MML Traffic #115 for week 5 - October
and
week 1 - November

By Lawrence Lin


Table Of Contents Mailing List Stats For This Week

We looked at 162 posts by 52 different contributors.

Introduction

    Way late, sorry.

1. Where Are All the Wonderful Toys?

(18 posts): NY Daily News Critical of Disney's Marketing of SA

The Disney threads keep on rolling. This particular thread swerves into the toy catagory, but it started with David Mankins writing, "Another difference between the Pixar and Ghibli step-children lies in the fact that Disney gets merchandising rights for Pixar's films, but not for Ghibli's. If Box Office Mojo is to be believed, despite ~$180M (world wide guess --- Box Office Mojo reports ($145M in the US alone), _Lilo & Stich_ has *not* made a profit for the Disney Corporation --- it cost (est) $80M to produce and (est) $40M to market, and the studio only gets 55% of the box-office.

_Lilo and Stich_, as a film, has lost money (this may even be true of _Monsters, Inc._!). But as a vehicle for selling clothing, Happy Meals trinkets, and plush toys, I assume both the Disney films and the Pixar films have been quite profitable.

_Spirited Away_ does not have that advantage for Disney. All they get out of it are the box office receipts (and later, the home video sales)."

John Jenkins replied, "All the more reason to have it succeed in the theatrical marketplace IMHO. This is fundamentally what I don't understand. I can understand why Disney might be lukewarm towards SA because it has limited profitability for them, but since it could easily turn a modest profit, why not attempt that?"

David explained, "A dollar spent marketing _Spirited Away_ may only bring them $1.10 in revenue. That dollar is taken away from being spent marketing _Treasure Planet_, which may bring them $2 in revenue. . . Therefore they spend it on the latter instead of the former."

Sharon Westfall steered the thread in a new direction with, "So it sounds like as long as Studio Ghibli maintains their product marketing rights, their animations will not get the big marketing treatment? Maybe it's the existing Ghibli merchandising agreements that are difficult to renegotiate? They are supposedly already making a lot of money in Japan selling Totoros, so maybe they don't want to do anything different."

Jonathan Miller wrote, "Well, then we know who we *should* be blaming: Studio Ghibli. As I understood the deal, they specifically didn't want to license merchandising rights in the US. Correct?"

John (Jenkins) added, "that raises the question of just who *does* have the merchandising rights in the US, and why aren't they selling little soot-balls and stuff. When I saw the film in Tokyo, there was a table inside the foyer with all kinds of SA merchandise for sale. I'm not suggesting the same kind of set up, but there's even less merchandising than there is advertising."

The Other Jon(athan) replied, "As far as I know (and as far as nausicaa.net says), *no one* does. Ghibli/Tokuma apparently aren't interested in merchandising in the US at all, for whatever reason."

A more complete discussion from Robin Casady, "I recall that this was discussed when news of the Disney deal came out. My memory is that Ghibli didn't want the market flooded with cheap and nasty American goods that were below their quality standards. IIRC, Ghibli approves all goods produced in Japan, and they didn't want to give up that control. It would not be feasible for USA mfg. to have to deal with Japan for approval, so merchandising rights were not given.

I suspect this has had a significant influence on the handling of Ghibli films here. The suits are not going to be enthusiastic about a product that has a major revenue source cut off. The production people are the ones who love Miyazaki films. The marketing suits tend to be more interested in making money than promoting art for art's sake."

An idea from Warren Savage, "If Studio Ghibli is concerned about the quality of the merchandise, why can't they cut a deal where Disney can import from the licensed Japanese manufacturers and sell the authorized Studio Ghibli merchandise in the U.S.?

There could be a win-win deal here..."

Sharon replied, "Arrogance on both ends of the stick. Since Ghibli has the real goods, I guess they can be. Everybody still loses though."

I should mention that per the Disney/Tokuma Deal, Disney can't sell any Studio Ghibli goods in the Disney Store. Which definitely puts a crimp in any selling plans.

