Talk:Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters

Premature article?

I ask this question before someone from the film project asks. Does the topic pass the WP:NFILM guideline? That is, it is out of pre-production and there are reliable sources? Alaney2k (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I do think its premature because there really is nothing other than an announcement and the only citation is a blog post which really aren't notable forms of citations anyway. Saying all that I personally don't have an problem with it since its going to get made eventually. So whether it goes up now or in a couple of months isn't really an issue to me anyway. How do others feel?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless it is really close to actual production, the article can be deleted according to the rules. I am not going to do the nom, but it is likely someone will. never mind, someone did: I am going to start a section at the franchise page. Alaney2k (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Writers

Armegon: I admit I was a bit wrong with my edits, however your edits are also somewhat nonsensical. Urobuchi is credited for Screenplay (脚本) for all three films, wheras Yamada and Murai have the credit for the second film. This is true. However, Urobuchi and Murai both have シリーズ構成 (Series Composition) across all three films; Murai is, in fact, not credited as "co-series composer", he is 100% given the same credit as Urobuchi across all three films, and thus constitutes his addition to that parameter of the infobox. You can see this is true here. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This issue is pretty cut and dry. The English press releases for all films (1, 2, 3) clearly state who is given Screenplay By and Story By credit. Adding series composer to the Writer/Story/Screenplay parameters of the infobox constitutes as WP:SYN because we are implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I propose we either add mention of the series composers to the body or add a footnote to the Story By parameter in the infobox, like I did here (1). We can drop the "co-" part if needed. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That'd be fine, then. Nothing better can come of the film infobox, I suppose. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Other credits

Armegon: I question if you read the efns themselves. You're correct on the fact that they don't have to, specifically, do with this specific production, but the notion that they're unrelated and are WP:FAN seems odd to me. "Shimada is the animation director. He is not credited as one of the film directors", ok, and? The note and separate reference explains the reason behind including him as one of the 'film directors', as the credit he's given implies directorial roles. This isn't necessarily being "presumptive", as these credits are specifically being used; thus, the reference to a credible explanation as to what the credits indicate. To undermine the credits therefore as being purely 'presumptive' seems pretty reductive. I mean, this is a work produced by the anime industry, not the film industry. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Film director and animation director are totally separate roles and duties. There are other directorial duties in film production, i.e. assistant director and special effects director (see Eiji Tsuburaya) yet none of them are ever added in the director(s) column of the infobox. Template:Infobox film states to "Insert the name(s) of the director(s)" in the directors column. With that said, Shimada is not credited as one of the film directors by any source or even the films themselves. I'm not against referencing Shimada, but that detail is better suited for the body rather than an efn. Additionally, what was WP:FAN to me was the nature behind your phrasing. As if you were trying to school readers on the duties of an animation director, but such details are not important on this article. Readers can find the duties of an animation director on articles dedicated to film production. What's important here is what Shimada did specifically on this production but the source you provided does not mention Shimada or the Polygon trilogy at all. You were implying a conclusion, which goes against WP:OR. Keep in mind, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia," per WP:NOTDATABASE. Armegon (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"As if you were trying to school readers on the duties of an animation director. Such details can be found in articles dedicated to film production", absolutely not, because Shimada's credit has nothing to do with the traditional role of an "animation director." The reason I included the explanation is because the credit, as its used, is non-traditional in both the western and eastern animation pipelines. See Animation director:

Western animation director: "In western animation, such as Disney, the responsibilities of an animation director include directing the storyboards, character designs, background animation, and other technical aspects of a project's animation. Some animated film productions may split the duties between an animation director, who focuses on the creation of the animation, and a director who oversees all other aspects of the film. A supervising animator is commonly in charge of all aspects of the design and artwork for a single major character. The supervising animator oversees a group of animators who complete the entire scenes in which a particular character appears."

Eastern animation director: "In the eastern production pipeline, most notably in the anime industry, the role of an "animation director" is significantly different from its western counterpart in the animation production pipeline. Rather than overseeing all of a project's animation, an animation director (作画監督, sakuga kantoku), known as a sakkan (作監) for short, acts more as a sort of 'drawing director' who corrects key animation drawings and layouts. These corrections can range from the sakkan literally correcting parts of the animation that are off-model or not up-to-par, to changing some of the drawings into their style, or simply maintaining a level of quality while allowing for free expression from the key animators. Above an animation director in Japanese productions is the chief animation director (総作画監督, sō sakuga kantoku), shortened to sou sakkan (総作監), whose job is to maintain a level of uniformity across an entire series."

