Talk:Shaft (company)

Monogatari Production

Three things concerning the production for the series:

1. Each note for the entries seem to be based by the production releases, so we have Nise as a sequel to Bake, Neko Kuro as sequel to Nise, and so on, but why Kizu is the prequel for Bake? By that logic it should be a sequel to Koyomimonogatari, and Owari II a sequel to Kizu;
2. Hanamonogatari is part of Monogatari Second Season by the way, so Hana being a sequel to it doesn't make sense. I mean, even the streaming websites puts Hana together with Monogatari Second Season;
3. Zoku Owari is a production for TV, as it was stated in at the least 2 interviews (one of them with Shinbo), so it wouldn't be better to categorize it accordingly?

Crosswrm (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Crosswrm:

1. Well, a prequel is "a work containing events that precede those of an existing work," so Kizu is in fact a prequel to Bake. Thinking about it more though, Neko (Kuro) is also a prequel to Bake (and Kizu is a prequel to Kuro), so the current notes do not consistently follow this rule. They could use some careful revisions (alternatively, they could be all changed to something like "Part of the Monogatari series", though that would be less informative.)
2. I think Hana should continue to be categorized separately from Second Season. Crunchyroll (which you linked) separates it, and other sources that separate it include the Media Arts Database (published the Japanese govt.) and Shaft's website. Most online anime databases also separate it. IIRC, it was advertised as "Second Season +α", and received a separate DVD/Blu-ray release; most importantly, it aired 8 months later than the rest of Second Season, so for the purposes of a chronological productions table I think that it should be separate. Right now, there is an Efn note that explains some of the strange adaptation circumstances surrounding it (maybe it could be improved?)
3. I am ambivalent about this one. Currently, the later TV airing (more than 6 months later!) is acknowledged in an Efn note. Also, 30 theaters is a rather substantial screening (not just a typical pre-view).

— Goszei (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Imo, talking about the series through its chronology would be too convoluted and provide no real benefits (considering multiple arcs within the series take place throughout the span of the series, i.e. Bake arcs do not take place chronologically). A better solution would to just say something like "continuation of", rather than "sequel to", for this reason. Also, while they may be categorized together by official licensors and such, I don't really see the need in combining Hana with Second Season, especially considering the fact that they're most well-known separated. You go to MAL, A-P, AniDB, even the various other Wikipedia pages and you'll see the 5 main Mono Second arcs separated from Hana (in contrast to Neko: White, Kabuki, and ect. consistently being categorized together). As for Zoku Owari, I'd rather just keep the footnotes and list it as a film (it's intended for TV purposes but was ultimately first released in its entirety as a theatrical film). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Goszei: and :Sarcataclysmal:

1. Yeah, it's that inconsistency I'm talking about.
2. I'm not really saying to merge Hana with Monogatari Second Season because that just would add to confusion, but in the note instead of using "Sequel to Monogatari Second Season" to use "Final Part of Monogatari Second Season" because Hana is part of that production and not something separated. The existing of the BD-Box released last year of Monogatari Second Season should be evidence enough for that. And even the Monogatari website puts Hana together with the rest of the Second Season. Also, every story of Monogatari Second Season was initially released as Nekomonogatari (Shiro), Kabukimonogatari, Otorimonogatari, Onimonogatari, Koimonogatari, and Hanamonogatari and later, with that BD-Box mentioned before, it received a "complete" release. You can see it here https://www.monogatari-series.com/bddvdcd/. Just select "〈物語〉シリーズ セカンドシーズン". You can also see the Hana's blu-ray there.
3. It's mostly because in that interview Kamiya was doing when he talked with the audience about Zoku Owari being a film, the producers immediately said to him the only film in the series was Kizu and, after that, he was referring of Zoku Owari as a production for TV. Being screened doesn't change that fact, as the producers (and Shinbo) explicitly stated that. Crosswrm (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, that sounds sensical. As for Zoku Owari, I suppose it would be more correct if that's what they all desire it to be recognized as (and instead leave a note about its premiere being a film). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crosswrm: @Sarcataclysmal: I have moved Zoku Owari to the "TV series" section, and have also replaced the notes for the post-Bake adaptations with "Continuation of the Monogatari series." — Goszei (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Legend of the Galactic Heroes

@Goszei: – I've looked into it the best that I can, and I believe Legend of the Galactic Heroes can be added to the article despite Shaft's "production assistance" credit.

