Talk:Kubo and the Two Strings

Untitled

The movie was set to premiere at the Jerusalem Film Festival but was pulled out at the last minute. Delete that line. יונתן דורון (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor paragraphs deatiling

some of the paragraphs need detailing, as most of them start without capital letters. Please, do correct them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article should explain the "two strings" in the film's title.

What does the "two strings" in the film's title refer to?

Does it refer to the shamisen which means three strings?

Or to the idiom "two strings to one's bow"?

Or to his two companions on his journey?

Martin. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Let us say that the shamisen has only got one string at one point and 'two strings' more are acquired in the very last moves of the film; explaining it outright in the lead would seem churlish, even though we don't suppress spoilers; if it goes anywhere it should go near the end of the plot section. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2016(UTC) Ah silly me, it's been done already. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

mid-credits scene

should the mid-credits scene (with the construction of the giant skeleton) be mentioned? Visokor (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Character names

Where do the character names of the Moon King and his daughters come from? They're not in the end credits of the film, and they aren't mentioned in dialogue during the movie. Can sources please be added for the names Raiden, Sariatu, Karasu, and Washi? -- Supermorff (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. Now, what I know about Japanese mythology would comfortably fit in the margin of a postage stamp, but from what I understand Raiden is another name for Raijin. That Wikipedia article identifies him as the "god of lightning, thunder and storms", which seems like a poor fit for a "Moon King". The moon god (goddess?) would be Tsukiyomi, though I don't know if that one fits either... 213.65.60.100 (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

On reading the script - downloadable via the article - the names of Raiden, Karasu, and Washi are not mentioned at all. Sariatu is mentioned just once in this as a stage direction only. Considering this there needs to be a note applied to these. If no reference from other authentic sources can be found - may be they are in Laika's artwork books or somewhere similar - then these names should be deleted and their titles used instead. The water monster (of the eyes) is called the Ningen, for those interested. Camsteerie (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kubo and the Two Strings. 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/20160713191646/http://miff.com.au/program/film/kids-gala-kubo-and-the-two-strings-3d to http://miff.com.au/program/film/kids-gala-kubo-and-the-two-strings-3d

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) 05:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Moon Reversed

While Kubo is in the Far Lands, the moon is reversed, even to the extent it is the right way round when reflected in water. It is normal when he returns to the village. Is their an explanation - does it relate to the Tarot? Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of Japanese terms

To state the obvious, this is the English Wikipedia. This edit introduces Japanese characters and insists on using "shamisen" and "netsuke" throughout. Firstly, this is certainly too much detail for the lede. Secondly, regarding the plot section, in the previous edit both terms are mentioned and described when they are first invoked. There is no need to continually repeat terms unfamiliar to English readers. Barry Wom (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, they terms are introduced in the 2nd not 1st paragraph. Secondly, this is a film about Japan and its culture and traditions - the use of Japanese terms and characters is warranted. It is appropriate to use the kanji of a word on its first use, but not thereafter. It can be ignored easily as it does not distract from the sense of the sentence nor does it introduce numerous digressive subclauses. To object to a single use makes no sense.

In establishing the premise of the story: Monkey is an animated netsuke which does not have a direct English translation, though charm roughly applies - it is to a degree anachronistic. The magical 3-stringed shamisen is also integral as this is where the title comes in as at the end of the film, it is stringed with parts from Kubo and his parents. Using this to disarm and transform the Moon King is the crux to the finale. It resembles a guitar but the body of it works more as a drum being a tanned skin covering a wooden body, more like a banjo - again though there is not a direct translatable term, and musical instrument uses two words / six syllables whereas shamisen is half of this. Once it is clearly explained (and linked for those who want to know more) then it is easy to recall what it is. Two integral items, each with a simple 3-syllable name, is not hard to keep in the mind for a brief period of reading the article. You have no problem with the Japanese word origami, simply because it has become used for a long time in English, without it ever being Anglicized, as there is no other descriptive term for the artwork.

