Talk:The Mysterious Cities of Gold/Archive 1

Cliffhangers and Documentaries

A few comments - I've just watched the French version of every episode (I watched the English-language ones as a child) and I don't think it's accurate to say that they ended with cliffhangers. Generally, an episode ends with its major plotline resolved, but in the "don't miss the next episode" or "à suivre" segment at the end, the narrator briefly says a bit about what will happen next time, which usually makes clear that the heroes will meet some kind of trouble. I don't really call this a cliffhanger (which would be when the heroes meet trouble in the current episode without getting out of it, not when the viewer is warned that they will meet some trouble in the future!). Also, were the documentary segments broadcast in all countries? I certainly have no memory of them being broadcast in the UK. This would be interesting to investigate. Vlasta Vrana, a Norwegian, did the English narration of the documentaries, not the narrator of the episodes. I'm going to correct that mistake now. 86.134.55.10 20:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! Change the wording, this is wiki, get involved. As for the documentaries, I have no idea. My memory of the BBC broadcast is so fuzzy I don't wanna read the plot section for fear of spoiling myself for a rewatch. --zippedmartin 00:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the BBC never showed the documentary parts. Edited to reflect this. Burns flipper 15:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Co-production issues

Right, I'm used to seeing this series described as a 'French/Japanese coproduction', however when poking around for some info on whether the series aired first in France or Japan (「オリジナル本放送版」 | 1982年（昭和57年）06月29日～1983年（昭和58年）06月07日 | NHK総合 | 毎週火曜日 | 19：30～放送 vs. "En France, la serie a ete diffusee a partir du 28 septembre 1983 sur Antenne 2" - now corrected in article) I was slightly worried to see that there seemed to be only Japanese individuals (bar Scott O'Dell) and companies credited. What exactly did the French do? If they only appear in the French (and maybe English) credits, doesn't that suggest they only did the localisation? --zippedmartin 00:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think they funded it, and maybe produced? Page currently says "Les Mystérieuses Cités d'Or is an anime series produced by Studio Pierrot." Burns flipper 10:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If they provided initial funding, the convention would be to include them in the 製作 credit in the japanese version, which doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, the animation is certainly all pierott, and that's the important part, really. --zippedmartin 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "Directed By" box, the first two names are French. Bernard Deyries was the series director, responsible for storyboards and developing some of the technological ideas, eg the golden condor. He and his team also had input into the way the drawings looked - eg they reduced the size of the characters' eyes which were typically huge in the preliminary Japanese sketches. There's a series out in France called "Les nouvelles aventures d'Esteban et Zia" which is a sequel - there is some footage on YoutubeCathd6 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Beware: "Les Nouvelles Aventures d'Esteban et Zia" (or "Esteban et Zia et les Sept Cités d'Or" as it is currently renamed) is NOT a sequel to "Les Mystérieuses Cités d'Or", it is simply a new (and more faithful) adaptation of Scott O'Dell's original novel by a different French studio. The reactions by both Bernard Deyries and Jean Chalopin and most fans have been very critical of this release, as it clearly advertises itself as linked with the original MCOG without having any definite connection. Deyries and Chalopin have been planning a sequel to MCOG themselves since about 2000, even showing some pre-production art in 2003, but this project won't be released until late 2008 at the earliest.87.64.69.129 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Steven Smet

Adding onto the subject, DiC's name, as well as "Luxemburgh Production Committee" is listed in the ending credits. A couiple of foreign credits, which are Edouard David and Bernard Deyriès are listed as well. Unfortently, that's really the only two listed. The main reason is NHK redid the credits in the ending sequence in the 1997 reairing(they also rerecorded it, for whatever reason). Unfortently, it makes it impossible to see who wrote each episode script, did the original character designs, and everything. For whatever reason, NHK didn't restore the episode production credits... If we could locate the ending sequence from the 1982 version, I'm sure alot of our answers would be answered for sure, but I believe the DiC credits I mentioned before should be enough. If anyone wants me to, I'll get a screenshot from the R2 DVD source of the DiC credits on the japanese ending for proof. Mendinso 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

As a 'work', should have full title, including initial "the". Small amount of page history at the target, currently a redirect, so admin move required. Alai 18:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 00:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

The Great Condor?

