Talk:A.D. Vision/Archive 1

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

Last line

I'm not so sure about that last line. I've been under the impression from interviews I've read with ADV employees (including Matt Greenfield) that the "AD" in "ADV" is a closely-guarded secret (either purposefully or as an elaborate company inside joke). Could be wrong. Don't follow the con circuit as much as I'd like.

RadicalBender 15:27, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm sure. I own a lot of early ADV stuff. The whole "closely guarded secret" shtick got its start on the con circuit some years back, at a point in time when most in attendance were not old enough to have consumed anime during the days of $40 VHS tapes. It's cute, but the company did indeed get its start as "Animation Dubbing Vision", and it's not hard to see why they would want to distance themselves from that name. - Tzaquiel 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"David L. Williams often jokes at some conventions that ADV stands for "Army of Darkness Video" (stated at AnimeExpo NY)." Does not point out the significance of Mr. Williams to the topic, should be made into a Wikilink if the person is the same man as on the David L. Williams. It doesn't say anything on that page about him being into anime, though, and the statement should then be clarified as to how he's relevant to anime. "Conventions" should also be Wikilinked, either to anime conventions or to conventions in general — Raijinili 14:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Manga

While there is a manga listed on ADV Manga's website named By the Sword, the link to the article is to another By the Sword (a novel). Please create the manga article and disambiguate. --Geopgeop 17:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anime Network

just wondering if anyone knows if Dish Network will ever get anime network —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.188.49 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC).

-- They offer some of it through VOD (DiSH On Demand [1]). Look on the bright side, at least you get the 4 hour Syndicated Block of the FUNimation Channel on CoLour TV (It's in the public Access Channels). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.208.182 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 Sep 2006 (UTC).

Splitting out list of productions

I think it's a great idea. --日本穣 06:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ADV Films Website Hacking by AYT

Would this be considered newsworthy?

yes(24.188.203.181 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Actually, No. Not in the least. Despite your claims to the contrary, It's about as non-notable to this page as it gets. Only randomly talking about cheese on the page could be any less notable than pointing out that "omg they got hacked once". You're priorities are confused, here, at the very least, -- 76.208.3.211

After the absolutely appalling standards ADV have taken themselves to, what with Mermaid Melody, Saint Seiya, YotsubaTO and all, yes. They most definitely had this coming to them in some shape or form.--Conan-san 08:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

- See? This kind of idiot nonsense about having it "coming to them" is why raving, elitist anime anti-dub fanboys should be shot without prejudice. They tend to make hideously stupid statements like that without one ounce of rational thought and basically humiliate and shame their entire community.

For all of the work that ADV does, and for basically being one of the (if not THE) best Anime Localizers and releasers in the entire country, you'd think the raving, impossible-to-please fanboys would give them a little more respect than this without playing the part of ignorant, know-it-all snobs so that other people will think they are "cool" Feh. I'm a little more than tired of seeing anime "fans" (Who do far more bashing than act like "fans") embarrass themselves, and by extension, the rest of us with this mindless garbage. Geez.

This is to say nothing of the lame hackers, themselves. They aren't notable and to give them any attention on a Wiki page for such minuscule, and foolish attention seeking actions (which hardly ever mattered in the long run), and completely unworthy to write on an article such as this. I agree it should be left off and kept off. If every wiki page on a website reported whatever stupid, momentary thing happened to said website, nothing valid would ever be presented. That kind of discussion belongs on a forum or message board, Not on Wikipedia. -- 76.208.3.211


Is this really notable? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It was, it was indeed notable 24.188.203.181 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's only notable if pigs flew and water turned to wine. Pfft. -- 76.208.3.211


How? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite many other websites being victim to the attacks of the hackers, it still feels worthy since somewhat well known sites especially those that are seen or appear on wikipedia, should have a dangerous incident mentioned if it happens, since the fighters/hackers did attack something that was known to many(?) (ex: well known) somehow triggering a necessary mention of sorts. Plus look at Conan's post too. 24.188.203.181 03:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Conan's reason, Having it "coming to them" doesn't make the incent noteworthy. Also ADV website itself doesn't appear to be that notable as an entity. So I completely fail to see how the hack is notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I may not understand why, but it somehow remains being a notable event on Wikipedia. Why? that's just how it seemed or seems to work for some reason. 24.188.203.181 16:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

