Talk:Akira (planned film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delayed[edit]

So as I suspected and said in the AFD discussion as a potential risk, the film’s production has been delayed. Rusted AutoParts 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article still meets the GNG even if this production never happens. That also said, with the other new Akira projects out, an Akira (franchise) article could be had, and if this film does not end up happening, the contents directly merged into that. --Masem (t) 18:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. I’m looking to initiate another deletion discussion. Rusted AutoParts 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a possible merge[edit]

With the AFD close, let's reasonably talk about a merge option. I created Akira (franchise) to cover the existing 4 works, and this film and planned TV series. There's probably more than can be added to that about legacy of the series as a whole, etc. It would be reasonable to keep this, make it a redirect (we don't lose contribution history), and trim the body down a bit to put it back into that Franchise article for the time being until we have a better idea of the fate of the film. Then we can undo the redirect to recover the past contributions, and we would all be good. We just do not want to lose all the information here, and its too much to go into either the manga or 1988 film option. --Masem (t) 14:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few options:
  • Do what you said and redirect this to Akira (franchise), where the edit history isn’t compromised and a section can be maintained on there
  • Repurpose this article into Production of live action Akira film, where the article can remain as is and function in the same vein as Production of Watchmen. The fact is it just couldn’t exist as an upcoming film article when the film has been delayed indefinitely and it’s future is uncertain.