2. Ideals of Marketing and/or Second Guessing

(17 posts): Disney's Marketing of Spirited Away

Ready for another Disney thread? Jeff Stetekluh starting the ball down the hill, "Many times in the past I have read Disney bashing messages on the ML. Many of them contend that Disney is conspiring against the success, in the US, of the Ghibli movies they have licensed. Then I read well written and persuasive arguments against this that convince me that the Disney conspiracy is not true. Now, with the poor effort Disney has made marketing Spirited Away, I no longer am so sure. . .

I have wondered why Disney is advertising SA so poorly and why it is limiting the release. I have considered the following possibilities.

1. Perhaps Disney is genuinely unaware of SA's remarkable quality and box office potential.

2. Perhaps I am wrong about SA's box office potential and Disney is wisely limiting its risk.

3. Perhaps Disney wants to limit SA's success at the box office for whatever reason.

Are there any other possibilities? I am not sure how likely any of these possibilities are but each carries its own bad meaning."

Larry Virden added his own list, "4. Disney staff are not experienced with handling marketing of foreign animation and thus unable to be as competent as possible.

5. Disney management is being given faulty information from some source, resulting in their making bad decisions.

6. Disney finds itself unable to do otherwise due to contract limitations eithr from Studio G or other involved parties.

7. Disney is attempting to do better, but some force is preventing its attempts to successfully market the film (either with the intent to hurt Disney or hurt the film).

8. Fate has conspired to prevent the film from being successful, and there is nothing that can be done to counter it."

Sharon Westfall added a single item, "9. Disney USA requires additional commitment from Ghibli/Tokuma, by way of marketing $ contributions, reduced licensing fees, or release/share of merchandising rights before ernestly pushing Miyazaki and/or his characters to become a (US) household name."

Andrew Simmons (employeed by Disney, but not in Marketing) wrote, "marketing a movie is hard enough with product produced by your own company. Add in the factor of it being a foreign film and you have a product which is difficult to sell to the American public no matter how good it is.

I plan on leaving the marketing of the film and the discussion of it to others more skilled and knowledgeable in the area than me. I'm just happy I was able to take my boys to see "Spirited Away" on the big screen and not have to watch it on a tenth generation dub VHS I got from my best friend's sister's boyfriend's cousin. :)"

Michael Wojcik replied, "I believe many of the people here trying to second-guess Disney's SA marketing strategy don't disagree that marketing is tricky. What we're really curious about is whether SA would have done well enough to pay for a more aggressive campaign, particularly for relatively inexpensive maneuvers like putting an SA trailer before L&S. Would that have boosted SA audiences significantly? Would more prints and wider distribution have been required to see much of an effect? Would it have cannibalized sales from _Treasure Planet_ due to audience confusion and message dilution?

Is this idle speculation? Sure - we're not going to get to make future Disney marketing decisions, or change the campaign for SA now (even assuming it's not too late), and there's no way to know whether doing things differently would have helped. But why not play armchair marketer? It's a diversion. If we left every discussion to those more knowledgeable the list would be mighty dull most of the time.

SA is, I think, a more interesting case than PM, since it seems to have more US appeal without the big marketing push."

A theory from Richard Neumann, "For me, the most plausible explanation is that the creative people at Disney and Pixar are inspired by Miyazaki, but the business people are clueless. That would explain why PM and SA came to market in good shape and some big names participated in dubbing Kiki and Laputa. It would also explain why PM and SA were shown with almost no advertising and no real strategy for selling the maximum number of tickets."

Chris Wallace wrote, "I agree Disney is not marketing this like they market their own films. And I agree it is frustrating to see works we admire and love so much being treated as some B-Reel from Troma films (*ducks chair thrown by Sgt. Kabukiman*), and it may vey well be "Spirited Away" would have been the next "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" if Disney had taken *another* risk and thrown a couple dozen million at marketing it.