In the English dubs this was the 'Golden Condor' - what does the original translate as? Burns flipper 09:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

French: grand condor d'or = great golden condor; they also used "Grand Condor"

Japanese: 黄金の大コンドル (ougon? no daikondoru) = great golden condor. I've not seen the Japanese version, but I'm guessing from the episode titles they used the short hand 大コンドル (great condor). 70.81.46.147 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In French, it is "Grand Condor" ; "Grand Condor d'or" sounds odd because of the repetition of the sound "-dor"; maybe they use it the first time they see the thing, but the "name" of the vehicle is definitely "Grand Condor". Rama 13:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is referred to as "Great Condor" at least once in the English dub (ep.20) and "great golden condor/bird" certainly comes up once or twice. Wiki-Ed 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

Actor credits

Can someone add the list of voice actors? The names of the English dubs can be found on some of the fansites. Burns flipper 08:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Burns flipper 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I modified the list of credits for the english dubs. Having done a large portion of the dubbing myself - I can vouch for its authenticity Poeticalman 10:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DIC

I have just removed " A DIC Entertainment in association with Cinar." from the top of the text as this has no meaning - can someone elaborate and add back in? Burns flipper 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How many Cities of Gold?

Were the two ruined cities official Cities of Gold? Neither were made of gold as the final one was, so are there six more to find? Text will need changing accordingly as the two ruined cities are described as two of the seven. Burns flipper 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but its contradicted by episode 39, at the end of which Mendoza says (and I quote, though this is of course the English dubbing) "Remember, somewhere in the world, there are six more cities of gold".Slideyfoot 14:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Empire of Hiva and other spellings?

The article currently calls it the Empire of Mu, whereas the versions I've seen say Empire of Hiva. Is that a matter of license on the part of the translator? There are also some contrasting spellings and phrases used in the main article as opposed to the episode guide; the former has 'khipu' and 'Great Legacy' while the latter uses 'quipo' and 'Great Treasure'(the Great Treasure is the one I heard when I watched it recently).Slideyfoot 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

edited to standardise to 'Quipu'; this is the Wikipedia entry. Burns flipper 08:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Real-life basis

Mendoza - is he based on Antonio de Mendoza or Pedro de Mendoza? Burns flipper 08:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think from the articles given he is based on Pedro de Mendoza, as he is a Spanish conquistador.--NeilEvans 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fans of the Mysterious Cities of Gold?

Why is this page in the Category:Fans of the Mysterious Cities of Gold? It is not a fan. I suggest this cat is removed from the page. Burns flipper 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DVD

Currently the page says: "There is a slight possibility that the English-dubbed version of The Mysterious Cities of Gold may or may not be available on DVD in the United States." I have removed this as I could find no evidence of it being available (search of amazon.com & other sites). Burns flipper 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode Guide needs Screenshots

I've fixed it a bit but it is now screaming for some nice screenshots to be added to each episode as well.... maybe even a page of it's own... what do you reccon? --Acidburn24m 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

MCOG Sequel?

something needs to be mentioned here about the MCOG sequel... --Acidburn24m 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link.Burns flipper 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"See also" section

I was considering deleting this section, as the only thing in it is the episode guide, which already has its own section. I decided to leave it in as a placeholder in case there are some other links that could go there. B7T 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Air-Dates United States

This article states that the show originally aired in the United States in 1988. I know that this date is too late. I remember watching it in my first house in Massachusetts, which mean before 1988. I think perhaps is aired as far back as 1986. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Titanium402 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Odd! I was just about to post, "I know the show originally aired in the United States before 1988, because I remember watching it in my first house in Wisconsin." Agreed - I think 1986 is closer to the mark. I'll change it to something more accurate. Celedor15 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Air-Dates Canada

This anime was shown in french on Radio-Canada, between 82 and 85, but I don't have the exact date.Does anyone know? Sirkowski 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Credits

Regarding: "There are two versions of the opening credits. The version aired in the UK is a cut-down version running 60 seconds instead of the full 75."

The writer here was a bit confused. He or she must own a copy of the bootleg DVD that has come out and figured it has the original credit sequence. It does not. In an e-mail, the guy who made the DVD's explains: "I extended the opening credits on the DVD’s that I compiled and used the longer version of the theme song as I wanted to see if I could do it. The Japanese DVD’s came with extras that were the opening credits without any text. You’ll see the color variation where I spliced the English “Mysterious Cites of Gold” text over the Japanese title after the beginning and toward the end. I’m glad it was that good." Celedor15 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Regarding the section associating The Mysterious Cities of Gold's voice actors with the dubbing of Ulysses 31 : Esteban's voice actor has stated in an interview that he did not work on the dubbing of Ulysses 31. However, the voice of Tao, Adrian Knight, did play the voice of Telemachus in Ulysses 31. This should be changed to reflect the true information. KitFallapart 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sequel/New adaptation confusion

The article appears to have a contradiction in that it say that :

It is rumored that a sequel was attempted, but cancelled due to lack of funding.[2]

but later has a link which says

The New Adventures of Esteban and Zia - English translation of a site detailing the forthcoming sequel

