Talk:Nekomimi A and Nekomimi B

Is there any context for this whole episode within anime as a genre? The in-universe description is fine and all, but if anyone can answer the overarching question of what the hell in a Trivia section, I know I'd really appreciate it. - Jackpot 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Anime shows that have all SERIOUS OMFG PLOT PLAYED OUT ACROSS A BILLION EPISODES seem to like to pretend they aren't plodding monstrosities by putting the brakes on and having an episode devoted to nothing but being goofy. I mean, I certainly understand the appeal of "gag" episodes, but Japan seems to take to it as ritualistically (and unimaginatively) as they do slapping clip shows together. I think it's an attempt to pad out a season when stretching one episode's worth of plot across five still isn't enough to meet a quota. --M Sipher 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It may answer why they made Distribution, but it doesn't answer the realy overriding question: why the cat ears? -- SFH 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I get the whole glacial-anime-pacing thing, but I was wondering more about the gag itself. The arena-fight featuring all the characters (and character models) with barely a whit of in-universe justification - does that have precedence as a gag-episode format? - Jackpot 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a tradition in kids anime, I believe. The previous 'have nearly nothing to do with the plot' episode was the one with the racing. A few of these shows have pointless racing episodes that are primarily humourous, though the better ones try to integrate it into the serious on-going plot (like Zoids 'Chaotic Century'). --FFN 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Crediting

They were listed in the Superlink credits with the katakana ネコミミ rather than the kanji Interrobang used, so I replaced it accordingly. --Monzo 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Don't you think we should limit the references to things that are actual references and not just slight coincidence? Saying that it's probably a coincidence just invites the question, why is it here at all? --76.167.228.223 01:07, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I didn't write "They are based on what" (such line is the thing which should be cited). Some trivia is just apparently as it is. (Which remind me "The Mount St. Hilary is based on Mount St. Helens" doesn't need a citation.) And for the argurment in airing date, any upcoming information such as character design or story usually will go public on magazines or website before airing, so it is possible for the staff in other shows to immitate those elements. --TX55^TALK 01:14, 15 December 2009 (EST)

And I didn't say "It is a reference to" just like somebody said something like "many things in TFA is reference to Gurren Lagaan". I just say "resemblance", and it does have the resemblance unless anyone can find another anime (, which predates Superlink/Energon) featuring the similar design. --TX55^TALK 01:31, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Or, Japanese cartoons are so fucking redundant and cookie-cutter that similarities crop up all over the place without genuine intent, but simply through lack of innovation. That's my vote. --M Sipher 01:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Nanoha started in October 2004. Distribution aired November 2004. There is no way this could possibly be a reference, and it's barely a passing similarity anyway. --Suki Brits 01:50, 15 December 2009 (EST)

But as I recalled, information/character design sheet and pictures for Nanoha had been released much earlier than it was on air. (And I've considered this and check up before I write it into the Trivia section.) So it is not impossible. --TX55^TALK 01:56, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Re:edit summary

I used a comment tag is because it is still under discussing in the talk page. And it does have the resemblance no matter on color scheme, hair color or hair style. --TX55^TALK 02:05, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Commenting out the offending text is absolutely pointless. Either it shows up or it doesn't. If we decide to keep the information (which we won't), then the text will be in the article and not before. And "slight resemblance" is still not notable. —Interrobang 02:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Back in the day I added it, I wanted to use "resemble", but I choose to use slight because I was affraid some one will have "words" to say. However, it does resemble, not only "slight". And if the note is not okay, why only mention now instead back in those days? And why is the anon user brought this issue isn't present? --TX55^TALK 02:14, 15 December 2009 (EST)

