Jump to content

Talk:The Castle of Cagliostro

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

Samurai Jack

[edit]

Why is there no mention in the Cultural Influence section that Jigen is used as a character in Episode 39 of Samurai Jack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C42:7E3F:438C:E540:DB04:846C:6B8 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

[edit]

When I went to Italy in January of 2006, many street vendors sold badges with characters from this movie. I was suprised, since I knew it was Japanese and fairly old, and I didn't see any other anime products. Is there an explanation for this?

Can't explain the lack of other anime stuffs, but Lupin the Third is a significantly more well-known franchise in Italy when compared to North America. Lupin has a large following and aired in prime-time during its heyday. Heck, in Italy you can buy the TV edits of "Mystery of Mamo" on DVD at newsstands, of all places.

Goat?

[edit]

Is 'goat bills' right translation? I thought it's 'Goth bills' or something.

If you listen to the Japanese-language version, they are clearly saying "goat" or more specifically "Gootu", which is the same word they use in describing the ram's head insignia where the rings must be placed, it's pretty clear it's supposed to be "Goat" --Wingsandsword 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg article

[edit]

I'd like to see if anybody can put any substance to the Spielberg quote. I've seen it a zillion times, but never seen any reference cited.

--Furrykef 08:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the quote in the article, what I have seen and heard is that Spielberg said the film had the best car chase scene he's ever seen. =/ - Ferret 11:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.manga.com/viewer.php?id=7 its from Toons Magazine
According to http://www.manga.com/viewer.php?id=7 its from Toons Magazine
As mentioned in the article, the Spielberg reference is printed directly on the back cover of the Manga Video release. The movie does have an undeniably goofy-romantic-adventure Indiana Jones -like quality, I think... Given that it predates Raiders, I wonder if there could be any influence (or did Spielberg see it in subsequent years)? ...Yes, this is all provocateur speculation, you're welcome. :-)
I have ended the problem, rather conclusively, if I might say so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I was told the quote came from Quentin Tarentino. - Eligius, 01:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eligius (talk • contribs)

When he was 16? Not happening, he was doing acting classes not going to film festivals in France and every other part of the quote fails. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To fill, or not to fill

[edit]

Does that empty space bother anyone else? I think we should fill it, but I don't want to just take the text and move it up there, as that would make the already short article even shorter. It's missing something, but I don't know what. The Phantom Trogdor

Okay, spacing has now been corrected. By the way, is it just me (...probably^^), or has anyone else noticed a few suspicious plot similarities between this anime and the film The Princess Bride? - Replace master thief Lupin with "The Dread Pirate Roberts", rescues a captive princess from the evil baron's castle against unlikely odds, crashing the wedding ceremony by terrifying the guards with a fiery "ghost" masquerade...

Rating box

[edit]

The "The Castle of Cagliostro's Ratings"-box is horrible. It takes up half the article's width, is very high and is mostly filled with nothing - what a waste of screen realestate. It also strikes me that a list of ratings is not really that useful, at least not near the top of the article. Most people who read this article are probably more interested in the rest of the content and to them the ratings box is just a hindrance. If we really wanted such extensive rating information on every film, it would be part of the Infobox Film (in some kind of compact format). Shinobu 12:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Punch does not hate this movie

[edit]

Contrary to rumors, Monkey Punch in fact likes Castle of Cagliostro. He stated so in an interview with the Anime News Network, although he does not completely agree with Miyazaki's interpretation. It should also be noted that Monkey Punch and Miyazaki are good friends.

Here is Monkey Punch's exact quote, "I particularly like Miyazaki's Castle of Cagliostro. I really enjoy that work and I just like him and another famous manga artist in Japan, Testegawa-sama, their works, I enjoy them from a distance. I don't try to do it myself; I enjoy it from a distance."

The Interview: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature.php?id=164

In Castle of Cagliostro, Miyazaki is portraying Lupin during the twilight of his career where he is looking for fullfillment that he cannot find in thievery. That is why he is kinder and seems bemused by his past.