So, have you a better argument? Camsteerie (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

We should be using the language terms used by the film rather than inserting Japanese terms that are not used. I would have to go back to watch this again and look for what's actually used but I know there were at least a few Japanese terms in play. Masem (t) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If you watch the video's extras - or read Laika's artwork books otherwise - on the development of the animation and work put into getting the historical accuracy of the designs and trying to capture the culture, it is detailed there. Much is glossed over in the film itself, to avoid bogging the story down, with much said in just passing or simply by showing, such as the nature of the Bon Festival. More can be gained if you watch the film with the audio description and hard-of-hearing subtitles switched on, which makes points are more easy to discern. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

While I'm sure the terms are used in extra media tied to the film, on WP we tend to stick to exactly what is presented in the film and only that, as to avoid original research or the like. That said, if we source these terms to the extra sources in the plot, that may be reasonable then. Masem (t) 15:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said more can be gained if you watch the film with the audio description and hard-of-hearing subtitles switched on, which makes points more easily to discern. The AD and subtitles state things, giving terms like netsuke, which can also be found in the the film's script that you can download for yourself from this Wiki entry. This is not original research at all, as it is information already provided, it is just generally overlooked. As film screenings also have AD and subtitled viewings on original release for people with limited vision and poor hearing and are not just restricted to video discs, there cannot be a complaint made that its not part of the film on release. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If we are going to use subtitles, which can vary if one is watching a home media release vs broadcast or streaming, we should at least have some type of clarifying note to explain many of the Japanese terms are not spoken but included in the subs from a specific version. If it requires more than just simply watching the film, such as having subtitles on, we have to be clear where the terms originate from. Masem (t) 20:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This is getting very close to nitpicking. Anyway, as both the audio description and the HOH subtitles are drawn directly from the screenplay, then my suggestion is to consult that. Fortunately, as previously stated, this is available on a WaybackMachine link at the end of the entry, by Haimes and Butler, dated to 5 January 2016. Reading this, Japanese terms used include: shamisen, stated 36 times; netsuke, 7 times; origami, 27 times.

To start with inserting subclauses, stating from where all the minutiae are derived, comes across as overkill. If you want, you can add the odd footnote or two, if you are feeling keen and start with referencing directly from the script, as this would not clog up the general flow of the entry itself.

To point out: many things are not fully noticed on 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd viewings - they pass by as ephemera, just as the Japanese consider the medieval ukiyo, "this transient, unreliable world" is - and only on many repeated viewings, in a momentary "Ooo, what's that?" moment, or if baldly pointed out, do you actually consciously pick things up.

Wishing many happy rewatchings of Kubo. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue is verifyability. If we have terms coming from something other than the audio and visual aspects of the film (the basis of why plot sections don't have to be sourced), the origin of those terms should be identified, even if that's just saying "based on English subtitles on DVD version of film". Masem (t) 21:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As you are an administrator, can you tackle this by making it easier to insert {{cite AV}}. I use them this if referring to say a director's commentary that explains casting or whatever. There is not an ISBN, but all discs have an equivalent code that is not recognised on the Wikipedia system to identify from which format/copy of the media that is sourced. The criteria options given, with frankly poor descriptions on the help page, are pretty odd too. I would point out that even in N. America, Canadian and US editions very, and then in Europe, there are many, many editions and then there are those issued in Africa, Asia, and Oceania.

It took me a good while and much searching to find these formatted cite templates and then further time and trouble to work them out with the relevant help pages. Wikipedia really needs to beef up the provision and quality of help pages for editors. I used to fudge things by using something equivalent to your suggested "based on..." phrase, but it makes a poor reference.

I suggest that on the editing page of each entry there should be easier insert footnotes and reference with options of standard format citation styles - so you click on the ref or its icon which calls up a range of options with the basic standard criteria, for say cite book asking for the ISBN - and the also put with good guidance notes on what goes where and how to phrase it. Though ISBNs have been about for a great many decades, very old books do not have them and some publishers print without these - high quality publishers, The Folio Society does not, for example.

I would also point out that there is no easy way to find the help pages, especially the one you really need, as editors have to guess the names. It would be easy to offer help pages on the pull-down help menu, which offers the most widely needed and the rest by topic and then subject and further subgroups if necessary.

I have had to create my own crib sheet, cobbled together from formatting tools as I have found them combined with my old IT notes.

I recognised this old programming language from basic website creation tools of the early noughties. I have dipped in and out of editing Wikipedia for decades, but generally have not been bothered. Now with a bit of time on hand, I have returned again and have seen the poor quality of info given. Too often, I find that entries are basic at best.