It is true that Kitty Films, the original owners of many of the Yoshiki Tanaka and Rumiko Takahashi series, had its own animation department, that being Kitty Films Mitaka Studio (キティフィルム三鷹スタジオ). For the first 26 episodes of LotGH, the Mitaka Studio is credited with Animation Production (アニメーション制作), and for episodes 27-86, the studio is credited with Production (制作). So the Mitaka Studio is responsible for animating the first 86 episodes of the series, that we can establish as fact based on axiomatic evidence.

Around the mid-90s, Kitty Films sold the rights to all of its animation properties and left the business to become a talent agency (which is true; Kitty Films no longer holds the rights to any of its titles, and it currently exists as talent agency Kitty Co, Ltd. (株式会社キティ) (http://www.kitty.co.jp/). There are alleged reasons I found for this change in company on EN and JP Wiki involving founder Hidenori Taga and a scandal, but the reason is irrelevant and could be OR-- what matters is that beyond episode 86, Kitty Films is no longer credited on any part of LotGH.

K-Factory then took over production of the rest of the series and both sets of OVAs. K-Factory isn't an animation studio, though-- they're involved at the planning and production level of anime, films, video games, and ect. according to their website (https://www.k-factory.net/company), but there's no evidence of being an animation studio at any point in time. Following K-Project's attachment, studios Magic Bus, Artland, and Shaft were outsourced for every single episode except two (handled by Mushi Production), according to the ending credits.

If we look at the Urusei Yatsura films, we can see Kitty Films (the normal company) credited for Production (製作); it's an acknowledged fact that Pierrot and Deen were responsible for animating those films, despite being credited as Production Assistance (製作協力), however. The LotGH circumstances appear to be the same as these films' based on circumstantial evidence: K-Factory took over and outsourced to different studios because they, themselves, aren't an animation studio.

Another similar example of this is Battle Angel Alita, where Animate Film is credted as "Produciton" and Madhouse is credited as "Production Assistance", but since Animate Film isn't an animation studio, everyone calls it a work of Madhouse.

So, what do you think? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Shaft worked on LoGH as a contractor, but I question if such contracted animation credits should be in studio articles, and if so, in what capacity.

I think we can agree that listing more minor contracted credits in anime production, like cel finishing/clean-up (仕上) and coloring (彩色), would flood the article with information relevant to a narrow audience, which impedes navigation and dilutes readers' understanding of the works a studio is most strongly associated with. I understand exceptions for cases where the animation is done entirely by a sole studio like Madhouse, but I think here it is a little too weak since Magic Bus and Artland were also involved. If I had to formulate a general rule for inclusion, I would say the one at KyoAni's article is good one: "In the tables below, only the productions for which X was a lead producer are listed" (and expand that to include dual-studio collaborations).

What I have stated above is my opinion on including the information in the productions tables. I think the information is borderline includible in the "other productions" bulleted list, or even better in the "History" section between the sentences on the studio's founding (1975) and first independent production (1987), which is kind of a black hole (and is for lots of other anime studios that do contracting work for decades before they start making stuff.) — Goszei (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't list minor credits like "finishing/clean-up" and in-between or key animation credits, but I do think that we can expand to something like "this studio was the main animation studio behind the project." I can exemplify this in two made-up categories: indirect and direct outsourcing. These aren't real terms, I'm just using them to better explain what I mean.

The Seven Deadly Sins most recent seasons have had bad animation according to the entire internet, and most people seem to blame Studio Deen (which is fair), but some people are instead saying that it's because Deen is outsourcing a lot of the animation to Marvy Jack (a Korean outsourcing studio). Here's a CBR article talking about that. If we look at the credits, Studio Deen is credited for Production (制作) and Marvy Jack is credited for Production Assistance (制作協力). This is an example of what I would call "indirect outsourcing." Studio Deen is the main animation production studio behind the work, and thus we don't need to list it as a work of Marvy Jack because they only assisted the main animation studio.