But then, it might not have been, and Disney would be even deeper in the hole, and the stockholders who are sizing Eisner's neck for the noose would have that much more rope to play with. There are so many dynamics to this story, on so many levels, that I do not think any of us really appreciate how it all really happened. We know some pieces, guess at others based on personal experience, assume others becasuse we're frustrated, displeased, or upset.

The true and complete story would probably make a heck of a "Tell-All" book in ten years, I imagine."

Mike Arnold closed off the thread with, "We can make guesses and suggestions all day long, but I still don't see any convincing reason to believe that the release of Spirited Away is being limited in a way that prevents it from achieving some assumed level of success. I've read this kind of speculation for films many times before, but as entertaining as the idea might be in this case it just doesn't seem to hold much weight. However look at this fact for a moment: audiences in many areas of the country now can go see a Miyazaki film in a local theater. Ten years ago this would have been a dream.

Even if we assume for a second that the film is without question a cinematic "masterpiece," are we really so certain that it could become a huge success in the U.S. anyway? It did receive a surprisingly large number of positive reviews, but when I went to the theater here the overall audience response was lukewarm. (Compared to when I recently saw Bowling for Columbine or the American remake of The Ring, it was positively dull.) If American audiences really love the film that much, why aren't they saying more about it (and buying more tickets)?"

3. Conspiracies

(10 posts): Disney'sDeliberately Poor Marketing of Ghibli Fare

Final Disney thread this week, really! Steven Feldman broke out the Conspiracy drum and banged out, "I was one of the first people to say that it seemed not unlikely that Disney acquired rights to the Ghibli catalog precisely in order to ensure the primacy of their empire. I am assuming that Disney has purposely limited its release and advertising of PRINCESS MONONOKE and SPIRITED AWAY because their true aim is to maintain the Western audience's assumption that anime is inherently inferior to Disney product, and to make sure that no one ever gets the idea that anyone is capable of making better animated films than Disney. A fringe benefit of this is that PRINCESS MONONOKE and SPIRITED AWAY probably amount to tax write-offs, considering how poorly they did/do -- what with a completely noncommital advertising and distribution scheme (ooo, did I say scheme?)."

Chris Wallace replied, "We should remember that Tokuma Shoten themselves released "Tonari no Totoro" to only 119 theatres in 1993, and the box office results were disappointing. So not like Disney is the only company trying to "screw Americans out of seeing Ghibli films in the theatre". . .

I think it is becomming clearer and clearer that promotion really seems to be in the hands of the local marketing teams. So in Europe, where anime is more "visible", the Ghibli features are getting more favorable local treatment than the United States. European distribution may be more favorable towards the studio, allowing films to make money without requiring a ton of licensing deals to generate income. . . If anything, releasing this film to a few select cities and to critical acclaim is part of the marketing for the real money-maker for Disney - US DVD and tape sales. People will say "Yeah, I remember (insert their favorite critic here) saying this film was awesome. And look, the box cover art says even Siskel and Roper give it two thumbs up. I think I will rent / buy it.". . .

Studio Ghibli is not some "new face" on the animation scene. Animation afficiandos and fans have known about them for almost two decades (since "Nausicaä"). I am sure that ADV, AnimeEigo, CPM, and Manga would give their left...family jewel...for the rights to release these films on DVD and VHS in the US. Yet Tokuma Shoten ignored them, allowing only the Nausicaä manga and select "Sen" books to be released, and then only to a fellow Japanese company - Viz - with established US distribution channels. . .

once Mononoke failed, I think Disney US soured on the whole deal. David Jessen was reassigned from leading the marketing program and Nausicaa.net lost all contact with Disney. The new people who are heading it up won't give us the time of day, and do not appear to be giving anyone else it, either. "Castle" is now appeared, finally, destined for home video, as the positive buzz from "Mononoke" and "Sen" are making it at least probable that the DVD will turn a profit. And "Kiki" is ready to go, as well.

Five years is a long time, and while I have been one of the stronger supporters of Disney and Ghibli on this list, I must now believe that we will *not* see all of the Ghibli films released theatrically in the United States, nor released to video.