I get the strong impression that there are one too many editors who fail to follow basic Wikipedia practice on editing if they find something on first checking an entry or if subsequent edits are made to an entry to automatically undo / revert these rather than consider the points made and why they have been made. Apart from obvious vandalism / editing bugger ups, reverting should be forbidden and no edits should have a revert button as they can get trigger-happy with this and go around making reversions without thinking. This makes genuine editors deeply upset when they have slaved over an edit inserting new points to get one of the these trigger jocks swooping in going "Oh no, I don't like this. I don't think it adds anything." and simply delete the edit without any consideration at all as to what the editor was intending and the points placed. WP guidance says that all editors should always - meaning every single time - an edit made in good faith should be considered fully and firstly, should tweak it to fit better if its inconsistent with the entry or ask for a reference with a {{CN}}.

These reverting trigger jocks are the ones that create so many edit wars, that generally lead to you and your fellow admin being called in to arbitrate. They have put me off many times in the past, pushing me into foregoing even bothering with Wikipedia let alone doing any editing.

So, lose the revert "button" for editors - responsible admin maybe should keep it - and have it as a strong lead point, that no editor should do a complete undo on an edit without redrafting / re-editing these new edits into shape.

Sorry for going on so long. I could easily go further, and may well do another time. But for now thank you for considering the points that I have raised above. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Masem

Barry Wom is sock puppeting as Larry Mow and using both to circumvent the edit war and 3-reverts rule.

He is culpable of vandalism by creating a name for the Moon King as Raiden recently, that I have removed. I believe that he is responsible for the insertion of the sisters names for which there is no basis either - for which I put in a citation needed - Barry Wom has returned with further deletions, made without discussion in violation of the edit war rules.

I ask that he be blocked in both names temporarily as a first step to see if he becomes compliant to Wikipedia editing rules. If he returns thereafter and repeats this vandalism, then longer term and permanent block will be at your discretion. Camsteerie (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, nice try, especially considering you just openly admitted to violating 3RR yourself by editing while logged out.

Barry Wom is sock puppeting as Larry Mow

Untrue.

He is culpable of vandalism by creating a name for the Moon King as Raiden recently

Alsø untrue.

I believe that he is responsible for the insertion of the sisters names for which there is no basis either

Alsø alsø untrue. Barry Wom (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Well the logins of Barry Wom and Larry Mow are working in concert edits done within moments of one another. Camsteerie (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You really need to stop edit warring. You are the only editor who agrees with these changes. Discuss the matter further before reverting again. Barry Wom (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I will say that there is strong evidence related to sock puppetry here on the Barry account and may need to raise that to admin levels. Masem (t) 15:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do so, and be sure to request a CU. Barry Wom (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sorry, didn't look closely enough and just noticed the similarity in the user names. Agreed that it does indeed looks suspicious. I can only assure everyone that I had nothing to do with this newly-registered account. Barry Wom (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

And the fact that the newly-registered account of Larry Mow is making edits within moments of Barry Wom edits on the same entry? Sorry this appears to be very poor.

And there is still the vandalism itself to answer.

Also, you removed the citation needed on the Sisters' names - that subsequently I have deleted until a good reference can be found. Camsteerie (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

And the fact that the newly-registered account of Larry Mow is making edits within moments of Barry Wom edits on the same entry? Sorry this appears to be very poor.

Different edits of course, but point taken. I suspect it's someone attempting to make it look like I'm sockpuppeting.

And there is still the vandalism itself to answer.

There isn't. Please provide a diff of what you're referring to.

Also, you removed the citation needed on the Sisters' names

Again, please provide a diff which demonstrates this.

Rather than continuing to divert the discussion by arguing about irrelevancies, I strongly suggest you address the matter at hand. You have consistently failed to explain why you believe unfamiliar Japanese terms should be used throughout the plot section, despite them not appearing in the film. I've attempted a compromise by using "shamisen" (along with a description) in the opening paragraph. I've also inserted a footnote mentioning a "netsuke".

Strictly speaking, neither of those terms should appear at all. So why are you insisting that they should be mentioned multiple times? Barry Wom (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Why, thank you for asking. As a matter of fact I do.

Let's start with the fact that you avoided 3RR by reverting my edit while logged out. And you're continuing this practice on the talk page to make it seem that two different editors are agreeing on including these terms. Cut that out.

Firstly, they terms are introduced in the 2nd not 1st paragraph.