Now let's use my aforementioned Alita example. Animate Film is credited as the main production company behind the work, and that's fine, but crediting them and not Madhouse (who are credited for Work Assistance), despite not being an animation studio, doesn't seem accurate-- this is, after all, an animated production of studio Madhouse. In this case, Animate Film "directly" outsources all animation work to Madhouse.

LotGH is similar. The latter 24 episodes have a main production company that directly outsources the animation work to animation studios. In other words, unlike with SDS season 3/4, Shaft et al. aren't just assisting the main production company, they are the studios behind the project, just like with Alita.

The reason I'm particularly adamant about this is that I've found quite a few older series that have similar circumstances: the animation studio is sub-credited, and either KSS, Kitty Films, OB Planning, or other non-animation studios get the main credit. It seems a bit unreasonable to consider those works "other productions", imo, since the studios are still responsible for animating and producing these works. And this mainly seems to be a thing with older series-- the only series I can think of in the last 10 years that has done the same thing is a ComicFesta hentai I had to deal with for A-P. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, I think I see the distinction now. I suppose it is fine to insert in the table, as long as the principle is consistently applied. — Goszei (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Table

@Goszei: — Hi, we discussed this a while back but I had an idea of replacing the "Note(s)" section with an "Animation producer" section, and putting co-production notes next to the title in parentheses (it gives weight to the idea that it's a co-production). But this comes down to a few points that can be generalized as studio centrism in regards to their tables on their articles:

1) Rarely is there a correlation between the author of the work and the studio that produces their work. This has more to do with companies that own said studios (i.e., ENGI is majority owned by Kadokawa Corporation, and therefore is likely going to be contracted for works Kadokawa is involved with or directly publishes. However, for independent studios this comes down to business partnerships; in the case of Shaft, we can see this through their consistency with Aniplex or (formerly) King Records, but again this has little to do with the authors themselves. I think if the reader wants to know what the adaptation is about beyond what the source is, they can follow the hyperlink to the respective page to know more.

2) Being able to see the relationship between series is overinformative. On MAPPA, we might see things like Attack on Titan The Final Season being produced there, but again I wonder if it's worth noting. An editor recently felt this way and removed most of the Notes column on MAPPA, which I think looks cleaner overall, but again if the reader wants to know they can read about it on another article, and the relationships between series isn't totally studio centric. This is especially true with things like Monogatari where each sequel/prequel might be a TV series, an ONA, or a film, so it's not very convenient trying to navigate the page seeing those relationships (which, otherwise, I don't think there's much of a point to them)

3) As coverage of the industry becomes more widely available through "Sakugablog", "Full Frontal Moe", and other publications, we can see the real effect that "animation producers" have on the works and the studios they work at. "Sakugablog", specifically, for example, makes heavy notes of the work of animation producer Shouta Umehara on his productions; but also takes time to talk about the other animation producers at the studio when relevant. These animation producers act much like line producers, but rather than managing a single episode, they manage the whole series; and oftentimes, they're tasked with finding staff for a project. These different animation producers at the same studio can thus characterize different sub-cultures within studios themselves and who exactly gets brought onto projects. There are distinct differences in staff compositions and work ethic between Umehara's works at CloverWorks (Wonder Egg Priority, My Dress-Up Darling, Bocchi the Rock) and, say, Toshikazu Tsuji (Ace Attorney 2, Persona 5, Shadows House)

With Shaft, though Kubota has characterized a lack of separate production lines, we can see different forms of productions taking place between the studio's two main animation producers: Kouichi Yasuda and Yuuya Matsukawa. Here is my sandbox rendition.

An alternative might be to add a "Source" column since that might be relevant to certain studios and their desire to either adapt certain types of works (light novels, manga, etc.) or try to do original works. Also, keeping the Notes section but reducing it to something like the MAPPA page could be another alternative that I think would improve the tables. Anyway, if you have any thoughts, please let me know. Thanks for your time. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your evaluation of the importance of animation producers and acknowledge their growing recognition, but I also think that adding a column for them is troublesome because our anime articles themselves almost never mention the credit (either in the infobox or otherwise). As with all information in a cross-linked table like this, I think the appearance of the info in the subject article itself should be a prerequisite for inclusion. Deciding whether that (rather extensive) project should be pursued requires a wider consensus, and should perhaps be discussed at the WikiProject.

