# Talk:Samurai Champloo

What happened to this article? It used to be much longer and pretty well put together. I am considering reverting to an older version... 86.104.34.251 (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine and is a decent length now.  What version are you talking about? DP76764 (Talk) 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that too. Please revert it back to the way it was!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.188.15 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 
I noticed that there are parts that refer to " the man that smells like sunflowers" when the show (or at least the english dubbed version of the show) always refers to " the samurai that smells like sunflowers", now I don't know if the sub version makes a references to "the man that smells like sunflowers" so will check it out as soon as possible but if I find that both versions revers to " the samurai that smells like sunflowers" I will come back and update this page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.168.3.6 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 

I know there are 4 soundtracks published for Samurai Champloo, and I seem to recall all four of them being listed here at Wikipedia. Does anyone know where these articles may have gotten? Also, if they are deleted, could anyone clarify as to why?

Probably because of vandals or some wikipedia editor who has an non-neutral stance on Anime and/or Hip-Hop music. I've gotten verified data from multiple sites as to the soundtrack's authorship, track-listing and other relevant information, from a quick google search even. Example websites include Amazon.com, discogs.com, Allmusic.com, and so forth. However I'm not sure how to properly credit them in the page, and even if I did take the time to create a proper soundtrack page (Using the CD Jacket's info), it might all be for naught, given this place's recent reputation for nazi-like control. If someone here does want to tempt fate, here's the first album's info to get you started: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:kjfqxqtrld0e It is titled "Impression" and is credited jointly to Ninjabes and Force of Nature. Shinra (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The second and fourth (Departure and Impression) have articles (though short, especially the latter one), but the first and third (Masta and Playlist) don't have articles. --V2Blast (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the genre listed as "Shonen" to "Seinen", since Samurai Champloo is most decidedly not for the same age group as Naruto, One Piece et. al. User:Kernan_rio

Although Samurai Champloo is enjoyable for adults and contains many adult ideas, it is not a "seinen" anime series; rather, it is a "shonen" one. I originally questioned this taxonomical designation until I looked further into the issue. The series was originally serialized in the magazine, Shonen Ace, not in a seinen publication. While I, as an adult, get much enjoyment from the show, the series primarily targets teenage and twenty-something males, and any educated person in those age groups can keep up. For these reasons, we have designated the series shonen, not seinen. Cheers, ask123 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, and I I'll leave it at that =). Well, my main issue was that Champloo is no more shonen than is Cowboy Bebop (which is under seinen). Of course, I haven't read the manga, so I'm not sure if it has the equivalent content of the anime, so I'm not sure. But I guess I was thinking of shonen consisting of the examples given on its Wiki Page (e.g. Dragon Ball, Naruto). If so, I would say that Samurai Champloo would be certainly for a more mature age group than the latter examples. User:Kernan_rio  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 

