# Talk:Cowboy Bebop: The Movie

Why were the character images removed? OrphanBot's reason was no source for the images, but they are clearly from the movie. I think they should be restored, because they really enhance the character section.

I feel we should mention the location but I can't remember what it was, from the last time I saw it. Some Arab country, right?203.10.77.190

The film takes place on Mars in 2071. The Arab area shown in the film is simply an ethnic enclave within a larger city.

"Faye Valentine: One of the antagonists of the movie."  I wouldn't really consider Faye Valentine to be an antagonist in this movie, really.  She actually only plays an antagonistic role in a few episodes of the actual TV show, when she is still a bounty head (Namely the 3rd and 4th episodes).  After those episodes, she joins the others as a cowboy, and in the movie itself, she is helping, rather than hindering, the protagonists (Spike and Jet).  Does anyone else agree with me that this should be changed? The Phantom Trogdor

Yep. —This unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.6 (talk • contribs) .
of course, faye is the heroine. Chutup 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to add the following ratings to the box at the bottom:
Alberta = 14A
British Columbia = 14A
Manitoba = PA
Nova Scotia = 14
Ontario = AA
Quebec = 13+
Does anyone know how to do it? —This unsigned comment was added by 131.202.140.176 (talk • contribs) .

Sources? You can't just put ratings in without an valid source, and please sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~). moocowsruletalk to moo 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the AdultSwim airing of the movie, but I heard the opening logo read "Cowboy BeBop:  Knockin' on Heaven's Door" as opposed to "Cowboy BeBop: The Movie."  The information here seems to back this up, saying that it was the Japanese syndication as opposed to letterbox and the credits were in English.  Can anyone backup the claim that the Japanese logo was used? —This unsigned comment was added by 168.11.200.2 (talk • contribs) .

What's all this about Spike's father? I don't remember that... —This unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.139 (talk • contribs) .

a lot of it.--Dangerous-Boy 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

really think its needed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.226.12.4 (talk • contribs) .

A what? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Beats me.--Dangerous-Boy 08:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think who-ever-it-is is talking about how well the movie was received.  --Miss Ethereal 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of the text in the movie (US version) is in English. Was this translated, or is that how it appeared in the original Japanese version? 14:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here looking for the movie's plot, but alas, there is none. There's lots of info on each character, and because of that there's a spoiler warning, but really, there should be an actual PLOT to put that warning for, not pieces of the plot given by the character descriptions! I'd be thankful if someone put a complete plot summary here, thanks in advance! --Kreachure 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now one thing I'd like to know, and I guess it's part of the plot too, in what time relative to the series does this take place? Is it after or during? Since well, without spoiling, the series ended with a kind of a bang so I'm a bit confused as to when does the movie happen, since for example, Ed & Ein are supposed to be somewhere on Earth.
Apparently, it takes place between episodes 22-23. --Petrim 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. To be more specific, the movie takes place between episodes 22 and 23 on Mars during Halloween 2071.
The Movie, Knocking on Heavens Door was never confirmed to be between episodes 22 and 23, this is just speculation because Bigshot is still on the air and all of the old trio are still alive. If the theory is true that this movie is a dream of Spikes, then this could very well mean that the movie is based not much after episode 26, and Spike survived hes fight with Vicious. This is just speculation too, but my point is that the movie being set between episodes 22 and 23 is not fact and im removing it, feel free to put back up if you've got the evidence to support it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.119.120 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
A comment about when this is set relative to the series *is* required. Even if that comment is just, "When this movie is set relative to the movie is unknown and speculated about with the fan community". Since between eps. 22 and 23 is quite a logical speculation, that should really be mentioned too. I tried to pop it subtly into the intro, but you really need to add a line or two to support the speculation and that didn't fit. Instead I made a separate section. I'm not sure if that is the best way. Feel free to change it, but *some* comment about this is required within this article. Porco-esphino (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Why episodes 22 and 23? If Ed and Ein are still with the group, why not between episodes 4 and 24 in the article? How can it be certain that it is between 22 and 23 for the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakon (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I originally wrote the comment about the film taking place between episodes 22-23 during Halloween 2071, and since then I have come to doubt how true that is. The movie is clearly a dream of Spikes. This means that the movie could take place any time during the series after Spike met Ed. However, I now believe that the movie is Watanabe's hint that Spike did survive his final encounter with Vicious. After the fight on the train, Spike has a moment of lucidity during his dream where Jet tells him that he almost did not survive, and that someone else died. That someone else is obviously Vicious. Spike did not meet Jet until the following morning, and Vincent was not dead, so who was Jet referring to? Remember that this happened before Old Man Bull and his son rescued Spike. This supports the theory that Spike actually awakened from his dream to find out that Vicious was dead, and then lapsed back into his dream. I now believe the movie takes place after the series, and that Spike survived. 68.190.43.142 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm convinced the movie was a dream and that Spike survived episode 26 (Vicious hit the floor with his katana during the final clash after hearing that Julia had died).  That's a really good thought, that he was waking up during the dream, saw and heard Jet then fell back to sleep and continued his dream.   Other than the fact that Vicious didn't slash Spike at the end of 26, the rest of this is only speculation and really can't be included in the article.
--MrsSpooky 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Jet's reference to Spike's death could be a reference to his fake death to escape Mars. He Tells this to the indian chief in the very first episode. Asteroid Blues I believe the quote was "I was killed by a woman once." Jet could be referring to this death.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubimus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 

