception' section. Freikorp (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This movie never actually had any connection to the games. The title was the choice of someone on the American side of the movie production. I can't remember exactly where I heard this, but I think it was somewhere in the special features on the DVD. Maybe someone can verify this? IJB TA (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed on that I think. Start with the story, a group of people fighting monsters and bucking authority at the same time, a formula used in many of the games. Then there is a Dr. Cid as in many of the games. Plus Aki is practically a clone of Yuna in FFX. There is little continuity in the usual sense in the FF franchise, but there are similarities in themes and character types, just as Agatha Cristie novels have similar themes and character types.--RDBury (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there are some connections and we definitely need citations if we want to start talking about a lack of them. Freikorp (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anime

[edit]

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a 2001 Japanese-American animated film.

MXMfunny (talk) 08:59, 10 march 2014 (UTC)

Your first link is the Japanese Wiki, which we can't use as a source. The second lists the production company "Production: Square Pictures" under it's American Header, no Japanese company is associated with production. The MyAnimeList appears to be a user-submitted information site, so I don't think it passes WP:RS. Lastly, we don't use IMDb as a source for similar reasons listed at WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, animenewsnetwork, list Square Pictures as producerr in English companies, but does also list Animation:Square USA, Inc. as Japanese company
It doesn't really matter where animation is outsourced too. That information is confusing to me though, as Square USA's headquarters are in Los Angeles and Honolulu. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Ross

[edit]

I've redirected the article Aki Ross to this page. I've done this because 90% of the content there was simply copied and pasted from a much older version of this article, Aki only made the one appearance in film so it's unlikely her article would be expanded much further, and this film article falls well within the boundaries of when an article should be split as per Wikipedia:Splitting. Before redirecting the page, I salvaged the very small pieces of information that were unique to that article, including the Maxim photo. Freikorp (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive animated film at the time of its release?

[edit]

That would be a noteworthy thing to mention in the article if it's true. What I've gathered only Tarzan (130m) and Dinosaur (127.5m) came close to this film's budget. --Mika1h (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref idea

[edit]

czar ⨹ 00:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article in need of review

[edit]

I am considering nominating this article for featured article review because while there was a lot of good work put into this, I feel it has issues with comprehensiveness, writing and organization.

  • A lot of the prose in this article feels like its puking out details with no attempts to organize them in a proper way. The third paragraph of the Development section is the biggest example of this. "Reception of Aki Ross" and "Legacy and related media" sections are also good examples of this
  • Plot has some unexplained concepts that would confuse a casual reader. What are spirit signatures? What kind of person is Aki Ross, i.e. profession? How does Gray's former relationship with Aki impact the plot? Zeus is introduced as a cannon but is later stated to be the name of the space station, while continuing to use the term Zeus cannon; what? Also, the section's second paragraph has an overly-long sentence. See if you can spot it.
  • All of these issues have now been addressed, with the exception of Gray's former relationship with Aki. How does it impact the plot? Over the course of the film there's ongoing tension and chemistry between the two characters. If you feel the need to clarify this directly to the reader somehow, I'll let you try and do that. Also in the future please point issues out explicitly, rather than playing guessing games with us. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No cast section
  • Why is info about the animation in the development subsection instead of, you know, a subsection named animation?
  • The entire film is animated, so explicitly naming a section 'Animation' seems redundant. The development section is only three paragraphs, and I really don't think it benefits the reader at all to break the section up even further. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes and analysis (including that of the film's uncanny valley) is not something to include in a production section.
  • There's vast academic literature on this movie not represented
  • Development section doesn't have anything about how the film was conceived and greenlit, and the third paragraph goes all over the place and is unnavigable
  • "Director Sakaguchi named the main character after his mother, Aki, who died in an accident several years prior to the production of the film. Her death led Sakaguchi to reflect on what happened to the spirit after death, and these thoughts resurfaced while he was planning the film, eventually taking the form of the Gaia hypothesis.[20]" Why is this in the themes section? Why isn't this part of the section on how this film was conceived?
  • Box office section is lacking, with no projections, analysis about its performance and the context of the film industry at the time it was running, which we have with other articles about big films like Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II. The film's significance as a box office bomb is also discussed too little.
  • Paragraph about reviews of the album is a quotefarm.
  • Reception section only represents three reviews, when it is obvious by looking on the Rotten Tomatoes page it garnered more than 100. Vast parts of the critical reception are not represented.
  • There are subsections of single paragraphs that can easily be split or condensed. Unnavigable
  • Some accolades are unsourced
  • They are sourced, just not necessarily in the same section. The two awards that are sourced elsewhere are the 'World Soundtrack Awards', which is sourced in the the 'Music and soundtrack' section, and the 'Saturn Awards', which is sourced in the 'Home media' section. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee compared The Spirits Within, the first full-length photorealistic animated film, to Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the first full-length cel animated film." In what way? The fact that it was the first thing. Yeah, lots of things in history are the first of something. What makes this comparison so essential and necessary?