I never mentioned a paragraph number, but I assume you're referring to the lede section. The text you added: "is able to weave magical music from a shamisen — a traditional Japanese 3-stringed guitar-like instrument —" and this text: "an anthropomorphic snow monkey netsuke — 根付 — charm", are completely inappropriate in a two-sentence summary of the plot. Indeed, the use of Japanese characters throughout is inappropriate.

Regarding the use of "shamisen" and "netsuke" in the plot section, as Masem has pointed out, We should be using the language terms used by the film rather than inserting Japanese terms that are not used. I've been through the screenplay and the English HOH subtitles. Both terms are used in the descriptive sections of the script, but neither term is actually spoken by any of the characters. Accordingly, neither term appears in the subtites. So your statement The AD and subtitles state things, giving terms like netsuke is incorrect.

Per WP:FILMPLOT, the film itself is the primary source for the plot section. And per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. As neither of these terms appear in the film, their inclusion fails WP:NOR. Barry Wom (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barry Wom @Larry Mow

Unlike you, Barry Wom / Larry Mow, I have only one account. My web browser is automatically set to clear cookies and log me out of on-line activities when I shut it down and so sometimes on re-opening it, I do not remember to log back in, as has happened here. If you want my apologies, you are welcome to have them for this lapse.

You have done journalism and talk of ledes (US) / leads - this is the opening paragraph in journalism. Here is composition for an encyclopedia not writing an newspaper article.

The shamisen and netsuke are integral to the plot and there is not an English word for either, so the Japanese one should be used as the alternative in English is clunky, stating 3-stringed guitar-like instrument for the former. Did you have a run through with the audio description too? Also, which version? As previously stated, the AD is based on the script using the stage instructions to explain what is happening.

But if we come to making unsubstantiated insertions, you are the person who altered the Moon King's name to "Raiden" recently to which there is no mention of this whatsoever in any material. Where did you source this. To me this smacks of vandalism of the entry. WP:VAND Please halt this disruptive action.

Your attempts to edit this degrade the content not improve it. As with Wikipedia itself, the point of the entry is to give people the ability to find out and explore further in subjects by giving easy clear linkages to related subjects and from where points originate. Kubo has a shamisen and a netsuke, many people want to find out more about these and what they mean in Japanese culture, so let them find out. Camsteerie (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you have a run through with the audio description too? Also, which version?

No, I didn't. I don't have to. Insertion of terms to the plot summary that are only available on a specific Audio Description track won't wash, I'm afraid. As already explained, the primary source for the plot summary is the film itself. Not the script, not the subtitles, not an AD track.

As a compromise, I've inserted a footnote giving the name of the charm. Both terms are now explained on their initial appearance and there is no need to repeat them. Barry Wom (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barry Wom @Masem

I have asked you to present a reasoned case as to why you believe your deletions of salient notes is improving the entry. You have not given such a case yet.

WP:BRD is optional and really runs counter to the way Wikipedia works on editing, in that you should not delete other editors work just because you dislike the style or what has been conveyed. Wikipedia states that editors should look on a new edit and consider what is being made in the new points and the underlying aim being made as a whole and not to automatically delete anything. Frankly, this should be a golden rule placed at the top in my view.

Also, I have asked that Masem work as a mediator here so that we can make at least a peaceable resolution, but hopefully an amicable one too. Camsteerie (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

...and in the meantime, you're going to continue edit warring? By my count, you've now reinserted the same content five times in a little over 24 hours. Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I have restored the page that you Barry Wom/Larry Mow are deliberately hacking. Now I have asked you to discuss this matter here - and if by some strange chance Larry Mow is not you - I have also invited Larry Mow to take part in the mediation process of working out a way forward with the entry.

The nub of your issue is you do not seem to like terms that are not widely used in English or are from another language. You do not object to origami, a wholly Japanese word, but shamisen and netsuke are too difficult for you - and so therefore everyone - to learn and use that they must be deleted, even though there is not a suitable alternative to use. The netsuke for example is not just a charm, it is used in a practical way in Japanese clothing. For some readers, this will be of interest as it is an integral part of the film and so would want to find out more. Your edits deny / make it hard to do this. Camsteerie (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The nub of your issue is you do not seem to like terms that are not widely used in English or are from another language.

The "nub of my issue" is presented quite clearly above. You are attempting to insert original research into the plot section. Barry Wom (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)