It says the only anime dub she has done is this.. what utter crap! On her own page it names hundred of anime she has dubbed for! So, I am removing that moronic trivia about her. -Sion Black
Um, the only dubbing she's done is in video games and Totally Spies, not Japanese anime. I'm putting the trivia part back Zidane4028 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that information would be better off on the Jennifer Hale page, though, wouldn't it? -Chutup 10:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think/know that Vincent might have been inspired by Alan Moore's 'V for Vendetta'? Vincent and V have similar appearances (hair, beard, long black coat and wide-brimmed hat), they have similar methods (dramatically orchestrated public bombings), they have similar backgrounds (test subject for the military) and they have several key scenes in common - stabbing people with their fingers alone, exploding train cars, to name a couple.
Wow, someone else operating on my wavelength: Yeah, I was just about to propose the same thing. I noticed a day or two ago. I figure it should go as a note in the Trivia section. Juno Loire 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt this, since 'V for Vendetta' has not been translated into Japanese. Personally, I feel that Vincent is a stereotype of "dark character" and similarities with V are coincidental.--Revth 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That's speculation, which is not allowed on wikipedia. But, between us, no, I don't think Vincent is anything like V. For a start, Vincent is motivated by a mad, nonsensical desire to destroy all humans, whereas V wants to bring about a revolution. -Chutup 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think we should put in the trivia section that this is the second time that the heroes of Cowboy Bebop prevented a super virus from wiping out the population of an entire planet (the first time was in ep. 4, Gateway Shuffle)? -Chutup 10:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections should be avoided and I think that it is not significant enough to be included in the article. - kollision (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost the whole article is made from one interview. Are all the facts really important? If there was only one interview about this movie, maybe the article should be shorter. 81.182.237.221 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for the Cowboy Bebop movie in production (or in preproduction or before any production) wich has Keanu Reeves as Spike. Is there an article about it? If there will be, what's going to be it's title? 81.182.236.155 (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It hasn't started production yet, but it's been officially announced. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-01-15/live-action-cowboy-bebop-proposal-officially-announced Stewartdc8 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry had a lot of useful and important information and pictures that seemed to disappear without explanation or discussion. I went back and looked at the edits, and most of this information was removed around August 2007. As of January 2007 the page was in great shape. I will mostly restore the page to the way it was around January 2007 this weekend. If anybody has objections or reasons why this page was eviscerated, I would love to hear them. It seems other people have also complained on this talk page about why this info was removed without reason. 96.32.75.226 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason it was removed. A film this insignificant doesn't need tons of photos, and a lot of it was probably to bring it up to date with guidelines and policies. Leave it the way it is. moocowsruletalk to moo 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The scene where Spike shoots the window, and swings off to kick it in, reminded me of a similair scene from Die Hard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 