My information comes from the Lupin III Yahoo group is ran by Luis Cruz (Lupin Encyclopedia) and Reed Nelson (Lupin the Third.net). It is one of the the most reliable sources for Lupin on the Internet.

—The preceding LadyLupin comment was added by 24.26.153.37 (talk • contribs) .

If you look at the pictures of Princess Nori's wedding dress, it does not actually look like Clarisse's wedding dress. I realize it was published as fact in Mainichi Shimbun, but the dress doesn't even look like it! Ont eh other hand, actress Yuki Ichida did have a replica made for her wedding: http://animenewsnetwork.com/news/2002-12-12/japanese-actress-does-cosplay-at-wedding

12.205.149.45 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Duchy of Cagliostro

[edit]

I believe Duchy of Cagliostro will never have more content than already exists there and can be easily incorporated in this article. There were merge tags on these pages for nearly a year, then $yD! did the merge and an IP user reverted. A consensus should be established on whether to have one or two articles. --Selket Talk 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial incorporation

[edit]

Likewise, the removal of the triva and incorporation of such into the article is ridiculous. Most pages of any length on wikipedia have trivia sections; unless a widescale reformatation of the site is proposed, I think there is no harm in keeping this modest-sized trivia section. Thank you for your time. Nagyss 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the Wikipedia guidelines (as linked from that template) state that well-developed pages shouldn't have trivia sections. If Castle of Cagliostro is to be recognized as a Featured Article someday, it will need to conform to the standards set by Wikipedia guidelines. --Robotech_Master 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production cost

[edit]

I was just watching Secret files (Trailers for Mamo/Cagliostro/Babylon/Fuma + the original 1969 anime "trailer"). There was a bit that stated Cagliostro cost 5billion yen to make, but I can't really add something like that without a citation , but I'm unsure how to citate it. Aside from there being no entry for secret files (and its not worthy of a seperate article), can I really refer to it as a valid source? Bit hard to link a video claiming it Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Clean up Tags

[edit]

As an editor has requested I explain the tags left on the article here, here you go:

  • It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since July 2009.
    • This should be pretty self-explanatory, the article has only 9 refs, and releases is completely unreferenced except one link.
  • It contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article. Tagged since July 2009.
    • Again, pretty self-explanatory. The plot should be around 400-500 words for a work of this length, and no more than 700; it is currently 771 and goes into overly excessive and unnecessary detail.
  • It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2009.
    • This speaks to its overall formatting, which does not come close to following WP:MOSFILM and WP:MOS-AM, the overly short lead, the overly small image in the infobox, the excessive non-free VHS cover, the cast table which is badly formatted and does not follow proper cast list formats, and some malformed references.
  • Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since July 2009.
  • Bias - The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
    • These two go hand in hand. It is extremely obvious (too me) that the article is overly American-centric for a Japanese film, and heavily slanted to the MGM and Disney releases rather than its origins. The release section even starts with MGM's English subtitled release, and gives excessive details on later re-releases/dubs/subs and NEVER mentions its actual Japanese theatrical and home movie releases, despite its being a #1 film in Japan for weeks. Ditto the reception section, which has only one line about the Japanese releases that I myself added recently.

I hope this helps explain the tags adequately. If there are further questions, ask. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea used for Disney?

[edit]

When I first saw this movie it got me thinking when I saw the inside the clock scene with all the gears, ive seen this somewhere before? Is it just me or was the idea also used in Disney's The Great Mouse Detective? Is there any source out there linking the two? This movie was 1979 and teh great mouse detective was made in 1986 roughly 7 years later. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was an homage, same with Atlantis and Batman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wrong Director name

[edit]

The director of this animation movie is [Ōtsuka]. Hyao Miazaki has only helped with script according to the movie opening credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.7.54 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did key animation, he did not direct, but was also a big influence on Miyazaki. He actually did the key animation, like Lupin leaping from turret to turret. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg matter

[edit]

Why delete the entire matter? Many RSes assert the Spielberg claim, even the box and Manga Entertainment assert it despite the story being incorrect, the film did not show at the Cannes Film Festival. Numerous academic works also assert it, I gave The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki as an example because this very popular and praised insight into Miyazaki's work asserts an even more pronounced claim which is incorrect. At this junction, it is not trivia, but instead citing the proper award and being accurate and careful in coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Castle of Cagliostro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Let's begin.