But I strongly believe that this was never Disney's plan from Day One, and that unfortunate mistakes, on both Disney's and Ghibli's part, combined in a much more risk-adverse environment than 1996, have "conspired" to derail the original plan."

Gregor Menasian put forth a whole different spin, "It seems that although it isn't mentioned in the D-T deal FAQ, the deal came about in a very different way than what is implied from the FAQ.

I originally had the impression that Tokuma announced open bidding on their film catalog to all major studios worldwide, Disney made the highest offer since they couldn't afford to have anyone else compete with them, and intended to only minimally fulfil the contract.

However, it seemed from people's responses to my post a few months ago that the deal went more like this:

Tokuma discreetly opens bidding to companies *in Japan* in order to finance the production of Princess Mononoke - the prize is worldwide rights to the film, as well as the back catalog. Buena Vista *Japan* wins the bidding but has to check back with the home office to get the deal signed. So the deal is presented to Disney HQ (USA) that Buena Vista Japan really needs this deal, and as long as Mononoke gets any sort of uncut localized theatrical release in the US, they'll fulfill the contract and have the doors open to make tons of money in Japan.

So technically although the deal is signed by Walt Disney Corporation, it's really intended to only be a deal for the Japanese branch, and the US release of Mononoke is only intended to be a token fulfillment of part of the contract.

Anyway, even that doesn't excuse what's been done to these films.

A strange thing about it all is that Disney's got the standard foreign film release strategy completely backwards.

Most US companies release a foreign film in a limited release in art theaters unrated, in the original language with subtitles, which the literate crowd who go to art theaters expect. . .

But Disney insists on investing the big dubbing dollars first, almost as if they need a big up front expense to make the film look like a financial failure no matter how well it does, and insure that it will serve as a tax write off as well."

Chris replied, "Michael Johnson, President of BVHE (and no relation to our intrepid moderator) approached Tokuma Shoten on Disney distributing Ghibli films on VHS and DVD. At the time, the films were only available on VHS and LD at prices that, even for Japan, were high - 10,000-13,000 yen. Disney's distribution system in Japan was established and able to deliver "the goods" at a price upwards of half of what Tokuma Communications was charging.

As talks progressed, Disney agreed to invest in the cost of future films, starting with a 10% investment in "Yamadas" and continuing with a 10% investment in "Sen". For Disney, this was a pittance compared to what they spend on their own productions. . .

From the press releases, Disney agreed to release the films in international markets dubbed in the local language. Again, if young(er) children are the audience (and I expect Disney was targeting this group), then dubbing made sense. And since Disney animated films are often as known for their dub cast as anything else, Disney went with the big names - and their requisite fees.

Besides, if Disney had gone with the "B-talent" so many anime fans decry are used by ADV, AnimeEigo, Viz, and others, it would just be another weapon to use against Disney. . .

Disney seems to have treated "Sen" more like one of their own films, at least in terms of production. They hired voice talent commonly used in Disney films (David Ogden Stiers, for example) as well as selecting Daveigh Chase, coming off a solid performance as Lilo Pelekai, for Chihiro. This probably allowed them to spend less for the dub. And, yes, they showed it subtitled, which was sure to get the fans (the "vanguard" to use Warren Savage's earlier post) in to see it, who might be able to convince friends to come, helping to expand that vanguard. . .

Would Dreamworks or Columbia spend $25 million to seriously market a Ghibli film? Cause that is what it would take to fill the airwaves and papers and "bribe" the theatres to carry it. Then add production and distribution costs for 3000 screens and I could see a budget well north of *$30 million*."

Steve Schiavo affirmed, "Dreamworks might have, if one of the principals was a fan. But Disney is the company that had the perfect position to do a fairly wide release of Spirited Away. Built in exposure via Lilo & Stitch, the Disney animation legacy to piggyback on, the PR machine. But they chose not to take the chance."