On the simplification of notes, as at MAPPA, I am ambivalent, but I agree that it's more parsable and think it is acceptable. — Goszei (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I was initially going to make this discussion on the WikiProject first, but as the person responsible for the (best rendition) of the tables so far (in my opinion), I thought it might be best to garner your opinion first and foremost before presenting it elsewhere.

As for the supposed "prerequisite", I think the main reason they don't show up comes down to two main reasons: the job of the animation producer was not fully understood until more recent times, in which case the idea of mentioning them in articles was likely never considered and the credit thrown in with the rest of the things not worth mentioning. In this scenario, I would assume that is why the infobox doesn't have a parameter for an animation producer (when, realistically spekaing with the information we have now, you could argue it's more important than normally credited "producers" and such; well, there's other parts of the infobox we could nitpick, but nonetheless). The other part comes down to a lack of proper sourcing outside of the credits themselves; this is an issue in both JP and EN sourcing, i.e. Kouichi Yasuda only has this one mention on an ANN article, but I would say at least 1/4 of the time JP announcements of big staff lists have the animation producer listed as well. (Though, there are also instances like an interview with Yasuda in the Assault Lily Bouquet Funimation release.) Sarcataclysmal (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Outsourcing

I've previously discussed this before, but I think it's probably a good idea to have a section dedicated to gross outsourcing (meaning, non-prime contract work given to the studio in which they produce an episode or all episodes of a work under contract from an actual prime contractor). The previous arguments made against this is that they were not particularly relevant to the studio or as important to the studio as actual prime contract work, but in retrospect I think this is incorrect. For example, we can look at Tezuka Productions occasionally outsourcing an episode of their work to Shaft-- in these cases, Shaft's work seems to be highly praised over Tezuka Productions' own studio, and even include things like their own credited animation producer (Cafe Terrace #9) insinuating just how deep into the production the staff of Shaft actually were on an episode of a work they weren't even a prime contractor for.

Going back even further, we can bring up the aforementioned Legend of the Galactic Heroes and even Silent Mobius, and a variety of other productions. None of these are prime contract works, yet the staff who worked on these productions will say things like "I worked from Shaft, because that's where all of the animation staff were"; and Higuchi says this in regard to Mori no Tonto-tachi, while president Kubota mentions that the staff of Silent Mobius worked out of Shaft because they were subcontracted by Radix for all episodes (see citation on page). Many of these older works are probably done this way simply because the studio did not have the capital to secure the rights to the work and produce it under prime contract, or weren't given that opportunity and simpl asked as a subcontractor to produce it. Either way, Zuiyo may be the prime contractor for Tonto-tachi, but the staff worked from Shaft; so it would be worthwhile to have a section dedicated to that kind of production and other episodic things that the studio does. Most recently, the company is assisting Bug Films with the production of Zom 100, which Bug Films' CEO Hiroaki Kojima even commented on (see citation on page). Rather than simply have a mention, I think it's worthwhile to include a section for "sub-contracting" work, as it is highly relevant to the business relations between other studios (i.e., the reason Triangle Staff and director Ryuutarou Nakamura worked often with Shaft; see article, Gigazine source), the work output of staff of the studio, and even their significance when it comes to media and fan interaction with them.

JP Wiki has their own sub-contracting tables for this kind of work, but I don't know if I'd want a table per se. Either way, I think the notion that they aren't important is incorrect, and the notion that they aren't *as* important is irrelevant. Maria Holic Alive is considered a Shaft work, but every episode was outsourced to Studio Pastora; and so if Studio Pastoral had a page, I think it would be worth noting such a thing on their page in its own little section for outsourced episodes. While I don't think it's worth noting every single minor outsourcing credit a company does (i.e., Shaft participating as in-betweeners on the final episode of Golden Kamuy 4th), full-episode gross outsources are worthwhile.

As a final comment, there's already precedent for this as JP wiki includes such lists on several of their pages (even with sources for many). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)