Contrast these definitions with Shimada's credit (アニメーションディレクター) and the reference given. Shimada is neither credited as a sakkan or sou sakkan, so by the anime production pipeline definition, he's neither a drawing director or nor a western "animation director".

"--What is the main job of an 'animation director' [アニメーション・ディレクター]?"

"I act as a bridge between the director (Noboru Ishiguro) and the animators. My specific job is to check the layouts drawn by the original artists for the parts they are in charge of. I also had a lot of say in the direction, including tweaking storyboards a bit, and also checking the way each character walks and drinks to make sure there are different nuances." - Shimizu (https://ginei.jp/interview5.htm)

The Japanese crediting system is purposefully more specific and nuanced than you're giving it credit for. Furthermore, in regard to the 'series composition' role we've already previously talked about, there shouldn't be anything to discuss, because regardless of the reference not specifically relating to this production, it shouldn't matter unless there's a source about the specifics of this production directly contradicting the information given in that citation; a series composition writer will always be more or less a series composition writer to the degree that it is stated in that article. I don't understand how any of that is FAN or OR. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This article that you shared is from 1994 and it's about Keizo Shimizu discussing his experiences, not Shimada's. The issue is cut and dry: Shimada is not credited as a film director, just the animation director. Plain and simple. You can check all other sources like iMDB or Anime News Network, or the credits on the films themselves or the official English press notes (1, 2, 3), and they all reflect the same billing credits: Seshita and Shizuno are the directors. The director's column is specifically reserved for the film director per Template:Infobox film. WP:OR states "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves," yet that's exactly what you're proposing by adding Shimada based on your interpretation of what a Japanese animation director is and isn't, despite what sources confirm about the credits. Armegon (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I do believe you're either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what it is that I'm saying. "Film director" is a vague term, and it's not defined on Template:Infobox film besides saying 'the director of the film', so I'm going to avoid using such terminology. My point has nothing to do with vague terminology like "film director" or "animation director" that have nuances lost in translation between the separate industries and the English Wikipedia, my point has to do with the given understanding of the credit based on what the credit has been described as-- in other words, Shimada's "animation director" credit has been, with Shimizu and elsewhere, been described as being equivalent to or similar to any 'film' or 'series' director. You're right in it being about Shimizu's experience, and not Shimada's, but that's the entire point: 'this specific credit is like a 'film' director according to [this person] who had the credit'

While credible in their own right, English-language press-releases aren't always the best even besides that: for example, they describe Seshita as being the "director and supervising director" of Knights of Sidonia: Battle for Planet Nine, despite the fact that he's only credited as director (監督, kantoku). I don't know what they meant by "director and supervising director", but he literally has the one credit in the series itself.

Going as far as to use the press releases as counterclaims doesn't work, I don't think. Quite often, press releases, and even official publications, don't confirm the full directorial, scriptwriting, or animation staff on a project; i.e. the BanG Dream! website for the series' second season (1) lists Kazuyuki Ueta as the "animation character designer" (アニメーションキャラクターデザイン), but in the credits to the series themselves you can see Ueta along with Takuya Chanohara and Yuuka Hachimori credited as "character designer" (キャラクターデザイン); or Assault Lily Bouquet having scripts (脚本) written entirely by director Shouji Saeki, despite sources not confirming who wrote the series at all (ANN, website). Also, Saeki and Fuyashi Tou wrote the series composition to it as well, which also was never publicized. I understand they're credible sources but being overly reliant on them when an understanding of these credits exists outside of press releases is a game that doesn't sound good to play.