I will say all the sources are formatted well and (apart from ref 84) reliable and high-quality, but the issues above are too significant not to be solved. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: You don't seem to like finishing what you start do you? You've been pinged a couple times now to the discussion you started at Talk:Tank_Girl_(film)#Featured_article_in_need_of_review. It very much seems like as soon as someone points out your criticism is unfounded (a consensus was reached after your drive-by comments that one of your main points regarding that article apparently being "in need of review" (the Spice Girls reference) was completely baseless) that you just move on and find something new to criticise. My I ask, are you willing to join in with improving the article this time? Or are you just listing anything you see that might be wrong and expecting everyone else to spend time researching how valid your criticisms are? It took hours of research for me to figure out some of your criticism at Tank Girl were without merit. I'm hesitant to repeat that process if you're not going to bother replying regardless of how much work I put in.
If you'd like to improve Wikipedia I'd suggest familiarising yourself more with its guidelines, rather that starting discussions you refuse to finish. I stopped reading your criticisms of this article after the third bullet point, where you complain this article doesn't have a cast section. First of all, it's not a featured article criteria to have a cast list. Please read WP:FILMCAST. Second of all, if you had of bothered to read the FAC for this article before saying it needs a review, you would have noticed I was explicitly asked to remove the cast section from this article is order for it to be promoted to featured status in the first place. Quite frankly, your unwillingness to do your homework before starting conversations like this is concerning. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, um.... eh..... this is awkward. I didn't know other FA reviewers in this discussion didn't want the cast, and I do have a tendency to rush opinions without looking the closest into things, so my apologies about that ignorance. Also, please excuse the lack of reactions in the Tank Girl discussion. A lot of work got in the way and that discussion out of the back of my head, plus I didn't think Tank Girl was in the red zone in comparison to other old promoted FAs I've read, so I assumed those issues would be easily fixed. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: OK, I understand. Look I was triggered by your initial post for reasons I've already explained, but it definitely does come across that you're taking a shot-gun approach to these conversations, in the sense that you appear to be aiming in the general direction of your target and hoping you hit something that does genuinely need fixing. It's a bit frustrating to read as I presume the time spent needing to criticise is extremely minimal compared to the time spend needing to investigate criticisms. For example, I'm under the impression you saw the mention of the pop group in relation to the Tank Girl article in passing, whereas it took an evening of my time to figure out the allegation was dubious at best. It also comes across as a bit rich to be pointing out what's wrong in existing featured articles when you don't appear to have any featured article credits yourself. And I mean that not as an insult but more in the sense that you'd probably have a better understanding of the featured article criteria if you'd gone through the gauntlet yourself. I always find it a painfully stressful (though educating and eventually rewarding) experience. I don't know, I guess the argument could be made that finding flaws in existing articles can build skill before attempting one yourself, but to me the natural order of things would require building your own things up before you tear existing things down.
I'm not saying this article couldn't be better. Without even investigating your points above I already assume at least half of them are valid. I'm quite time-poor at the moment. I know this isn't your fault, but you essentially now giving me both the Chance and Community Chest cards for article repairs and renovations has not come at a good time. Despite how salty my comment above would have come across I wasn't being rhetorical when I asked if you'd be interested on improving things together. I'd be happy to split your criticisms in half and work on them in tandem. I'm genuinely reluctant to spend time investigating everything myself when I know from experience that your points might be wrong. Let me know where you want to go from here. If you don't have the time to work on this either I'm not going to be making addressing these concerns a priority. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize if the time is very tight, especially during a pandemic where many people still are unemployed or are incredibly under-paid even after a year later and have to accommodate with that. I only bring up the comments just to start discussion about issues I notice, not to put pressure on any one editor to do this or that in a deadline. That is not my intention. I would actually have the FAC notification gap with when you can nominate be three months, even if some prominent editors of a FA were inactive. If you have other things to care of, I absolutely would recommend taking breaks to do that and re-energize yourself. I myself am time-tight in places with the fact that I'm having to keep my myself and my family fed and active by working at my dad's small business and cleaning the house, so I relate. Actually, you are right I should be doing more doing instead of saying. That would help me a lot. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've started looking at your issues, and will continue to do so as time permits. I'll respond to them above under your bullet points to keep things simpler. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HumanxAnthro. I hope you've been well. If you think I've addressed enough of your concerns to warrant this article needing an FAR, can you mark it as satisfactory at UFA? To be fair, I haven't addressed three of your 14 original bullet points, though you never replied to the concerns I did address, some of which I do not think were valid criticisms in the first place. Anyway I'd be happy to work with you to help fix anything you still think is outstanding. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fantasy

[edit]

This page should say it's a Science Fantasy film. It has blatant elements of both Science Fiction and Fantasy. Some sources call it Fantasy and Some call it Science Fiction. Putting just Science Fiction is a major understatement.--Nosecone33 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, things need to be reliably sourced, no matter how strongly you feel about them. There are countless sources that describe it as a science fiction film. Finding a single source that mentions 'fantasy' in conjunction with other broad genres is not sufficient to change the genre to 'Science fantasy'. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official website lists the genre as science fiction: [2]
I've gone through every reference in the article, and the following sources describe it as science-fiction: Time (magazine) [3], American Film Institute [4], British Film Institute [5], Ming-Na Wen [6], CNBC [7], Common Sense Media [8], Rolling Stone [9], The Guardian [10], The Age [11], Canoe.com [12], Variety (magazine) [13], Triple J [14], The New York Times [15], AllMovie [16], Ars Technica [17]
The following sources describe is as science fiction AND fantasy AND multiple other genres: Roger Ebert [18], Metacritic [19], Rotten Tomatoes [20], IMDB [21], Anime News Network, [22], Box Office Mojo [23]
The following single source describes it as fantasy only: British Board of Film Classification [24]
No source describes it as 'science fantasy'. You're desire to chance it to science fantasy, therefore, is not supportable.
Sixteen sources consider it to be a science-fiction, including the official website. Six sources consider it to be three or more genres. One source considers it to be fantasy and nothing else. The official website alone should be enough to stipulate the genre here as science fiction, but even if it wasn't, I believe we should go with the most common answer, which is obviously science fiction. Furthermore, there appears to be no strong reason to give specific attention to the 'fantasy' genre in preference of other genres. Each one of the six sources that consider it to be both sci-fi and fantasy, for example, also considers it to be an 'action' film. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Final_Fantasy:_The_Spirits_Within&oldid=1252318201"