Perhaps a new discussion thread should be started at Wikiproject Film to garner more input into what to do with the article. Rusted AutoParts 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't like #2. First, the manga would be the better target as there's no indication that the live-action was to mimic the anime version, while the manga is clearly the source material. But with that in mind, the manga article is quite large and a whole section dedicated to the film would expand it too much. You'd still mention this film in the manga if the merge to the franchise article is done, just that it would be a "main" template and a few sentences.
    • And #3 to me is only an option if there was no other possible target to put this material. (eg this was the first known work in an Akira series, then that would make sense). But that's why I created the franchise article as a purposeful place without the concerns that the current article is potentially presenting the false indication this film is getting made, and of course to avoid the size issue of #2. But definitely this can be a discussion from the film project where to put this info. --Masem (t) 16:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So will there be any further action made in regards to this? It’s been three months. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for this move. Maybe consider a merge into Akira (franchise). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Akira (planned film) → Draft:Akira (planned film) – A full year has passed since last discussion about this articles fate. Since deletion is unwanted by most, I genuinely feel it needs to be put into draftspace. It is wholly inappropriate to have an article for a film that may or may not even see the light of day, and it’s production history is not extensive enough to sustain in mainspace in my opinion. It's also been a full year since any news about this film came out. Rusted AutoParts 02:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose but I would go back to the original idea of summarizing what's in here a bit better (not at the full length) in the Akira (franchise) article (trimming down to two-three paragraphs with key sources), keeping this as a redirect that then could be restored if the film gets a go again. There is more than enough information to justify an article because there's been a lengthy attempt to make this film, but I recognize that the current state of the film is way up in the air and until we have more newer information, we can move this away. --Masem (t) 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then the 3rd option for the previous discussion about this stands: rename this article to Production of Akira (planned film). If others feel the same as you that it's strong enough to stand by itself (I strongly disagree it does) than it needs renaming all the same. Rusted AutoParts 04:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to reserve this for the draftspace, but think reducing it in the mainspace to a few paragraphs at the franchise page would minimize it, so I find moving it to "Production of Akia (planned film)" as the best option for this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that works. If the redirect/summarize to franchise page is the consensus, then the first thing that would happen would just be to replace the contents of this page with the redirect instructions (no move). Then I can make the summary in the franchise page. This leaves "Akira planned film" as a searchable term to get people to that content. --Masem (t) 04:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to draft space, or a move to Production of Akia (planned film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this go to AFD if its desired to move to draftspace? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I elected to go this route as I nominated this article twice before for deletion and the result was the same. Rusted AutoParts 18:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on two grounds.
Firstly this kind of decision (where the notability of a topic and the value of it's sources are evaluated) really should go through AfD in my opinion, rather than through a requested move. Requested moves is for dealing with issues with page titles, it's not really intended for moving articles to draft space. The comments by the nominator above regarding their previous AfD nominations suggests to me that this has been taken to requested moves as WP:Forum shopping after consensus was against them in both previous AfD nominations.
Secondly I see no reason why this article should be draftified. The fact that the movie has not been released and may never be released does not mean it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. There seems to be plenty of OK sources covering this movie and it's development that show it passes GNG. The coverage from IGN, Yahoo News, Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter are fine for establishing notability. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on products that never released, see List of vaporware for example.
86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing of forum shopping is appalling false. I took it to requested moves since the prior AFDs told me deletion was not desired, so I sought to see how it could be handled without deletion. And having nice sources is great, but it doesn't make it appropriate to have an article about a film that may or may not happen exist in the way it does now. Draftifying allows it to remain intact in a safe area where it can be amended when needed until it achieves notability as a movie that will happen, or a retitle to Production of Akira so it can remain in mainspace, but not as an article about a potential upcoming film, rather an article about the history of trying to make the film ala Production of Watchmen (film) or others in that vein. Rusted AutoParts 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the prior AfD's every vote was that the content should either be kept or merged into the article on the franchise. There were no votes at all calling for the content to be draftified, deleted or otherwise removed from article space.
"And having nice sources is great, but it doesn't make it appropriate to have an article about a film that may or may not..."??? The fundamental underpinning of all notability guidelines on wikipedia is WP:GNG which simply states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". The only thing that matters when determining notability is the sourcing is available, it doesn't matter if the film never releases or they decide to make something completely different instead. As long as reliable sources have covered the film or it's development it is suitable for inclusion.
I would 100% support a move to Production of Akira or some variant thereof as this accurately reflects the current content of the article, but a move to draftspace is completely inappropriate in my view. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not suitable for inclusion in present state. It presents a premise that this is a film guaranteed to happen. It isn't, given the multiple stop/starts of the production. It's why enforcing WP:NFF when it comes to film notability is so so important. So that's why draftifying or renaming it to Production of Akira is what needs to happen. Rusted AutoParts 03:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does it present the film as guaranteed to happen? The lead bluntly states that the most recent planned production was put on hold because the director left to do other projects.
NFF is a guideline, not a policy, and as it states at the top "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A film that has been in development hell for 18 years, has been through numerous reported rewrites and restarts, has been involved in controversies regarding whitewashing and depictions of Japanese people in media and that has been the subject of multiple full length articles documenting it's production problems is in a very different place from a perspective of notability than the majority of unreleased films.
If the fundamental problem is that you do not feel that the the film is notable enough for a stand alone article and you wish to see it deleted or draftified then this discussion really ought to be taking place under a process where the notability of the content is evaluated, i.e. AfD 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