This is a gray area. There is no question that Champloo isn't intended for audiences as juvenile as those targeted by Naruto and Dragon Ball and other shows more typical "shōnen" anime and manga. It isn't as adult oriented as Cowboy Bebop, but it isn't far off. It's definitely closer to the Bebop end of the spectrum than to the Naruto one. Perhaps some wording can be added to indicate that there is a difference here. I certainly don't want readers to think that Champloo, on the one hand, and Dragon Ball, Gundam, One Piece, Naruto, etc., on the other, are remotely similar in categorization... because they aren't! ask123 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I added "seinen" to the list of demographics but am hesitant to add it to the text of the article. I noticed that article for the Neon Genesis Evangelion manga considers it "shōnen." This I find compeltely crazy. There is nothing remotely shōnen about the series except for the magazine in which it was serialized. Still, let's try to find consensus before proceeding. I dare not touch the Eva page lest a throng of fanboys tackle me to the ground... ;) ask123 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, NGE can be hardly called shonen, but perhaps the manga has toned down content that may be suitable/targeted for a younger audience? Well, the only way is to read and actually judge it for oneself. kernan_rio 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Although, in the case of NGE, the manga preceeded the tv series. I know that often mangas based on seinen anime series tone down the themes and target a younger audience. Basically, the creators go for ancillary profit from another demographic. Conversely, anime series based on manga are not as often "toned down," but rather same-demo adaptations. Still, this is just my observation and I would have to read the Champloo manga to be sure this is the case here. ask123 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been cleared up... The "demographic" field has been appropriately moved to the manga part of the infobox. Only manga receive demographic categories anyway. The publisher chooses the category so a manga serialized in Shonen Jump is shonen, regardless of how much certain readers think it's seinen. Anime, on the other hand, does not get a demographic category. To give it one, after all, would be original research. ask123 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get this over with quickly. Now the top and bottom stylistics shouldn't differ so much. Here's what I mean: how is Samurai Champloo a comedy as a film genre but not also same name category? How it is action as a category and not also same name film genre? And I see it categorized as historical and jidaigeki? Think one of these is a sub-cat of the other. Can someone explain this madness? 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can. Since there's no anime genre categories that adequately represent Chambara, I did the next best thing and chose a combination to represent it: "Action anime" and "Historical anime". You could drop the "jidaigeki" category if you like, but I don't think it's necessary; it'd be like removing the "1984 films" category from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind just because it's categorized as "Anime of the 1980s" (meaning, one isn't a subcategory of the other so it isn't redundant). The same thing happens with Fantastic Children; the genre is science fantasy but there's no "science fantasy anime" category so "Science fiction anime" and "Fantasy anime" are used.
I'm amazed you didn't bring up "how is it categorized as Films directed by Shinichiro Watanabe when it's not even a film". That's just wrong.--Nohansen (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Point being, the genres exist so is there a reason as to why they are not there? And you're sure that historical and jidaigeki are not direct sub-cats (like Space Western / Sci-fi Western)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Jidaigeki and Category:Historical anime and manga are inside Category:Historical fiction; but Category:Jidaigeki is not a sub-genre of Category:Historical anime and manga or viceversa. So they're not redundant.
What do you mean by "the genres exist so is there a reason as to why they are not there"?--Nohansen (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'm just saying add [[Action film|action]] and change [[comedy]] to [[Comedy film|comedy]] for now. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Chambara" is an action genre, so adding "Action" is not really necessary.--Nohansen (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok if I change the comedy link to reflect my proposal? And what is a better sub-category than the action cat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually can't think of any sub-cat better than "Action anime and manga". "Martial arts animanga" is no good and there's no "Chambara anime and manga" sub-category. Category:Jidaigeki is the closest to Chambara, and even that's not totally accurate (but that's a different mess altogether).--Nohansen (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say remove action, but keep jidaigeki in its place since this show is realistic, for the most part. Now can I perform this edit along with the comedy update? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Nohansen, I see you did this edit so how should we proceed? Create a new category in its place? And I'm awaiting a response for my proposal to the comedy link. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to link to the "Comedy film" article. I understand that linking to film genres works when there's no other option (i.e. [[Martial arts film|Martial arts]]), but Samurai Champloo is not a film and "Comedy film" is no more informative than the "Comedy" article.
As for a "Kengeki"/"Chambara"/"Chanbara" category: Best leaving that to the good people of WP:FILMS and WP:JAPAN.--Nohansen (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
How does [[Comedy (genre)|Comedy]] sound? And I feel tempted to remove Category:Films directed by Shinichiro Watanabe and Category:Action anime and manga per what you said. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Comedy (genre) leads nowhere, and Comedy genres is a list of genres; so, no good.
And why are you tempted to remove Category:Action anime and manga? If that's how you feel, O.K. Apart from what I said at the beginning, ("Since there's no [Chambara anime and manga category], I did the next best thing and chose a combination to represent it: Action anime and Historical anime) I don't have any other argument for its inclusion.--Nohansen (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oopsy! You're right about the non-existent link. Then can I suggest Comedy-drama for the article? And I would like the action cat removed because, as I said above, there is not such an emphasis on action (discounting all inconsistencies of course) as there is in other series. May I finally proceed in my edit or is there something you'd like to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say.--Nohansen (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We still have the InuYasha and Trigun discussions to finish. May you respond to them? I'd like to get them both over and done with ASAP, if possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Something just came to mind; the article is categorized here so I've come up with a newer proposal:

[[Comedy-drama]]; [[Samurai cinema|Chambara]] [[historical fiction]]
Thoughts? Perhaps the box can use rearranging? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Chambara" implies "historical fiction", so there's no need to add the genre. In other words, since Champloo is a "Chambara" and an anime series, that qualifies it for Category:Historical anime and manga. That is to say, being classified as "Historical anime" shouldn't compel us to add "Historical fiction" to the genre box. Take a look at X (manga): I have it categorized as "Apocalyptic fiction", "Crossover fiction", "Environmental fiction" and "Religious themed fiction" (because it is so), but I'm not about to clutter the genre box with all that when just two words will suffice ("urban fantasy").
I feel the genres and categories of Samurai Champloo are fine the way they are. If anything, we could add the "Kengeki" / "Chambara" / "Chanbara" category. I think I'll look through Category:Jidaigeki (to see how articles many are misplaced) and the samurai anime and manga (to see how many are "Chambara").--Nohansen (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. Are the genres at Rurouni Kenshin ok? What is "Kengeki" by the way? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Kengeki" is the 'original' name of the genre. "Kengeki" means "sword fight", so "Kengeki eiga" means "sword fight movies". The common name of "Chambara" is an onomatopoeia for the sound of swords clashing and cutting (chan-chan bara-bara).
Rurouni Kenshin: Again, the "jidaigeki" genre makes "historical fiction" redundant. In fact, since Kenshin has it fare share of action, it is more "Chambara" than "Jidaigeki".
"Jidaigeki" are short on action and heavy on romance and politics. But that's not to say "Chambara" are mindless action either: Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and Sanjuro, and the Lone Wolf and Cub films are Chambara, after all. To contrast, The Twilight Samurai is a jidaigeki.--Nohansen (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to know a lot more than I when it comes to categories and genres. First, would you like to do your edits to Rurouni Kenshin per this conversation? User:Erachima was the one who initially did the genres there and I just sort of followed this method. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You all seem to be missing the point of categories for the average wiki user, it is not to find what doesn't fit, but what does fit, what is in the Jidai Geki section. Therefor there is no such thing as redundancy, or redundancy is the same as in a ship with back up control sections, they fulfill additional needs. a Jidai Geki refers to anything "Period set", that being roughly Sengoku to Meiji period. Historical refers to anything that isn't contemporary, or in the future. Action to anything with violence, or lots of physical acts (stretching to not use the term in it's own definition). It can meet all these categories without breaking any laws or rules, which would conveniently put it on various lists of related items so that people looking for a Jidai Geki (which it is, just as much as many of the great Kurosawa Jidai Geki films are) anime might find it. 174.112.18.193 (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

befreo you change my correction of chanpuru to champuru, its CHAM not chan >< some one didn't read the trasnlation right or used to wrong charecters.
Thank you in advaced :D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setokira (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 
ン is frequently written "n" in romanized Japanese. The M is a result of official stylization, not "not reading the translation right. 219.90.233.121 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Per a request, I have cleaned up the main article to fix the formatting to better comply with WP:MOS-AM, cull down the outright ridiculous plot "summary" to be an actual summary, and removed some unsourced WP:OR. I also removed the logo image from the infoxbox as being unuseful for series identification, replacing it with the promotional image that was in the character section. Now the article really needs some serious referencing and the real-world information greatly enhanced. The manga section gives almost no useful info besides its existence, and surely there is reception info for this series?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the style as well as the intro are both quite similar to The Boondocks. Any info? Elfred (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's some info in the Boondocks article: The_Boondocks_(TV_series)#Episodes. DP76764 (Talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we get a section in here about how well- (or ill-) received this series was in comparison to other anime, both on domestic and international markets?  I find that always helps put things in perspective. Antimatter--talk-- 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with reception is that a source needs to be cited and many of the sources that would generally be used here are not considered credible. But if you find any sources that meets the wiki standards, fell free to add them.09:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk) 

Just putting this here so no one calls vandalism. Mugen's sword is not Japanese (it lacks a hamon, may be double edged [it seems that way some episodes], and it's hilt/tsuba is pretty likely not Japanese. There are rare examples of non-standard tsuba/hilts like that, but most seem to come from later (after Perry) and, off the top of my head, are gifts, such as to the Scottish military), and it is also not a daisho, as that would require a long and a short. Him having a Chinese styled sword is actually in keeping with him wearing non-Japanese clothes and not coming from Japan (Ryukyu was annexed in 1879 and until then more heavily Chinese influenced). Original research, yes, but so is stating that he has a Japanese sword, and the stuff about sword hunts (which were no longer fully in effect, yes Tokugawa had laws against people from carrying around swords, which were enacted in 1590, in the 1840s people with swords were the people who were supposed to have swords, largely. Anyways, an inconsequential rule to break, compared to killing magistrates and guards). He also carries around what is pretty likely a European sword at the end of the last episode, although of a style that would be uncommon in the 1800s. 174.112.18.193 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed Mugen's description in the Plot section from "samurai" to "rogue".  Mugen is not a samurai. He is sworn to no lord; he is under no noble's control.  He follows no code from any dojo or martial arts school, and he is most definitely not a noble himself nor part of the military.  He's from a clan of pirates and thieves.  Jin is the samurai, though he is a ronin; a ronin is simply a samurai without a master.

http://www.funimation.com/samuraichamploo/samChamp.swf
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DM: Let me maybe twist the question a little bit, to look less at the audience’s side and more towards the creator’s side. We’ve talked about this before. I know that when you were working on Cowboy Bebop, it was more of a domestic product, and it ended up going abroad. When you were working on Samurai Champloo, I think you knew very early on that this was going to be a global show. Maybe you can tell me a little bit about how creating one versus the other is different.