Richard Eii added, "Dreamworks would have had a good chance. People forget that one of the major principals: Steven Speilberg, is a Miyazaki fan. Apparently, it was at the behest of he and Katzenberg that the initial Ghibli bid was made. Don't underestimate the abilty for this studio to lay down a serious financial commitment, especially with work from a auteur studio like Ghibli. The fact is that Disney did have an opportunity to make a huge difference with Spirited Away, which posed none of the marketing challenges that Mononoke had. Claims that it was a "risk" are disingenuous because the bidding war which occurred early this year would never have happened if the apologists for Disney's strategy were right: who the hell would want to touch it with a ten foot pole, given the reasons WHY it can't work here."

Chris sent back, "Then why did Dreamworks not outbid Disney? I agree with your statement that DreamWorks has extremely deep pockets and at least some experience in marketing animated features. If they thought this would be a sure-fire winner, and a way to hammer at Disney's control of the animated feature marketplace, why not do it?

Yes, I know the standard reply from the "D-Files" group is that it's all a big Disney conspiracy to keep Ghibli out of our hands. Maybe it is. But whatever Disney paid to keep the rights was less than what they paid for "Mononoke". So not like they were so terrified of the competition of a Dreamworks-released Ghibli catalog that they spent tens of millions to "buy and bury it" against a determined Dreamworks bidding assault."

Jonathan Miller wrote, "I think that before we start throwing around terms like "apologist" or conspiracy theories, we might want to remember that explainations don't have to be so conveluted. All of the above--and things we know *nothing* about--add up to theories a lot more probable than "Disney grabbed Sen and made the decision not to market it because they wanted to bury it/don't care about Miyazaki/hate the fans" etc. etc. etc. Let's face it, they grabbed Sen so they could keep a piece of it and probably so they could have the US video/DVD distribution--and so Dreamworks, etc. *wouldn't* get it. (Remember, Disney did pay for a percentage of the making of the film.) As for how they've handled it...the film's still in theaters, still making money. Sure, it's not out as wide as we'd like, but I think Warren's right about the whole "Vanguard" aspect and I've yet to be convinced that a huge advertising budget (*especially* without all the marketing tie-ins) would make Sen a huge blockbuster. I loved the film, but I'm just not convinced it'd pull in huge numbers. I'll be interested to see how Disney's slow and continous roll-out, moving from place to place, will work out...

To sum up, sure, Disney ultimately dropped the ball creatively. But it might have been a ball they felt it necessary to drop for financial reasons...and at least they've let it bounce around so we can see it....and boy, did that metaphor die a miserable death. ;-)"

4. People Seeing Red

(13 posts): English SA dub will be on French DVD

Vincent Kieffer wrote about the upcoming French "Spirited Away" DVD, "the PAL master for the French Chihiro DVD had been conceived by Buena Vista France before Buena Vista Japan released its pink NTSC master. Therefore, the French DVD won't be pink. It might ever be the only Chihiro DVD in the world that won't be pink."

Deborah Goldsmith replied, "I would be willing to bet the North American DVD will not be pink. Consumers here are not shy about demanding their money back for products they view as defective. As others have noted, Disney is probably looking forward to video/DVD sales as the real moneymaker, and they know their market.

Actually, I think the converse is true: the Japanese DVD is the only one that will be pink. I don't know if it was intentional or not (the response that it was could have been "We meant to do that," to avoid a recall), but I doubt they'll do it again after the outcry they got."

Jonathan Peck agreed, "It's obvious from the outset they intended to make most of their money on home video/DVD sales for this, so they will not let anything stand in that's way. They know most everyone who bought it would return the product immediately and demand a refund.. not good for their reputation which has already been average the past few years."

Vincent didn't have much confidence, "American DVDs are in NTSC like HK and Japanese ones. Moreover, Buena Vista USA does not seem to be fond of Miyazaki's films. (They even wouldn't have released Chihiro in Theatres if they hadn't been forced). So, I think we can expect to get a "Pink version" in North America. But I agree with you, if they do they'll get another outcry."

