Talk:Now and Then, Here and There

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Quality[edit]

I think this article godawful. Please feel free to rephrase stuff or whatever you look -- that's why I marked it stub. -- towo 23:24, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

I removed a few major spoilers //Inkstaine

Yeah, this article belies the quality of this series, and further information on characters/plot/theme are needed. JyL (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are responding to comments that are four years old. The article has gone through some changes since then. Still, the article needs much additional expansion and reference. Please be bold :-) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the spoilers, seeing as I came to this wiki just for general reference and ended up being spoiled for the series.70.157.6.160 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removals. It's a common and long-standing principle of Wikipedia that we do not diminish the quality or comprehensiveness of articles just to cater to people foolish enough to read encyclopedia articles & who might get spoiled - except maybe when a media is very new or very popular (neither of which have applied for years or at all). If you're interested in all the whys and wherefores, the spoiler template discussions contain much lengthy adumbrations of all this. --Gwern (contribs) 14:36 29 June 2008 (GMT)

japanese anime dispute[edit]

granted there is no official definition of anime, and some "less informed" fans have called non-Japanese work anime dude to similar style, it is generally accepted by the majority of english speaking fans who are reading that article that anime applies to a work of animation from japan. calling it a Japanese anime is redundant, although not a big deal at all, has now been turned into an issue. It's not really that it's important for this particular article, but that we make it clear that anime does mean animation from Japan. I didn't think this was an issue, but if some users want it to become one, then alright... Ned Scott 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, even if anime did mean works from the whole world, that does not remove the fact that it is stated to be a work from japan several other times on the article.Ned Scott 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ned. --huwr 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say, why is this, in particular, a "Japanese" anime? What is it about it that makes it Japanese? The term is too vague, so when there's dispute about it, I don't think it should be used so broadly to describe the series.FluffyCubed 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it isn't vague at all. It distinguishes from Korean, or America, or Chinese anime quite handily. May I quote from the actual anime article? "Anime (アニメ) is a style of animation originating in Japan." Note that it is a style, not a term classifying cartoons by geographic origin. --maru (talk) contribs 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think referencing another wikipedia article proves your point at all. Not only that, but I have never heard anyone call Chinese or Korean animation "anime". Could you give examples of the public referring to Korean or Chinese animation "anime"? --Ned Scott 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Wonderful+Days+anime&btnG=Search

Ned, so you think the anime article is wrong? Why then are you not arguing there instead of picking on this one fairly obscure anime article? --maru (talk) contribs 04:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen live-action movies reviewed on those anime sites. I've also seen DVD online stores put the Simpsons under Anime. Cartoon Network has shown live-action movies, does that make those live action movies cartoons? Being featured on an "anime" web site is not the same as being called anime. --Ned Scott 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point entirely. I'm pointedly not talking about the style. I'm saying, what is it about this anime that makes you say that it is "Japanese" anime? --FluffyCubed 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Japan by Japanese? --maru (talk) contribs 04:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell me where this was animated? --FluffyCubed 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I come back to my second point, even if anime applies to works from other than Japan, that does not make the previous revision any less redundant. It makes as much sense to say Japanese (when it's already been said twice in that first line) each time as it does to say it's also a feature in color. Are we to say that this is a Japanese color anime made by Japanese human people featured on Japanese electronic TV sets first viewed by Japanese audiences? In many other places in the article it is indicated that this is a Japanese work. Most anime articles on wikipedia are already bloated as it is, lets not add to the problem. --Ned Scott 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a sentence in the first paragraph that says "Now and Then, Here and There is a Japanese 13-episode fictional anime series" rather than "Now and Then, Here and There is a 13-episode fictional Japanese anime." That may help to avoid the possible misinterpretation of "anime made in Japan" to "Japanese anime, (as opposed to Mexican anime)". --huwr 04:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that. --maru (talk) contribs 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an easier answer. Japanese + animated = anime. Anime is just the Japanese word for "animated film" though, so you could call it "animated series" if you want. No nee to argue. By the way, it was very hard for me to hold back my tears in episode 12. Thanks.

A note, though this is an old discussion, I've removed "Japanese" from the lead. It now reads Now and Then, Here and There (今、そこにいる僕, Ima, Soko ni Iru Boku?) is a 13-episode anime series directed by Akitaro Daichi... AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources[edit]

Just culling some possible sources to reference this article with.