In other words, I don't think the press releases not listing Shimada, or any other staff member, indicates anything about their job or work on a film, or whether or not they should be considered to be 'film' directors/scriptwriters/or whatever. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Small break

Where I think our issue is is that you believe "animation director" (アニメーションディレクター) implies something completely different from a "film director", again a vague term, and that my example of Shimizu is just one example and not indicative of anything because "Shimada is the animation director, that was just a thing Shimizu did" or whatever. My point, however, is me saying that "animation director", specifically that credit in Katakana, that one specific credit in the film itself, is pretty much a 'film director' credit in its own regard according to interviews with anyone who has ever had this credit and spoken about it. Saying Shimada is "just the animation director" is reductive, I feel, because what I'm trying to exemplify is that 'this guy has this credit, which is specifically like a director'. Shimizu has the same credit, but it doesn't mean anything different; there's a reason Japan has "chief director", "series director", "animation director (this one)", "animation director (sakkan)", and all of these different credits: because beyond their literal translation (kantoku literally means "supervisor"), they each have specific implications. I shouldn't have to prove Shimada's role when we already know what his credit means, just like if there were no press releases for a film, I shouldn't need one to confirm, through the credits, that, "Oh, this person has a kantoku credit, he's (one of) the director(s)." Sarcataclysmal (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying Shimada is an animation director is not reductive. It's fact since it is supported by multiple sources. What else are we to reference him as beyond his official credit? Again, you're relying on WP:OR and now WP:SYN for your argument. You're combining material from other sources to imply a conclusion. Material that has nothing to do with this series or Shimada's experience on this production. The entire premise of your argument is "well, to me, animation director and film director are practically the same thing" and "well, Shimizu said this/that in '94, so it must be true for all Japanese animation directors". Both arguments are analysis/sysnthesis of published sources, and it's not helping your argument. Especially since you're proposing we disregard verified sources in favor of your preferred version based on your analysis/synthesis. Again, the issue is crystal: Shimada is credited as animation director. Shizuno and Seshita are the film directors. A fact supported by multiple sources, including the films themselves, and no personal analysis/synthesis is gonna change that. Armegon (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you're accusing me of "disregard[ing] verified sources", because that is not even close to what I am doing. "He's an animation director, not film director, which is supported by the sources", and this is where I disagree with you. I'm not disregarding verified sources; I'm saying the verified sources don't actually confirm this, not a single press release you've given has so much as even mentioned Shimada's role on the film, which is neither evidence for or against him-- yet you purport it to be so, despite the fact that the only evidence worth looking at at that point is the film's credits, to which we see both the animeshon direkuta and kantoku credits themselves, which is where I'm stating "this specific animation director credit is equivalent to 'film' director, according to said source about someone who has been credited with it." Are you not making claims without basis yourself, by purporting that this supposed credit, アニメーションディレクター, isn't an equivalent to the vague 'film director' term you so insist upon, despite a disregard for what it's understood to be in the industry context observed by that source? I get the feeling that you're too focused on the transliteration of "animation director" and the idea that 'Shimizu is just one experience and not true for everyone with this credit'; which, I think, is an odd statement considering my point is 'if you see this credit, it means this.'" I see it as neither OR nor SYN, unless you mean to claim that I am incapable of crediting Shizuno and Seshita on their own based on their kantoku credits in the film's credits without any sort of press release confirming their role..?

By the way, you still haven't commented on the series composition edit I made that you reverted either. What's the rationale behind changing that back? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I’m not making such claims. I’m literally stating the facts and that’s what the credits should reflect per WP:RS. In regards to reverting the writing, you agreed to my proposal back in October 2020 to add an efn noting that Murai served as the series composer along with Urobuchi. So I don’t see the benefit in removing the efn (again, that you agreed to) with material that, again, has nothing to do with this specific production or Murai or Urobuchi’s involvement. You made an assumption based on an article that seems to go by a general rule of thumb. The efn states the facts without straying into WP:OR territory. That’s how we should keep it and if you’d like, we can add an efn to the directors column noting Shimada as the animation director. That seems like a fair compromise. Armegon (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, sure, I can agree to that; I did agree to the writers note in October, but I do partially rescind that now that I have a proper understanding of what the 'series composition' entails according to Cirugeda's article, and I do believe it to be better as both persons credited under writing rather than Urobuchi singularly credited as 'screenplay' with a note regarding Murai's work (in the anime industry, at least, 'series composition' is equivalent to 'lead writer', I guess I should say). I apologize for the lengthy discussion since this all seems pretty trivial, for the most part. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated, but I can fill out some of the other infobox parameters using the credits now that I think about it, so I'll add those that I can confirm. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean add credits from the press notes? Armegon (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)