Marc Hairston put down the Final Word, "This is a non-argument, folks. We will *NOT* get the pink tone here in the US. There is no chance. Let me explain why.

This is based on info from my friend who is a video/DLP engineer at TI and the person I talked with back when the pink Sen DVDs came out last summer. He works with both US and Japanese productions so he's familar with all the technical aspects. When I told him about the pink tones his reply was "yes, that's because Japan has two standards for video transfers while the US has just one. Each Japanese producer gets to choose which standard they wish to use when they make the production run." The two standards he was talking about are T-6500 and T-9000 (basically you've set white to be the total color you get from a glowing object at 6500 or 9000 degrees Kelvin, consult your nearest freshman physics textbook for more details on this). The US only uses T-6500. For whatever reasons the folks at Ghibli went with the T-9000, probably since the Japanese manufacturers want to push to the newer standard, so we get a pink tone on equipment set to the T-6500 standard. However, even when they manufacture the DVDs in Japan for the US market (as we've been told that Disney intends to do with the US edition of SA), those DVDs are produced to conform to the US standard, and there is *only one* US standard: T-6500. So the US DVD of SA will match our equipment and there will be no pink tint even though it will be manufactured in Japan."

5. Trains and Echos of Films Past

(6 posts): Greetings (with a side of SA observations/spoilers)

Some actual film discussion from Timothy Kaneshiro, "One thing that grabbed my attention in the train ride sequence was the house on a sort of island that the train passes early on. I don't know why it struck me as noteworthy; it doesn't seem to last much longer than any of the other parts of that whole scene. Anyone else get anything out of that bit, or am I the only one intrigued by lone houses on small islands?"

Michael Wojcik replied, "One interpretation of the train ride I've been flirting with is as a series of little narratives of possibilities for Chihiro's adult life. The train commute is something of a motif of mundane Japanese adult life, after all. The house on the island suggests a relatively isolated life; the station they pass with several spirits on the platform suggests more social involvement. . . The former might be what we could expect of the unreconstructed Chihiro of the film's opening, while the latter could indicate that she's learned to make social connections when thrust into a strange community (which is after all the threat she faces when the story begins).

Of course, the end of the ride is Zeniba's house, where she appears to live alone, raises the question of whether the film privileges that kind of isolation over the social situation at Yubaba's bath house - which is noisy and often confrontational, but ultimately a genuine community. Miyazaki has a pronounced fondness for the life of the hermit: San in PM, Ursula in Kiki, and possibly Nausicaa in the manga are other examples."

Larry Virden wrote, "I kept finding myself drawn to comparing scenes with previous films by Miyazaki or Ghibli - ah the soot creatures remind me of the creatures in the house in Totoro, etc.

The initial scene on the train reminded me of, I believe, the train ride(s) in whisper of the heart. But the scenes of the train on/in the water reminded me of Panda! Go Panda!

One spot in which Sen was flying with the dragon reminded me of a shot in Kiki.

Something about some of the characters of the bathhouse reminded me of the scenes in the fort in Princess Mononoke.

I am not saying that these were intentional homages or anything - for some reason, during this film, my mind just kept drawing parallels..."

Robin Casady added, "It is not unusual for themes and styles to show up in an artist's work over and over. It is the nature of making art. There are certain things that interest an artist, and certain techniques that an artist develops. These go together to make up the style of an artist's work. Miyazaki's character designs have a great similarity from film to film. Most of his films have some sort of flight (as in through the air) involved.

I wouldn't look for such things to have some hidden meaning, or necessarily be references to previous films. Many similarities will just be a matter of Miyazki's interests and drawing/painting/writing/directing style."

6. Whom is No-Face?

(6 posts): A Kaonashi theory (spoilers, ho!)

No-Face (Kaonashi) thoughts from John Jenkins, "Except for his mask, Kaonashi is very much like the black spirits we see down in the village after Chihiro's parents turn into pigs, and down in the bottom of the pit into which the Oi heads are trying to push Haku. They're all dark masses without any fixed shape and mute (or at least we never hear them say anything).