Animefringe: DVD
EX org (archive): DVD
-- Lucia Black (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cowboy Bebop: The Movie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Expect the review to be finished by tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Review complete. I'm putting this on hold to give the nominator time to address concerns. Freikorp (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
General:
You use the terms 'film' and 'movie' interchangeably. Pick one and stick with it. Normally I strongly prefer 'film' but considering the word 'movie' is in the film's title either one you want to use is fine with me.
Don't use # symbol as per MOS:HASH.
Plot:
Any reason who this is over 900 words? I don't recall the plot being so complicated that it couldn't be covered in under 700 words as per WP:FILMPLOT.
Correct my if i'm wrong but aren't film plots supposed to be written in-universe? I.e ditch stuff like "The film ends with the question 'Are You Living in the Real World?'."
You don't need citations in the plot, any particular reason why you've put these ones in there? "The movie takes place between Episodes 22 and 23 of the TV series, prior to the Bebop '​s crew splitting up" should not be in the plot as per previous point.
Development:
Avoid contractions such as "wasn't".
"put the entire story in a twenty-minute episode for the series, the team were able to tell a longer, more detailed story." Suggested rewording to avoid using "story" twice in such close proximity. Suggest doing the same with "show" in the sentence "showed a gentler side than he did in the series, as there was more time available to show such details".
Can you find information on why the Bob Dylan song served as inspiration, or why Higashi and Imakake were replaced? This would be of interest to the reader.
"It was first shown to the west at the 2002 AnimeCon, retitled Cowboy Bebop: The Movie." This belongs in the 'Release' section, where it is mentioned anyway. I think you should remove this information from the 'Development' section.
Release:
Consider putting information on DVD's in home media section, as mentioned below.
Reception:
"He also noted the film's subject matter of terrorism in the face of the September 11 attacks." In what manner did he note it? Not overly helpful to the reader as is.
Section should be titled "Critical response" as per MOS:FILM
Information on home media should be in a section or subsection title "Home media"