Scifi.com article [1]
Hideyuki Kurata ANN profile [2]
AnimeBliss review [3]
AnimeonDVD review disc 1[4]

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrivirsy in the Show[edit]

Ive seen MULTIBLE Contrivircal scenes I KNOW was addressed by the staff and so I was thinking I'd address it here!--Wikiloli (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far future[edit]

What is the basis for claiming that NTHT is set in the so far future that the Earth will soon be destroyed? The only plausible mechanism is being engulfed by the Sun turned red giant, and I don't believe a red giant is depicted nor do we have much reason to believe destruction is imminent. For that matter, the opening speaks of only a billion years, IIRC, which not long enough. --Gwern (contribs) 16:45 27 September 2008 (GMT)

I think the intro referred to 10 billion years, but the exact amount is not the point. Neither is the mechanism of the Earth's destruction. After all, this is fiction so it may not stick to the timing and method that scientists expect for the end of the Earth. One of the characters (I do not remember which one) refers to someone (Sara?) having gone to the future. LaLa-Ru, in her one lengthy conversation with Sis, asks why Sis wants to bring up children when the Earth is coming to an end soon, and Sis accepts that factual premise. And the world is referred to as "Earth" more than once. And it is more plausible to have humans on Earth than on another planet. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I need to watch it again, but I took the pessimistic future conversations less as "the earth will end" and more as "civilization will end" due to lack of water and other resources (and Hellywood on the attack). Obviously, Lala-ru fixed the lack of water part, so I interpreted that as sort of a new beginning for earth. Again, I could be wrong... Thx1200 (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro never actually says that's when the show takes place, it just says 10 billion years' time is fragile. However, besides the references to 'Earth' and humans being on the planet, there are two major confirmations that the series is set into the far future. The first is the episode 4 preview at the end of episode 3, where Hamdo says the following:

"Earth was once called a planet of water. But look at her now. She can't even relieve my thirst! I would go to war to bring back the water the planet once had. And this war, no matter how bloody it may be, shall be called a holy war!"

Then, in the very last episode, Hamdo is in the transport chamber, and as water floods in, he shouts towards Abelia:

"Come now! Transfer me somewhere with the bound system! Are you listening, Abelia? Send me to any year! Anywhere but this place! I don't like it here! I don't wanna stay here!" (emphasis mine)

You'd expect him to ask Abelia to transport him to any location, but he does not. The transport chamber does not teleport people to other locations, it's a time machine for sending people to other times, and it would be more than reasonable to assume that that is what Lala Ru used to escape before the series starts. VDZ (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ringwaldt - Suicide?[edit]

"Unable to cope with the pain of being raped and carrying a child from those rapes, she attempts to commit suicide by drowning herself. "

Where did this interpretation of that scene came from? She immersed herself to the waist in freezing water and slammed a large stone repeatedly against her stomach. She wasn't trying to commit suicide, she was trying to abort the baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.249.128 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She first tried to commit suicide by drowning; and then, when stopped by Shu, she tried to abort her baby. He also stopped that. That she was attempting drowning is apparent from the fact that she was trying to go further out where the water was deeper when Shu stopped her. Also from her suicidal comments. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what anime you were watching, but Sara NEVER tried to commit suicide. Apparently I'm not the only one who is confused by your odd interpretation. After all she did to get out of Heliwood, why would she kill herself. The only one Sara was trying to kill was the fetus inside of her. I'd suggest you rewatch the scene. Alioki —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This isn't anybody's interpretation. After being pulled out of the water, she asks Shu why he won't let her die, and he tries to convince her why she shouldn't kill herself. She also mentions wishing she had never been born. Unless the sub/dub completely changed the dialogue in that scene, there is no room for interpretation. She intended to kill herself, and then attempted to kill the baby when suicide was no longer an option. Crumplecorn (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Inspiration[edit]

It seems part of the series main music theme (Standing in the Sunset Glow) may have been inspired by the third movement of Rachmoninov's 2nd symphony. That's not to say the theme was plagiarized, but a quick listen to either will illustrate the similarities.

refs[edit]

EX overview (archive):[5]

-- Lucia Black (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Now and Then, Here and There. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]