- Uhm, no. Well, it's clear that your reasoning barely reaches beyond the mewing of "B-becuase it totally is. You have to believe me", even when clearly presented with the fact that it really isn't. If you can't do a halfway decent job of defending why it's notable, other than you just pleading to others that it is without giving a good reason then you either don't understand Wikipedia's aim, or you really want to clog up useful information with worthless chatter of incidents that hardly have anything to do with the page or ADV itself. Please stop with your inane rebuttles, and accept that you were wrong. It was removed, and for good reason. - -- 76.208.3.211


Yeah, that's not a good enough reason. The section has now been (correctly, IMO) removed by another user. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow just wow, or I can't believe it got removed. 24.188.203.181 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

- Frankly, you're just wrong. It wasn't a notable act, nor was it ever important, or anything that adds informational value to the article. It's simply momentary, message board type discussion of a barely notable incident. If every Wikipage about a website listed every momentary dumb thing that happened to it, it would seriously disrupt the matters and things that Wikipedia is for. Providing information. Not schoolyard gossip on how a certain site got "hacked: for a day or whatever. Usless chatter should be kept where it belongs, and off of Wikipedia pages.

Quite honestly, you should start believing it, because it was removed for every good reason.

If you are so commited to the dangerous acts of internet hacking, maybe, you'd do best to refocus your energies on a Wikipedia page about WEBSITE HACKING. Because that is where this kind of information would truly go. Not here. Not on a page that intends to give information on ADV as a company and not every time they got hacked, or what some lame little club said something about them. This isn't the "omg ADV got hacked once" page. It's the ADV Wikipedia information page.

I wish people would properly understand the major difference between these things without whining about these things being removed all the time. -- 76.208.3.211

Completing ADV's titles

Just FYI, I am trying to add a page for all of ADV titles, and I do not know everything about all of them. So please edit freely \o/ Take Care KaorinGirl 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging Anime Network into this article. The Anime Network is a year old and hasn't progressed past the stub stage. All the information is now present here so I see no reason to keep a separate page. --Squilibob 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose — The Anime Network page warrants its own page. While a discussion of it belongs on the A.D. Vision page, there is enough information to warrant the separate subject. If each and every long-term stub page were unceremoniously yanked like this, there wouldn't be anything left to work on, on WP. --Mhking 02:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Tv channels articles can clog up other articles and should have their own articles.
  • Oppose as well. It's better for it to have its own main article article. dposse 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion has been oppose and this is almost a year old I am going to remove the tag now from the two articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Split / Merge

I agree that there should be an article including the parent company of ADVision with listings for its sub groups and think this page should continue to act as that page. However I feel it is important that ADV Films has its own article. The company itself is noteworthy enough and has more that enough information to warrant it. Furthermore it would allow this new article to also hold the ADV releases listings as well as improving this to include foreign territories like the United Kingdom which has its own branch of ADV. Butch-cassidy 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ADV/Geneon deal falling through did not cause Geneon closeing.

I removed the bit saying that the ADV/Geneon deal collapse was the cause for Geneon ceasing operation. I'm a regular poster over at Animeondvd.com and have kept up with this since it happened and there is no evidence to suggest that. Right now we don't know anything, and something like that will just confuse people. DyloniusFunk 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ADV Films

I've met founder, Matt Greenfield, and when I talked to him he said that the AD in ADV does not stand for "Anime Dubbing". He went as far to say that there were no intentions of doing any dubs when they first founded the company, because they did not like dubs. In this video he explains it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJKwvD5ZAy0&feature=related (see point 7:06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.205.102 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It stands for 'Animation Dubbing Vision' http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/company.php?id=4089 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.250.9.162 (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge A.D. Vision and Anime Network