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference section looks good overall, though I see inconsistently formatted dates and access dates (i.e Retrieved 2009-05-03,  Retrieved April 25, 2014 and Retrieved 8 January 2015). Double check everything is consistent.
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
In an ideal world this would have a 'Themes' section, though in my experience it's hard to find reliable sources that comment on themes in anime. Have you at least looked for sources on themes?
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? 
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
It's a shame this article doesn't have a picture other than the poster. Can you justify using the image of the cast as seen at List of Cowboy Bebop characters? Or failing that, can you upload a relevant still from the film?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Did my best with the plot section. If it needs trimming down more, I'll do my best, but then it will lose something. I was pretty much revamping this article using Ghost in the Shell (film) as a template. As to all the other points, I fixed them where I could, I think. There are absolutely no sources on the film's Japanese title, the replacement of staff members, or any substantial themes. The most I could possibly come up with is a small section on the subject matter correlating to the September 11 terrorist attacks, but it would be very shaky, so I didn't bother with it. The film just hasn't received as much attention as the series, or the links are hard to find/unavailable/ineligible/dead. And Sock went through the references before me and did a general date check (many thanks for that). 'Update on Image: I can't use the series image, apparently. I was removed when I tried. and since there isn't really any other image out there that seems suitable, I can't do that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
New update: I had to do some rewriting, as the contemporary Kotaku review is considered "trashy low quality bait blog", so I had to do some rearranging, and did a couple of other things alongside that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, whoops! I didn't realize this was a GA nominee. I had just watched the film and went on here and made a few small changes. Glad I didn't go against anything in here, haha. Sock (tock talk) 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, you're at 684 words for the plot, so you should be fine. I don't personally see any problems with it. Sock (tock talk) 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
As long as it's under 700 words the plot is fine with me. Also I don't share that opinion on Kotaku so maybe start a discussion on the talk page about using that review. Anyway well done, i'm passing this one. Freikorp (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Slightly off-topic to this GAN, but just a suggestion for ProtoDrake. It would probably be a good idea to work on and improve the main Cowboy Bebop article as well, up to a point that it could be nominated for GA. What do you think? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, someone's been adding the TriStar Pictures Animated Films category onto the page because the cover said so. Now I've not seen the film or the show nor I plan to in the future, but I don't believe TriStar was actual distributor of the film. That belongs to Destination Films and Samuel Goldwyn Films. Plus it wasn't mentioned in the List of TriStar Pictures films at all. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Rights to dub and distribute the film in English was acquired by Columbia TriStar, however, it was not actually produced by the company.[1][2] Inclusion of the category really depends on whether the category is for all films distributed by the company, or just films produced by the company. —Farix (t | c) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the page Category:TriStar Pictures animated films, this category is for "animated films released by TriStar Pictures". So Cowboy Bebop: The Movie should be included. Moreover, I keep pointing out that the film's DVD cover has the TriStar logo on it (see here) but FilmandTVFan28 keeps insisting that this is somehow "an error". I find it hard to believe that the DVD cover would have the wrong company logo by mistake. There also several sources that say this film was distributed by TriStar (even here on the article) but FilmandTVFan28 inexplicably keeps saying that this is once again "an error". His argument that the film wasn't distributed by TriStar is based on the fact that the film isn't mentioned on the page List of TriStar Pictures films. Basically, FilmandTVFan28 believes that a Wikipedia page that anyone can edit, where mistakes or omissions can be made is more reliable over sources and the film's very own DVD cover. Furthermore, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, just because the article doesn't mention Cowboy Bebop doesn't mean it's explicitly saying that the film wasn't distributed by TriStar. -- Wrath X (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the category only applies to animated features originally released in theaters by TriStar and since this film was originally released in North America by Destination Films and Samuel Goldwyn Films as many sources pointed out, it doesn't count. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the category applies to films that were released by TriStar regardless of whether they were released originally or not. For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was originally released by MGM and is now released by Warner Bros., is listed under the categories for both the MGM and Warner Bros. films. The Cowboy Bebop TV series, which was originally released by Bandai Entertainment and is now released by Funimation, is listed under the categories for both Bandai and Funimation. Distribution company categories include both original releases and later releases. Second of all, TriStar was involved in the original theatrical releases of the film.[3][4][5] The film had its theatrical release in America in 2003, and TriStar had already secured the distribution rights as early as 2002.[6][7][8]
In conclusion: TriStar was indeed involved in the film's original theatrical release. But even if it wasn't, the film should still be listed listed under the TriStar category (because distribution company categories include both original releases and later releases). -- Wrath X (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
ANN tends to not get all the facts. The sources you provided do not have enough coverage of the film provided by the site while many sites like IMDb and movie posters stated that the subbed and dubbed editions were released Destination Films and Samuel Goldwyn Films respectfully. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
IMDb itself is based on user generated content and is not a reliable source. Secondly, the links I provided form ANN are news sections and come directly from press releases or official announcements. Unless you are saying that Columbia TriStar lied about acquiring the English distribution rights, you are going to need some extraordinary evidence to support such a claim. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I am. I checked the movie poster and the DVD cover and it said Destination Films. That proves that ANN didn't get all the facts. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Anime News Network is not a credible source but IMDB is? The articles of Anime News Network are considered reliable enough to be sourced and are treated as such by many editors. You can't just casually dismiss reliable sources like that because you want to. If you want to convince others that the ANN news articles were false/lying then you'll need to do a lot of explaining and provide evidence. Furthermore, I have given you several links and sources to reference my claims, while you have failed to provide a single one. Even if Destination Films and Samuel Goldwyn Films were involved (which I think they were), that doesn't automatically mean TriStar wasn't. Lastly, as I pointed out earlier, even if TriStar wasn't involved in the original release, the film should still be listed listed under the TriStar category (because distribution company categories include both original releases and later releases). -- Wrath X (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at the theatrical trailer of the English release. See here on YouTube. At the very end of the trailer (at 1:50) it says at the bottom of the credits "2003 Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment". -- Wrath X (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That's just the home video trailer, not the theatrical trailer, and we don't use YouTube as a source. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you watch the trailer? It said "Coming Soon To Theatres". It also had the year 2003 on it, 2003 was the film's American release year. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, even if the TriStar distributed the film only on DVD and not theatrical, it should still be listed under TriStar as distribution company categories include both original releases and later releases. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If your only evidence that Columbia TriStar lied about acquiring the English distribution rights is a poster, then you have not provided the extraordinary evidence to support the claim that they lied. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
FilmandTVFan28, I have written paragraphs and provided sources to explain my argument. But you respond with short sentences, fail to provide sources (even dismissing mine and Farix's) and won't explain your position. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