As I said I would do, I have summarized this article better for the time being in the franchise article, and made this a redirect into that for now. --Masem (t) 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This request specifically asks for draftification, if we disregard the request to change from 'planned' to 'upcoming'. However, there is a community wide consensus that articles older than 90 days should go through AfD discussion before being draftified if that's the outcome. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akira (planned film) → Draft:Akira (upcoming film) – Earlier versions of the page can't be an article due to not entering production yet, but it can be a draft. It deserves to at least have a draft, until/unless the film gets officially cancelled. Also, changed PLANNED to UPCOMING as that's the more common way to categorize on the Wiki for undated upcoming films. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Once an article had been through the AFD process, it cannot be draftified. Also, as with the previous AFDs on this article, while the MOS:FILM guide of trying to prevent articles on a film to be created before production is made is a common sense idea to prevent article creation on numerous films before that will likely never see the light of day, the history of this failed attempt to produce a live-action Akira film is independently notable, and this is the type of IAR common sense exemption needed that when there is this much information about attempts, that saying you can't have an article on it doesn't make sense. (Even NFF says "should not", not "must not"). --Masem (t) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why make an exemption for trying to give it a full article, and not an exemption for turning it into a draft? Like these "rules" make it so much more complicated, that I think no one will bat an eye if this turns into a draft, awaiting its day to become a full article when the film actually enters production. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should be restored to redirect the AFDs predate the ultimate redirect Masem implemented. It is highly inappropriate for this article to exist given it is not guaranteed to be made and the production history is just not at a level that merits a standalone article. Even if, it should be named Production of Akira and not named to suggest it'll be a film that will happen. Rusted AutoParts 02:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not a draft tho? Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say put it in draft, but from what Masem's saying since it survived AFD twice it can't be moved to draft. I don't understand why, but if that's the case I guess it's just not an option. Rusted AutoParts 18:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly his logic makes no sense. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a draft to work from, you can copy the non-direct version to draft space and work on it there, but you just need to make sure to include on the draft talk page attributed to the original page, see {{copied}} for a template to use for that. Should that draft version end up going back to mainspace (the movie actually gets produced for example), then we can page move the draft into this page, and history merge to retain attribution. --Masem (t) 21:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't stay where it is per WP:NFF. Rusted AutoParts 21:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NFF says should not must. That means there are logical, common sense and IAR exemptions when the GNG is clearly met before the film is even produced. Masem (t) 21:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a film that has no guarantee to exist. Vast majority of the upcoming MCU film drafts are strong enough to pass logical, common sense and IAR exemptions but remain in draftspace because they have not begun production. This draft for an anticipated Tron sequel has basically the same extent of detail as this Akira page. But it remains in draft because it is not guaranteed to happen. It would appear to me as giving Akira undue weight over other productions just because it has a slight amount of passable production history. If anything at all it should be renamed "Production of Akira live action film" but if I recollect past AFD discussions that for some reason was not liked. Rusted AutoParts 22:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Failed and/or cancelled projects can absolutely be notable if the attempt at production is well documented. This is not only just for films but other forms of media. As I said before, there is a need for NFF for films that just got announced, but for attempts at films with decade+ of history, that's a far different situation. Masem (t) 22:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, I cannot budge on this page needing to be under a different title if it's decided to remain. The film itself is not notable in it's current context, it's production history is. So Akira (planned film) is most inappropriate. Rusted AutoParts 22:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, reading the last move discussion you elected to summarize it in the Akira franchise page and redirect it. So why are we back discussing this page's fate once again? Rusted AutoParts 22:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The revert-to-redirect was made after this move request was started. So I am assuming we're working on the status of the non-redirect version.
Also "Akira (planned film)" clearly puts this in the context that no film is currently yet in production, and at least the non-redirect writing was also clear that this was about the attempts to develop the film, not an actual film in production. Masem (t) 23:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close request, improper venue. Draftification of older articles is done through AfD under deletion policy (WP:ATD-I), and RM is not a venue for making editorial decisions. I understand that the editor who opened this request doesn't actually want the article deleted, so I suggest taking the route listed by Masem above: reinstate the stable redirect, copy the contents to the draft space with attribution, and see if the article can be developed to a point where it can be moved over the redirect. That can be done without going through this process, and I suggest withdrawing the move request. Dekimasuよ! 04:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of both previous deletion requests was "keep", so I don't think a redirect would be appropriate without first going through AfD again or developing a strong consensus here. Station1 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – what would the difference be between planned and upcoming? cookie monster 755 05:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Planned sounds more past tense. Technically, the film is still in development, and Waititi has said that he's not giving up on it just yet. Also upcoming is how other upcmoning film articles with no release date say. Iamnoahflores (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still not in active development so the right language is "planned" (which means that some planning has been done in the past). If it was canned, it would be "cancelled film". "Upcoming" should only be used for 1) films that need disambiguation by title and 2) have started production but don't have a scheduled release date. Masem (t) 21:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cancellation[edit]

I am presuming that Akira has been officially cancelled. Will Taika Waititi still direct or will the directors change? Will production restart once again, or is the film ultimately cancelled altogether? 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been reported and given how many times this has been tried, its not a good idea to assume its cancelled yet. Masem (t) 14:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akira_(planned_film)&oldid=1204639159"