Even outside of the resemblance to Kaonashi, these other spirits seem to be "second class" citizen's in Yubaba's world. There are none in the bathhouse, for instance. The only work we see them do is to act as Yubaba's garbage disposal, and to prepare food.

It made me speculate that Kaonashi might be one of these lesser spirits, but one with some ambition. Perhaps he wants to make something of himself. He makes the mask in a botched attempt to look like one of the gods (as best he can), rather like Yankee Doodle. Having crossed the bridge into the bathhouse as though he were a patron, he "burns his bridges" and makes it impossible to go back--but he doesn't fit in where he goes, either, until Zeniba gives him a new home.

(I've been trying to figure out whether "kaonashi" is intended as a proper noun or a common noun. Of course, the Japanese is ambiguous, lacking indefinite articles and capital letters. The Chinese isn't much help, as the film comic has Yubaba say something like, "His real nature is that of a No Face Fellow," and the line in the Cantonese dub too quick and masked by a sound effect for me to get clearly. Chinese has the same problem as Japanese, anyway. The French film comic says he's "l'être sans visage" [and in all capital letters; there are no lower-case letters in the French film comic], which seems like it's taking "Kaonashi" as a proper noun. The French sub and dub on the DVD and the English sub all have "he's a kaonashi," taking it as a common noun, and the English dub IIRC takes it as a proper noun. On the whole, the common noun approach makes the most sense to me.)"

Robin Casady's reply was interspersed between small chunks of John's message, try reading between the lines for the context, "I didn't understand what they were doing there unless they had something to do with the soot from the boilers. Could they have just been generic spirits to give the place a spooky atmosphere? In some interview I recall reading a comment from Miyazaki to the effect that the Kodama in Mononoke were designed the way they were because they easy to draw and there were many of them. I wouldn't be surprised if ease of drawing had an influence on the design of the black spirits in Spirited Away.

When Kaonashi is chasing after Sen I felt that he had a stylistic resemblance to the boar demon and night walker in Mononoke. The way he moved, and left a debris trail was similar to the boar demon. His color and transparency had similarities with the night walker.

So, I'm wondering if the similarities you are seeing are just style, or indicate intentional associations between the black spirits and Kaonashi?. . .

I suspect Yubaba has some control over the restaurants below. She took it personally when Chihiro's parents ate the food from one. It seems that she engineered the transformation to pigs and had control over their fate after they were pigs. . .

On the Japanese R2 DVD the subtitles have Yubaba saying, "No Face" in English and "un Sans Visage" in French. Lin addresses Kaonashi in the same way when he is walking on the submerged train tracks. I've always thought of it as a proper noun."

Deborah Goldsmith wrote about the noun dilemma, "1. In the English dub, Yubaba definitely says "He's a Kaonashi." At that point she's using it as a common noun. Later on everyone uses it as a proper noun.

2. In the Japanese original, Yubaba's line is "soitsu no shoutai ha kaonashi da yo." (His true form is kaonashi.) Given this sentence structure, I think it's being used as a common noun. Again, later on everyone uses it as a form of address.

So I think it's used both as a common noun and a proper noun in both the English and Japanese dialogue."

Quickies

    Lee Johnson put together a comparison page for the R2/R3 "Laputa" DVDs. Sean Campbell wrote about Miyazaki's alternative worlds.

Conclusion

    Having fallen behind a few weeks, don't be suprised if there's a quick succession of issues. I've still avoided evicition from the UW's server, but the axe is probably going to fall sometime early in 2003 if not in December.

Go to top


Previous Issue MML Traffic Frontpage Back Issues Links Credits My Homepage Search

vage, "If Studio Ghibli is concerned about the quality of the merchandise, why can't they cut a deal where Disney can import from the licensed Japanese manufacturers and sell the authorized Studio Ghibli merchandise in the U.S.?