Talk:Studio Ghibli

Ghibli Theme Park opened on November 1, 2022

needs to be integrated in this article, and/or them"ghibli" disambiguation updated. I learned about thus from an AFP-article reproduced in Global Times: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202211/1278495.shtml

Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nausicaa

I can see that Nausicaa has been added back to the table of Ghibli films. Regardless of its inclusion in official websites it was not animated by Studio Ghibli and pre-dates the studio, being animated by Topcraft. The earlier revision made more sense, listing it as a predecessor immediately above the table but not including it. There has already been discussion of this in this very talk page. ERAGON (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Just removed it. As a note, the more comprehensive List of Studio Ghibli works does not include it either, but rather has it in a separate related works section along with Cagliostro and so forth. --ERAGON (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Music of Studio Ghibli

The music of Studio Ghibli is incredibly important to the reception of the films both within Japan and internationally. As well as this, there is a unique way Miyazaki and Hisaishi work together to create the music for the films, as discussed in: Bellano, Marco. "From Albums to Images: Studio Ghibli's Image Albums and Their Impact on Audiovisual Strategies." Trans (Online) (2012): 2-16. Web. Trashbagwithaface (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering something similar, it seems Studio Ghibli mu

sic on Spotify has over a million likes, Studio Ghibli music is used on the extremely popular youtube channel Cafe BGM and so I would tend to think the music has formed its own genre akin to the visual style, and is thus noteworthy in perhaps showing soundtrack charts, awards and cultural influence. Mrrealtime (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wordmark versus logo

@Imaginatorium: You reverted an edit I made recaptioning this:

...from "logo" to "wordmark".

Your explanation was "does not meet definition of wordmark".

Wikipedia's own definition of "wordmark" is:

A wordmark [...] is a distinct text-only typographic treatment of the name of a product, service, company, organization, or institution which is used for purposes of identification and branding.

...while the definition of "logo" is:

A logo [...] is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol used to aid and promote public identification and recognition.

The image I recaptioned consists solely of text, and contains no graphics. Also, the infobox says *this* image, which does contain a graphic, is Studio Ghibli's logo:

File:Studio Ghibli logo.svg

Given that, the image I recaptioned seems to very clearly be a wordmark, not a logo.

Can you elaborate on why you disagree?

Stephen Hui (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not check carefully which image you were looking at. I was looking at the "Logo" (not really much of a logo, is it?) at the top, which has a dreamy sketch of Totoro with the caption スタジオジブリ (Studio Ghibli). But I missed the lower "wordmark", which indeed is text only, but has the different caption スタジジブリ作品 ("Studio Ghibli product"), which is again not quite a wordmark for "Studio Ghibli". In the end these are reduplicative, so I agree with your decision to remove it. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Undue weight flag. This section is flagged because it gives undue weight to negative POVs and because they are added to their own section. Criticism sections are becoming increasingly popular on Wikipedia, but they are not required and must be handled appropriately.

How should we handle this? I suggest including this information within a section that already exists, or as a child section. It doesn't need nor should it have its own dedicated parent section unless someone's going to really expand upon these perspectives and hunt down reliable sources that refute the perspectives stated in sources 146 and 147.

Additionally, both POVs simply list what the perspectives are and not why or how the authors of those sources came to those conclusions. Wouldn't be as much of an issue if both sources were free to access.

Or we can remove the section altogether. Warm Yellow Sunflower (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the criticism section could fit under in this article; if there was a "reception" section or something like that here it'd be easier. I hesitate to say this, especially since the sources seem reliable, but if there's nothing else to balance out the section it may need to be removed until sources that balance it out can be found. Dantus21 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

About Ronja

@Geraldo Perez: To avoid having a conversation though edit summaries, let's talk about it here. Which source are you reading from that describes the series as cel-shaded? Anime News Network uses the phrase "3D CG series", which lines up with the text I reverted to. Let me know what you think. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going by the intro in Ronja, the Robber's Daughter (TV series). The reference they use is https://rabujoi.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/sanzoku-no-musume-ronja-01-02/ which states "everything except the backgrounds is cel-shading style CG". Not really a conflict because cel-shading is 3D CG technique, it is designed to make it look flatter. A link to Cel-shading in both articles seems to be more precise in what they are doing and why it matters to the look of the series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you were taking notes from another article, you should also copy over the citation so that the information is verifiable. In any case, though, the source you mentioned is a blog, which is considered generally unreliable due to being self-published. And though you're right in saying that cel-shading is a computer animation technique, not all computer animations are cel-shaded — we need a reliable source to make that statement. That being said, I'm going to revert back to the previous wording. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The Red Turtle

Greetings, if you look at the “Red Turtle” Wikipedia article, you will see ”The film is an international co-production between Studio Ghibli and several French companies, including Wild Bunch and Belvision.” However, someone removed it from this page and put: “While not technically Studio Ghibli films, The Great Adventure of Horus, ……., The Red Turtle (2016), ……. and Modest Heroes(2018) are sometimes grouped together with the Studio Ghibli library due to their ties with the studio” under “Works”.”

If it’s a coproduction, I feel should be included with a footnote. The same on the “List of Studio Ghibli Works” page. It’s one thing if Studio Ghibli didn’t have any involvement like “Mary and the Witch’s Flower”, but if they coproduced “Red Turtle”, it should be given credit. A coproduction is a joint venture. Thoughts? Acadiel (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up your concerns with the article, Acadiel! I've removed the paragraph you're referring to as it was unsourced, and as you mentioned, not entirely accurate. If you see issues like this in the future, I encourage you to be bold and make the changes you see fit — other editors will see those changes and hopefully discuss them with you if required. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)