This is quite confusing and needs cleared up. I see that above somebody stated

Beware: "Les Nouvelles Aventures d'Esteban et Zia" (or "Esteban et Zia et les Sept Cités d'Or" as it is currently renamed) is NOT a sequel to "Les Mystérieuses Cités d'Or", it is simply a new (and more faithful) adaptation of Scott O'Dell's original novel by a different French studio. The reactions by both Bernard Deyries and Jean Chalopin and most fans have been very critical of this release, as it clearly advertises itself as linked with the original MCOG without having any definite connection. Deyries and Chalopin have been planning a sequel to MCOG themselves since about 2000, even showing some pre-production art in 2003, but this project won't be released until late 2008 at the earliest.87.64.69.129 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Steven Smet

Shouldn't an explanation (with some sort of citation) of all of this be included on this article and The King's Fifth article? Surely, at least, an explanation of another adaptation and the connection between the two series should be included.--Thetriangleguy 16:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This still hasn't been cleared up so I added a contradict tag. There really needs to be some explanation of this "Les Nouvelles Aventures d'Esteban et Zia" series which is linked to, in order to disambiguate between the proposed sequel and the alternate adaptation --Thetriangleguy (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best course is to remove all references to Les Nouvelles..., which has nothing to do with MCOG. If it belongs anywhere it is in the article on The King's Fifth. --Ross UK (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think the rewriting is pretty much done for the moment, except for the plot parts which I haven't done (because I don't want to read them yet, but quite annoyingly keep doing so by accident).

The problem with lack of citation has been well addressed: 17 sources have been increased to 48. The subsections that could still do with references are "Documentaries" and "Production differences", if anyone would like to assist. --Ross UK (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On a careful look at Production differences, all statements made in that section derive directly from the content and are therefore already referenced. It's thus only Documentaries that we have left to consider. --Ross UK (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've devolved the citations tag to apply to Documentaries alone. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to find a suitable source for either of the following two claims:

• the NHK funded the documentaries;
• the documentaries were included in and omitted from broadcast as described.

Again, any help is appreciated. --Ross UK (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Incidentally, if someone can find a better image than the one at the top I'd be quite pleased. --Ross UK (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

whats wrong with the one at the top?? I love it. --Acidburn24m (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of taste I suppose. I don't feel that it portrays the characters clearly enough, having small images of them scattered around the frame and the Condor viewed at a strange angle. I always thought it curious that it was used for some official releases. OK if people want to keep it, but I would prefer something else. --Ross UK (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the upcomming English DVD relases would have a better cover (I doubt it). Acidburn24m (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope to include that image lower down in the article in the DVD section. --Ross UK (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

great.. we still have a couple of months till the release though. Acidburn24m (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image now added. I think it's better than the one we used previously at the top of the article. --Ross UK (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the source for that image? The URL doesn't work and, as so far the only artwork that I know of that has been releases is not official. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is published by Fabulous Films, and is located at the Yahoo! group mcog-list, as shown by the text of the URL. --Ross UK (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A Yahoo group is not a reliable source for content, nor for DVDs. I can not find that image on either of the Fabulous Films sites. Did whoever post it give the origin? If not, it needs to be removed as it can not be shown to be accurate. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was posted by Tim Skutt, certainly a good authority in these matters, his having received it from Richard Walker at Fabulous Films. --Ross UK (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, a Yahoo Group is not a reliable source, nor is an email (presuming that's how he got it). Anyone can claim anything they want in a Yahoo group, that doesn't make it real or valid. Until an official image is release, I've removed that one from the article. If Fabulous Films has actually released an image, I'm sure it will appear in a legitimate source soon enough. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That image is the same as the one on the HMV site you know, minus the wossnim across it. Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But it didn't come FROM the site, so the sourcing is invalid. It's already been noted above that the image was posted on a board. When a more official source for the image can be found, which would confirm that the art work is correct and finalized, then it can be added back with proper sourcing.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are DVD covers on an old site of mine that I received directly from the managing director of Contender Ltd via email. Some later covers I received direct from Aitch Creative. Would that be an invalid source also? Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because we as editors can not be sources, nor can a personal web site or email be used as a source per WP:RS. Additionally, those images are from 1999, and we don't know that Fabulous Films will be using the same covers or doing their own. We need to wait until Fabulous Films releases their official cover art for the series. Since the first release is due in March, it is likely that the cover art will be forthcoming fairly soon. There isn't any need to rush and accidentally publish false information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(Collapsing, as the indent is getting silly) The link I provided was just an example and the images there are unrelated. The guideline you reference is for information, not images. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The same guidelines apply, though. As Fabulous Films themselves have not published a cover of the image, we can not verify that any one image is the official one. We can't claim the image is official, and we don't want to post the wrong image as that would be providing incorrect information in a visual form.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC masters