Lead

  • The Lupin III stories have a rather complicated background, which the lead does a rather poor job of explaining. For example, Maurice Leblanc is mentioned, without giving his full name, nor explaining that he wrote the series of books about Arsène Lupin, and Lupin III is meant to be that character's grandson. Remember that the reader shouldn't be presumed to know the Lupin III background, so enough of that needs to appear in the lead to make things clear to them.
  • Further, most of the material in the lead does not appear later, meaning that all such material is uncited. You can only skip citations in the lead if the information appears later.

Plot

  • Before going into plot, it'd be useful to have a "background" section. Detailing Lupin's appearance in other media, and the history of the character will prime people to understand this film. This would also allow you to detail the complicated descendants of major mythical heroes/rogues that make up Lupin III, such as Goemon Ishikawa XIII.

Production

  • "The film originated as a half-hour episode of a television series" - this really isn't enough detail. State which series, and, if possible, differences between it and the movie. Or, if the episode was planned, but made into a movie instead, say that clearly. As it is, this is just not enough detail.

Releases

  • This has citation needed tags, and arguably needs a lot more.


Conclusion:

This is well on its way to GA. Where it's good, it' very good. But the problems are pretty fundamental. I'm going to reluctantly ✗ Fail this, but I do think this will pass GA in a month or two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this to be reopened because some changes were done, like that lame "30 minute episode" from the NY Times, a glaring error, that should not have been included. Production information was split into influence (by error) when it should have been up higher. A few missing cites were actually fine, but had to be copied down and a few other things. As for background, this goes against MOS-AM and I am glad that this is a considerable issue is now formally recognized. I've been trying for such background information in works, but they have been repeated deleted as unnecessary by some editors. I'll be addressing the remaining issues shortly after a bit of rest - it is not hard at all to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it still doesn't even come close to explaining the background in a way comprehensible to people who don't know Lupin III, and what explanation it does have is uncited. It fails the GA requirement of completeness, and, whilst I'm completely convinced it can be fixed, as it stands, the lead actively confuses the reader unless they know Lupin III already. This is a Miyazaki film, meaning it's likely to attract an audience from outside the Lupin III fandom, as such, explaining the key background clearly isn't really optional. (WP:WIAGA Criterion 3a) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So taking one thing at a time, I have made a couple of minor changes to the lead - inserting Maurice's full name, as well as links to his and Lupin I's articles. As you say, the background of lupin III is a bit complicated, perhaps too complicated to be in full in the lead - the background section should probably cover this in more detail - however see chris' comments regarding mos-am, this is somewhat of a bone of contention in some places at the moment :) However as this is a GA review, its a good piece of evidence as to why the mos-am guidelines need to be changed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead - all the info is now ref'd, or appears later in the article as far as I can see. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background - can you be a bit more specific? Currently it gives a brief overview, any more detail on Lupin himself and it risks duplicating the Lupin & Lupin III articles. I dont have a problem with that really, but what specifically do you feel is lacking? The background to the creation of lupin III? more on his links to Lupin I? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the A&M guidelines, but yes, I'll treat this under MOSFILM because MOSFILM is the one which is far superior. I still have to finish reading some of McCarthy's section on CoC, but Cavallaro had a scant 2 pages in her book which is mostly fine here. Fixing the lede up and perhaps a character section would be fine, even though MOS-AM disagrees. This "no redundancy" is extreme, it is not "duplication of content" under REDUNDANTFORK - that only applies to the same topic on two pages. A&M has difficulty getting articles to par because of its bizarre MOS and the editors which back an even weirder interpretation. I'll have this probably fixed up by Friday, but I see that all of Lupin is a horrible mess on Wikipedia. I can't even pull from the other pages because of how bad and inaccurate they are! Also I've dropped the licensing matter, while true, they are not an issue, and I'll probably have to do the Streamline vs Manga Entertainment dubs because the Streamline one is really weird, but I've not been able to find the original VHS or the 1993 release, but its got a LOT of problems with translation accuracy, something that is typically glossed over because it is so obscure. Eitherway, I'm dropping MOS-AM's criteria and going to be pushing for proper context on all GAs in this area moving forward - there is no reason to deliberately avoid suitable background information. I completely agree with Adam Cuerden, but as for how much background information... yeah, this Lupin is completely different from the standard portrayal and this is a stand-alone film so the other media do not really apply to it so much. Again... I'll be on later to fix more of it, my time is short till tonight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth trying to get access to a copy of Hiyao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation as it has a section devoted entirely to the film. From the preview - all the films covered in that book seem to be done in detail. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one could argue it might be worth covering the other main characters - covering Goemon Ishikawa XIII in particular - but I think you're right - your fast changes brought it to GA, although it'll need a bit more work for FA. Reverting previous decision and changing to ✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forwards towards FA, I'd suggest a section on appearances of Lupin III previous to the film - it needn't be detailed, and probably include a brief mention of Miyazaki's career after this, since being one of the most notable animé director's directorial debut is notable, I think you'll agree. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I'll be continuing to improve it some more in accordance with MOSFILM instead of MOSAM. Only in Death, that is the book I am using, and I must say it is very good. I'll be adding more details from it shortly. A good copy edit should follow as I work up the nerve and skills to try for FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8th Saturn Award nom