Dai Satō: A simple explanation would be this: A director named Shinichiro Watanabe created Animatrix after Cowboy Bebop. He said Cowboy Bebop gave him many ideas for Animatrix. To make his animation, he used two credible themes: hip hop and samurai. He had planned to rely on foreign capital from the start, and his plan was to market it abroad. However, when I produced Cowboy Bebop, these things didn’t matter. In Samurai Champloo, we started to become more conscious of how our works would be accepted. But until that point, we didn’t have much of a conscious approach, to speak from a creator’s point of view.

http://www.japansociety.org/otaku_unmasked --Gwern  (contribs) 05:10 21 January 2012 (GMT)

A Review from Manga Life. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spookhouse.net/angelynx/comics/amalgam.html
Episode and character summaries that have more details.
174.22.14.74 (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but that would not be considered a reliable source to be used for anything in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Does it qualify as a primary genre? There are unpleasant moments in the show, but most of them do not contain a comedic tone. And the ones that do might be reduced, depending on the language/subtitle tracks used. Most of them revolve around Mugen and the worst track would have him say 'bitch' 4 or 5 times and make a couple of references to rape, but they're mostly not meant as pure jokes (I'd say the overall humor isn't exceedingly dark for the time period it's set in). And the user who made the edit on July 8th 2013 ignored the talk page suggestion listed below (his/her history implies that it's a habit for him/her). 23.123.141.140 (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The pedophilic comments in the "Sexuality" section about Fuu were removed. A majority of people that have viewed this anime DO NOT have inappropriately pedophilic thoughts or desires about this 15-year-old character. The comments were overly personal and subjective, and added nothing of value to the article. They also disgusted, alienated, and made uncomfortable a large portion of readers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caducea (talk • contribs) 05:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Samurai Champloo. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505225706/http://www.animeuknews.net/press/31/samurai-champloo-box-set-release-details to http://www.animeuknews.net/press/31/samurai-champloo-box-set-release-details
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312223205/http://blog.funimation.com/2011/03/vod-network-updates-funimation-channel-34-weekend/ to http://blog.funimation.com/2011/03/vod-network-updates-funimation-channel-34-weekend/
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) 05:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Newest Stars of Japanese Anime, Made in America - New York Times
Shinichiro Watanabe at Detroit Film Theatre, Feb. 8th, 2006
--ProtoDrake (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samurai Champloo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the big delay Proto. I had no idea you dominated this until now. I'll be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Since it's the introduction the entire anime, I would suggest adding a genre to "Samurai Champloo (Japanese: サムライチャンプルー, Hepburn: Samurai Chanpurū) is a 2004 Japanese anime television series". Kinda helps it easier to understand for newcomers.
Plot
Everything seems okay. I did watched this anime but, while it was a long time ago, I understand it. Since this is English Wikipedia I would suggest adding a "town" to Ikitsuki.
Production
I would add studio to Madhouse since make it easier to distinguish.
Reception
This section could revised cover make paragraphs focus on different aspects from the series just like how we talked about Kingdom Hearts III last week.
@ProtoDrake: Other than that, the article is well written and I would gladly pass it once these issues are solved.Tintor2 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I've addressed the lead, plot and production issues. As to the reception, I was using the article Blood-C as a basis, which I worked on a few years ago and got passed GA. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Yeah but that was several years ago. The project started doing similar types of sections like the ones you wrote for video games. I did something similar with X (manga), Jujutsu Kaisen 0 and Darker than Black when dealing with their reception sections. One paragraph for the narrative, one for the presentation and another for any other area that might. At least try to tone done the quotes.Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Point taken. I've reformatted the reception, though I kept the retrospective section as was. I've also reduced the number of quotes to one, using paraphrasing elsewhere. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Passing the review. Nice work as usual.Tintor2 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

is there some understandable reason this highly acclaimed series has no cast/character section? I am stunned. 240F:101:C43B:1:25A2:7236:3DFE:5128 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)