FANDOM


This article is based on or incorporates content from this revision of the article Type-Moon from the English Wikipedia


Comparison to Marvel ComicsEdit

An interesting Talk Between the "Type-Moon Big Three" Nasu, Takeuchi and Urobuchi during 2011. They seem to compare the company to Marvel Comics and even DC Comics. Calling the Campany the Marvel Comics of Japan. 

Does anybody feel that we should agree with them and make it official? I'm not really interested What they want to call themselves, just as long as in is something worth noting.175.143.152.149 01:55, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

That would be rather interesting. Could you provide a link to your source on this? If we can verify it, that'd be quite the detail to include based on three of the top names in the company's perception of their status.Hawkeye2701 (talk) 02:20, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Link: http://tsukikan.com/misc/nasu-kinoko-takeuchi-takashi-urobuchi-gen-special-forum.html

The conversation mostly focuses on Marvel but it also mentions DC comic.175.143.152.149 10:05, April 6, 2015 (UTC) 

Oh yeah they mentioned that. Still I don't really think Type-Moon is comparable to Marvel or DC. I mean for one thing. DC and Marvel deal with Costumed Superheroes, and more with geneticlly inherited superpowers, Extraterestrials and Supernatural beings on a wide range. While Type-Moon, focuses on a more Narrower genre focused on the Supernatural beings and School-life, teen life, with a hint of adult Hentai.Vindicator22 (talk) 11:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

But dude, Type-Moon has got power house of Characters. I mean they could all easily crush Both Marvel and DC anyday.175.143.152.149 11:46, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstood, I'm talking about What Type-Moon and DC and Marvel do. Not which company characters would win. Vindicator22 (talk) 15:16, April 6, 2015 (UTC) 


Oh Please! Type-Moon is not and will never be on the same level as Marvel or DC Comic.
Those "Crazy Morons" are at anytime far superior then Marvel or DC Comics. 
Now I know that I said that they were being unimaginative and biased when they decided to do another adaptation of the Unlimited Blade Works route of Fate/stay night (That I still strongly feel is a fact), but that does not mean I won't give them credit where it is due. If, you ask me it is Marvel and DC that need to step it up. 
Nothing personal but, people in costumes, with Mutant powers and superpowers isn't as cool as what these guys here have.Neverest1 (talk) 17:21, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

I know that this may not be relevant but, according to Nasu or Takeuchi the Wizard Marshall is the Nasuverse's equivalent to the Marvel Universe's Sorcerer Supreme. I believed theymentioned this in the past. I just can't remember which one.Vindicator22 (talk) 15:33, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

Hold it, wait a minute! Just where and when in the world did they say that?110.159.184.9 16:01, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Cuz, you need to give some evidence to this fact, you know records.Palantian (talk) 15:55, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

We're kinda drifting off point here. We have the transcript of the interview or whatever, we can use Nasu and Uro's words to describe how they percieve their company. Now we just need to figure out how to integrate that into the article.--Hawkeye2701 (talk) 18:33, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Hawk, sorry about that. Firstly what I thing we should do is put an appropriate title. I recomand that we call it "Company Reputation" or just "Reputation". Then we for a body bas on the company's reputation in the media, that includes video games, animes and mangas, and reviews from the net and printed media. But Still I want that part about the Sorcerer Supreme Title and Wizard Marshal Title being the same checked. Because look, I just don't want us to putting in speculation, and get in trouble with the Admins like what I've seen happen between some off you guys and EGGS.110.159.184.9 07:55, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should include third party sources, but anything from the company about how they're doing, where they're at with things would be fine I think.Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:04, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
But Hawk, isn't that kind of info only going to be a little one-sided. Cause If It is all Type-Moon then it could only be Company promotion rather then actual facts. I mean If we are going to do this then it should require other sources to help give "Concrete Proof". Plus doing such things are only going to open the flood gates for Biasness Conspiracies. And trust me that is the last thing we need right now especially with guys like Neverest1 over here.110.159.184.9 17:38, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry dude but this a strictly no Other sources wiki. We must only use Type-Moon Material.Palantian (talk) 17:59, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Our entire job here is to provide accurate information regarding Type-Moon media which has been as accurately sourced as possible. If we start adding in other sources, not only does that taint our source pool with things not relevant to Type-Moon franchise, it actually provides a ground for other people to create a biased interpretation by only providing either positive or negative reviews of Type-Moon materials.

By only using sources provided by Type-Moon staff etc. we keep it on point. Besides, if anyone is reading these articles thinking people who work for the company are gonna bad mouth it, they're clearly not thinking too clearly. People are gonna expect our resources (Nasu, Gen, etc.) to be biased towards their own work.--Hawkeye2701 (talk) 19:27, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

But the sources I'm suggesting are Newspaper, video games magazines, and reviews by reputable critics. I mean wouldn't it be great to put souces like those in, to show that Type-Moon truely is one of the best and superior JP Gaming and Media companies in Japan and for that matter Asia. If we do thorough research and find such review them we can actually boost the Company's popularity and help give it more recognition and status. Well not that TM really needs it, cause they are doing pretty good on their own right.110.159.184.9 02:58, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.