AHEM!! You were saying? — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I clearly see the TriStar Pictures logo on the bottom right. That would justify inclusion in the category. So even the evidence you provided does not back up the claim that Columbia TriStar lied about acquiring the English distribution rights. —Farix (t | c) 13:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
WOW! Are you serious? So even your evidence was actually proving me correct. You have my thanks Farix for pointing that out. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me break it down:
(1) I'm not saying that Destination wasn't involved. This film is listed under Destination films category and I have no objections. What I'm trying to say is that this is also a TriStar film.
(2) Farix and I have provided reliable sources that TriStar was involved in the theatrical distribution. You tried to dismissed those sources by describing the website as unreliable. Moreover, you have failed to provide evidence or a single source that Columbia TriStar lied about acquiring the English distribution rights.
(3) I showed you the film trailer that said "2003 Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment". I told you it that was the theatrical trailer because the trailer said "COMING SOON TO THEATRES". It also had the year 2003 next to TriStar (2003 was the film's American release year). You dismissed it and said it was home video without actually explaining why it was home video.
(4) Moreover, as I pointed out, even if TriStar was only DVD and not theatrical, the film should still be listed listed under the TriStar category (because distribution company categories include both original releases and later releases). For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was originally released by MGM and is now released by Warner Bros., is listed under the categories for both the MGM and Warner Bros. films. The Cowboy Bebop TV series, which was originally released by Bandai Entertainment and is now released by Funimation, is listed under the categories for both Bandai and Funimation. Many film and anime articles are like this. They include original and later distributors.
(5) For a long time this article was listed under TriStar. You're the who changed it contrary to sources. The category should stay until you have proved it wrong. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@FilmandTVFan28: let me get this straight: while both both WrathX and Farix have provided multiple citations supporting their argument from ANN, generally considered a reliable source, you have only cited IMdB and a Google search of the movie poster.  When WrathX responded by showing you a trailer (which is of similar reliablility to a poster) you dismissed it by saying "We don't use YouTube as a source."  In short, your arguments fall flat.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