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – No consensus for a merge

Anime Network is a now defunct channel, with its article containing little valuable information beyond some advertising type information. It can and should be merged here in a proper, non-ad paragraph or two. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anime Network is not a defunct channel, they started as a VOD service in 2002 then added a linear service later on as some cable operators expressed interest in adding the VOD service if a linear version was available. They closed their linear service down on January 1, 2008 as all the major cable operators opted to carry the VOD channel is some form. They still exist as a broadcaster, they just dropped the linear channel that was added after launch. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article could be expanded to include information about their Online Player and content that is provided to Sprint Mobile customers. But to say the channel is defunct is incorrect. I think the channel should have its own article just like Funimation Channel which has more unreferenced information than Anime Network. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Now how the content is posted has to do with the cable provider in question, Comcast & Time Warner is notorious for posting incomplete updates resulting in some shows missing episodes while Cox & Suddenlink post regular full updates each week. I should know I don't pay $6.99/month for a defunct channel. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been a while, can the merge be removed now or is there actually still some reason to think it will merge? shadzar-talk 07:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
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.

Was?

So, you know how this article says "AD Vision was" but then... on August 11, 2011, AD Vision sued Gainax? So... A.D. Vision... still is?76.179.147.211 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ADV shutting down

Anime News Network is reporting that ADV is transferring its assets to four of its subdivisions, including Sentai Filmworks, and shutting down. The four subdivisions will continue on as semi-autonomous companies.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-09-01/adv-films-shuts-down-transfers-assets-to-other-companies

--Farix (Talk) 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For now, I've reverted some edits calling it defunct. It seems like more news is forth coming, and considering how it did it, I'm not entirely sure that is a closure so much as a split. Let's let things play out a bit more before making major changes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've put in a paragraph that sums up what's known as fact thus far - that new LLCs now own what used to be a single corporation called "ADV," and that they're at least linked to the same people who ran the original company. Any more than that seems to be where speculation starts. ShaleZero (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Your version is at least more accurate to the current situation without the whole "defunct" thing - thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All major news outlets have analyzed the situation, and summed it up as that ADV isn't shutting down, and "splitting up" is really just a shell game; they're drastically restructuring and rebranding themselves, they've been planning to do this since May 2009, and all appears to be going according to their scenario. I do agree that we must be cautious until more information is available in the coming days and weeks, but I think we should 1-hold off on listing this as a "defunct" company just yet, but as a Current Event and 2-post links to relevant articles on the subject by major anime news outlets.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are basically trying to save their assets before dumping the ADV name, however I do not think we should be posting a single ANN opinion noting this, particularly as some might consider it libelous and ANN, while experts on anime, are not experts on business. Have any actual major non-anime news outlets reported on it? Being based in Texas, I'd look at Houston newspapers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Chris Macdonald specifically states in the editorial, "[D]on't quote me on Wikipedia or anywhere else as a factual source." In that respect, we should oblige his wishes in not quoting the editorial. It's a statement that his opinions should not be taken as a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As I am a proud member of the Colbert Nation, I usually instinctively take people saying "don't quote me on wikipedia" do be a direct command to qutoe them on wikipedia :) ...yes, in that case, best not to quote it. I'm looking forward to what AintItCoolNews' weekly anime column has to say (the news about ADV burst a matter of hours after the weekly AICNAnime column was posted last week; should be the headline tomorrow). The bigger question is: what is going to happen to ADV's old leadership? This is all heresay, but between us here, word-out-on-the-street is that there have been several Twitter messages made by ADV staffers saying that Ledford has been officially scapegoated by the rest of the ADV company and staff, as "the guy at the top who made all of the bad business deals like the Sojitz one"....ultimately, ADV has to convince its investors that they've "changed" or "gotten rid of the problem" and the most obvious way to do that was to fire one of their co-founders. He's been ostracized. Notice that within the news columns they make no mention of Ledford and notably, NOTHING is in his name anymore. ***No word whatsoever on where that leaves the other co-founder, Matt Greenfield. To be honest, I prefer the "activity" of this drastic restructuring/rebranding than what they WERE doing for well over the past year: sitting around taking no particular action in response to the crisis. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
*cough* Please be aware that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages as well, and be cautious about discussing rumors about living people. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolling back December 2nd edits

On December 2nd, a series of anonymous edits - made by a Houston-area IP address - rolled back several additions about ADV transitioning into Section 23; i.e. removing a section of the podcast report; it's what the podcast, and its sourced. I'm going to undo these edits where appropriate, and also because it was an anonymous edit I don't think I'll run into too much opposition?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A.D._Vision/Archive_1&oldid=1136483066"