[edit]

According to everything I know, the film was nominated for the 8th Saturn Award in 1980, this was prior to its restart. Since none of my publications list or credit the nomination, I have sent an email to the academy in hopes of obtaining a source and the verification of the nominations. For now, I guess it could remain as an invisible text note, but I have no reason to believe the information is incorrect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I can see it in Saturn Award for Best International Film (without sources) but http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html#international (the official site) states it was established in 2006. Something is strange so it's necessary a source. I also hope the information is correct but in doubt is preferably a source. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you say it started in 2006 though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my e-mail and got a message from the staff confirming that the 8th Annual Saturn Awards took place on July 26, 1980 and the nominees for Best International Film were: The Castle of Cagliostro (Lupin III) - Japan, The Changeling - Canada, Harlequin - Australia, Scanners - Canada and Terror Train - Canada. With Scanners winning. I've inquired as to whether or not this was on the website or in a publication so I can provide it. I haven't found anything on my own in archives sadly, so I am kinda stuck without it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the category was pulled for a while, then reinstated? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Castle of Cagliostro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the cultural impact on Steven Spielberg

[edit]

The section in cultural impact that claims Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark was influenced by the Castle of Cagliostro is erroneous and needs removing for the following reasons. The sources cited only claim that it was a rumor and one of the sources cited merely states similarity between the protagnist Indianna Jones and protagonist Lupin III. Another problem is that The conception for Raiders of the lost Ark was completed in 1975 four years before this film. At the time the Castle of Cagliostro was released in Japan, the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark was already completed. When the Castle of Cagliostro finally came to America in 1980 it did not have a wide viewing but that's not the chief issue. The chief issue is that neither Lucas or Spielberg could have seen the film in 1980 because they were already filming and completing the Raiders of the Lost Ark film. The earliest quote I could find concerning Spielberg and the film came from him in 1992 way after Raiders of the Lost Ark was completed and released but only a year after the Castle of Cagliostro finally had a theatrical release. The worst part is that Lucas and Speilberg have many times stated what their influence for the film was and the Castle of Cagliostro was never mentioned. In general an article should cite sources that have proof not opinion pieces with unsubstantiated rumors. Sanctusune (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the similarities you removed earlier. Similarities and influence are two different things. Even if it may not have influenced Spielberg, the similarities themselves are still notable. I've also renamed the section to "Legacy and cultural impact" so that the section is not just limited to influence only. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the recent removals

[edit]

Hey 177.68.4.235, I disagree with your removal of the budget in yen. The film was produced in Japan, was originally released in Japan, and the source states the budget in yen, not dollars. Also, you removed information about the home release and legacy without explanation. I'd prefer to hear your reasoning for the edits instead of reverting again. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Castle_of_Cagliostro&oldid=1206362918"