The reason of the note got deleted first time is "A blonde &a brunette catgirl look like a blonde & a brunette from some anime, must be intentional.", but I said it is not only hair color, but also body color. And I forgot to mention one of them got so-called "twintail". --TX55^TALK 02:27, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, and this episode probably started development way before the promotional materials for Nanoha were released. And do you really think it's likely that some Superlink animator would really want to pay homage to some oddball cross-genre sequel to Triangle Hearts? Really? It's not like the show had a lot of prerelease hype. What's significantly more likely is that Nekomimi A has a passing resemblance to Nanoha because she's a brunette in a schoolgirl coloured costume, and Nekomimi B is vaguely similar to Fate because she's a blonde with a black dress. This is not a major similarity. More specifically, Nekomimi B's colour scheme is NOTHING like Fate's aside from that; Fate doesn't have a dress, she doesn't have pink or white all over her, she doesn't have anything frilly on her whatsoever, let alone an apron. Nekomimi A, meanwhile, has the same colour scheme, sure. So do a bajillion other characters in anime. It's the single most common colour scheme in existence. What don't they have in common? Nanoha is a small girl with an ankle length skirt. Nekomimi A has a mini-skirt, a weird cape-thing, and giant breasts. Edit: And they don't even have the same kind of tie! Nanoha's is a bow.

Any similarity is INCREDIBLY superficial, and it's completely unreasonable to think that, given the development timelines, it could've possibly been a deliberate reference. This is not even slightly noteworthy. --Suki Brits 02:12, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I know what you're saying. But I still have things to say about something you mention. An homage can't be always 100% homage or resemblance, so it's comprehensible such as Nekomimi B have a dress and have pink which Fate doesn't have. Not to mention what skirt or breast. And what's more, I only wrote:

The color schemes of Nekomimi A and Nekomimi B bear a slight resemblance to those of Nanoha and Fate.

I never wrote

Nekomimi A and Nekomimi B is based on Nanoha and Fate.

nor

Nekomimi A and Nekomimi B may be a reference to Nanoha and Fate.

--TX55^TALK 02:19, 15 December 2009 (EST)

NO.--FortMax 02:28, 15 December 2009 (EST)

The only things that Fate has in common with Nekomimi B is that they have blonde hair, and they wear black. The only thing that Nanoha has in common with Nekomimi A is that they both have brown hair, and they wear a schoolgirl uniform. That's it. There are dozens of other anime characters that could easily fit that description. It's a ridiculous thing to mention to begin with. Are we going to list every single character with blonde pigtails and black stockings on this page? That would go on forever, and it would be absolutely no more relevant than mentioning just Fate. This is ridiculous and I can't believe this conversation is even happening. --Suki Brits 02:31, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, the entire Not a Reference user template page kind of sums things up here, TX55. References are for things that are either confirmed references or have blatant, strong similarities, not "well, this kind of a little resembles this other thing." --Jeysie 02:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

The point is I never say "A and B looks like Nanoha and Fate." (not to mention clothes) All I tried to say in the trivia is only about the color scheme when I added it, and I never say 100%-looks-a-like. I'm okay if this really should go, and not for a poor reason like this. Ur, I wish I have any contact method to ask the animation staff. --TX55^TALK 02:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

NO. --FortMax 02:41, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Hey, TX, I'm the 'anon' that kicked this conversation off. Seriously, I'm not trying to gang up on you here. I get your point that you're NOT saying that it IS a reference, just that it COULD be. I do. But just because it theoretically COULD be, doesn't mean it's worth noting here. Do you see what I mean? Unless we have a more specific reason to believe that it IS a reference, we probably shouldn't note it. For the record, I'm fine with just commenting it out. And FortMax, I agree with you that we shouldn't have the reference, but your giant "NO"s are a bit much. --Jimsorenson 02:45, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Oh, I sincerely apologize for my rudeness. (I mistook the anon for another user who registered later.) And I understand your point now. Thank you very much for the explanation. :-D --TX55^TALK 02:53, 15 December 2009 (EST)

No apologies necessary. Passionate disagreements are good for the soul. Sorry that I forgot to log in. --Jimsorenson 03:04, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I have never been more glad that I have no idea what the hell is being discussed in a thread. -hx 08:29, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Animated SG Caption

Whoever wrote the caption for the Animated Shattered Glass rendition, thank you so much for that perfect caption. You made my day a whole lot brighter with that one lol HaruMochizuki (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2024 (EDT)