G S Palmer, I'd like to point out that the poster FilmandTVFan28 cited ended up only proving me right as it had the TriStar logo on the bottom right. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
ONCE AND FOR ALL, I DON'T USE IMDB AS A SOURCE!! Also, ANN and these users only paid attention to the home video logo and not the whole thing and the whole image I provided. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You are making the claim that Columbia TriStar lied about having acquiring the English distribution rights and that all source referring Columbia TriStar's acquisition are wrong. Your only proof of this are IMDb (which is not a reliable source), absence from a list on another Wikipedia page (which again is not a reliable source), and a film poster (which clearly has the TriStar Pictures logo on it and therefore does not support your claim). As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and you haven't provided any so far. —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually the IMDb page for the film lists Columbia TriStar Films as one of the distributors for all media. So even IMDb mentions TriStar. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
As Sherlock Holmes once said, "Never assumed anything.". — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The film was released by Destination Films according to the New York Times; according to our own Wikipedia article Destination Films was acquired by Sony (which is presumably when it became a subsidiary of Columbia TriStar) in 2007—a full six years after the film was released! On the basis of this it would appear that Columbia TriStar was not involved in the original theatrical release.  Columbia TriStar may or may not have handled the DVD/video release. However, I am slightly concerned that some editors seem to be equating distribution with the release: would we say Gone with the Wind is a "Warner Bros. release" simply because the MGM library is now owned by Time Warner? Would we say The Empire Strikes Back is a "Disney release" simply because Lucasfilm is now a subsidiary of Disney? Other companies may take over the distribution at some point but I am not convinced we should equate distribution with "releasing" the film, because distribution rights can be sold on perpetually but the film can only be released once in each medium. Wikipedia isn't a catalog at the end of the day. If there are reliable sources which state the film was released on to video by Columbia TriStar then by all means add the category, but if all they did was take over the distribution at some point then I don't think the category should be added. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
(1) The New York Times article explicitly states "Destination Films (Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment) - Domestic Theatrical Distributor". Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment changed its name to "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" in 2004. If TriStar became involved in the film's distribution only after Sony acquired Destination in 2007, why then would the New York Times say "Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment" instead of "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" as TriStar had already changed its name by then. Thus, it's very likely TriStar was involved in the film before Destination was acquired by Sony.
(2) Here are sources that TriStar was involved in the original theatrical releases of the film.[9][10][11] The film had its theatrical release in America in 2003, and TriStar had already secured the distribution rights as early as 2002.[12][13][14] All these sources are dated from 2002-2003.
(3) Here is film's English-language trailer.[15] The trailer says "Coming Soon to Theatres" so it's likely the theatrical trailer. At the very end of the trailer (1:50) we see the credits, and at the bottom it says "2003 Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment". Bear in mind, the film's American theatrical release year was 2003.
(4) Here is the film's poster.[16] At the bottom it also says (if you look closely) "2003 Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment". At the bottom right it also has a TriStar logo.
(5) The film was released in its native Japan by Sony Pictures Entertainment Japan. It's not hard to believe that the film would be released in America by TriStar, which was a subsidiary of Sony. -- Wrath X (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
"basis of this it would appear that Columbia TriStar was not involved in the original theatrical release"
Columbia TriStar's involvement is supported by numerous reports though 2002 and 2003 and the film's poster containing the TriStar logo and copyright mark. You do make a point about whether distributions after the initial release should be included in the categories. This case, that will include all companies not involved in the original release in Japan. This will also be far reaching consequences in that that categories for English-language anime companies need to be removed from all anime articles and the emptied categories sent to WP:CfD. This will mean that all of Studio Ghibli's films need to be removed from Category:Walt Disney Pictures films, Category:StudioCanal films, and Category:Touchstone Pictures films as they were not involved in the initial release of those films. —Farix (t | c) 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
What about anime TV series? Do we also remove Category:Funimation Entertainment, Category:Sentai Filmworks, etc.? -- Wrath X (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If the "don't include categories for companies not involved in the original release" holds to a consensus, yes. It will be an increasingly messy situation though with licensing and simulcast streaming announcements just before or within hours after the initial Japanese broadcast of the first episode. —Farix (t | c) 17:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide lists "Sony Pictures and Destination Films/Samuel Goldwyn Films – Sunrise (Japan)" with date of 4/4/03.  [17] If Destination Films is part of Columbia TriStar, as Touchstone is for Disney, then it depends on whether they should be doubly listed in categories.  Later transitions (Pioneer -> Geneon) and acquisitions (Pixar to Disney, ADV titles being sold under Funimation) shouldn't be listed in the infobox, but can be noted in the release section.  As for anime with English dubs, we can use Distributed By: and add the original North American distributor there with (North America) as with Heaven's Lost Property the Movie: The Angeloid of Clockwork. So then the question becomes what the categories should cover? Current catalogued material or originally released material or both? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the anime infobox; this is the film infobox. Film infoboxes should only display the company that originally distributed the film in its native country. Cowboy Bebop: The Movie is a Japanese film so only its Japanese distributor should be in the infobox. Similarly, other Japanese films such as Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story, and Attack on Titan only have Japanese distributors in their infobox. I'll have to correct the Heaven's Lost Property infobox. -- Wrath X (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
If the article itself provides the history of how it's been released, explaining when they are subsidiaries, parent companies, acquisitions or licenses, then I can see it being placed in those categories. Right now there's only that single blurb about Columbia Tristar, so it needs to be expanded upon to include the other names and then cited by those pictures of posters or trailers or home media released in 2003. A much later acquisition such as Disney on Lucasfilm should not be categorized unless they have had a significant impact on the product. But any of the companies at the time of the 2003 English dub release can certainly slap their labels in the credits and movie posters, as Tristar has apparently done, to justify their categorization. If Destination Films is wholly owned by Tristar then it can be argued whether it should be listed in both categories or the more specific category. If Funimation later acquires Cowboy Bebop: The Movie and releases a 15th anniversary edition, then it can be debated whether to add Funimation to the mix. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cowboy Bebop: The Movie. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cowboybebop.org/english/door/interview/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217224012/http://www.mania.com/cowboy-bebop-movie-knocking-heavens-door_article_75320.html to http://www.mania.com/cowboy-bebop-movie-knocking-heavens-door_article_75320.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710101117/http://product.bandaivisual.co.jp/web_service/shop_product_info.asp?item_no=BCXR-0009 to http://product.bandaivisual.co.jp/web_service/shop_product_info.asp?item_no=BCXR-0009
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) 05:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This should be the heading of the page as the original release, development and original source material come from this.  Having the title page as "Cowboy Bebop: The Movie" discredits the movie itself. - Akirared

Well it was released internationally under that name, and only called "Knocking on Heaven's Door" in Japan. It's likely that they wanted to avoid any rights issues since that's lyrics from a Led Zepplin song. We go with the international English title typically for films rather than their original title. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)