The recent edit by Fabinfo claims that the masters used by Fabulous Films were not supplied by the BBC, and that the BBC destroyed the masters in "early 2007". I am somewhat sceptical about the second claim, which is unsourced, and doesn't seem to fit with the timing. The first claim, which is also unsourced, does not rule out the entirety of the paragraph in question. I am therefore restoring the paragraph with the exception of the BBC claim, though Tim Skutt, who has been in contact with Richard Walker, has twice said that the tapes were obtained from the BBC (or at least that they had belonged to the BBC in the past). I accept however that the sources for the claim could be better. I propose that the BBC claim should stand, and invite any interested views. --Ross UK (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

English Voice Actors

I understand that this is from someone's personal site, but he seems to have worked out (and confirmed, by talking to some of the voice actors) the English cast. This is the one. Is this useful to the article, or does it need a first-hand source (of which there are unfortunately very few for MCoG)? If it is, do you think it's worth putting up one of those funky voice actors tables as seen in so many other anime pages?

Additionally, I think the many sections about production and dubbing can be cut down and merged together. I'm off to London for the next couple of days though so I don't have time to do a massive revision until Monday. AeolusStorm (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source would be needed, which precludes fan sites. A voice actor table would not be appropriate (and isn't the preferred format for anime pages either, just stuff we have to clean up as we find). The proper format for an in article list would be:

• English name (kanji name, romanji name), short description. Voiced by: Voiced by: Japanese (Japanese); English (English)

For the actual cast, hopefully the list will be in the DVD release. Otherwise, it will have to just be noted that many are unknown. I agree some of the sections need to be merged, and the article as a whole needs cleaned up and reformatted to comply with the anime and manga MOS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to check ^_^ I'm fairly new to Wikipedia anyway and those tables look like a nightmare to try and format.AeolusStorm (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob...and trust me, they are a nightmare to undo too :-P This is the anime and manga MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles), if you'd like to see what sections we are aiming for and how to structure stuff. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It'll be much easier to redefine with those guidelines in mind. Mmm, fun ^_^ AeolusStorm (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since I have it on DVD should I list the english voice actors as its listed on the extras. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. Please use the format noted above. I also found the series listed in my Anime Encyc so I'll try to find time to encorporate any info from there into relevant sections of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect cover

I've removed the cover because it was updated before release. The correct one can be seen on the main retailer's site (direct link to image), as well as Amazon UK. The update was "announced" in an email from Fabulous Films a couple of weeks ago, though I suppose such an update wouldn't be citable here. Their own site isn't particularly up to date, given that the MCOG DVD came with a leaflet of current and upcoming releases, of which few are listed on their site. Of course, the DVD sitting in front of me right now isn't, unfortunately, citable either!!!--Thetriangleguy (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Why not do that the first time it was questioned? :P BTW, instead of deleting the image, why didn't you just replace it with the right one? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. Should've provided suitable citations. On the replacement issue, does the article really need the image of the dvd cover? Seems like unnecessary advertising to me. Surely if other images are needed on the article, more character pictures would be more appropriate. If it does need the dvd cover, at the moment the quality of the images available on the web of the actual cover aren't particulary great. --Thetriangleguy (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"at the moment the quality of the images available on the web of the actual cover aren't particulary great." ...at which point I look and see you've replace the image with one of sufficient quality! Good work! Thanks.--Thetriangleguy (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Now...if it would just hurry up and get released HERE so I can get my copy! :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know whether or not it's relevant but it appears they are changing the cover AGAIN! This time for the non-exclusive release in June [1]. Given there's two different covers on that one page (both completely different from what's been before) I'm presuming they've not confirmed anything. Still, I thought I'd mention it in case anyone was confused.--Thetriangleguy (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Air Date Issue...

Something that has occured to me that has been bugging me. The listing on this wiki for the airdate, states that the Japanese airing began in May 1982. However, the R2 and several Japanese fansites list the series to start broadcasting in late June 1982. Even the Japanese wiki lists this as such. I'm unsure if the May 1982 airdate is referring to when the series was broadcasted in Luxembourg, as I have heard this is when Esteban had first broadcasted. (DiC at the time, was located here. That, and on the 1982 Japanese Dub, it says Luxembourg Production Committee in the credits.)

Regardless, anyone that has more information regarding the May air date could possibly clear this up? Mendinso (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian airing

I grew up in Australia and totally watched this every day as a kid. Can anyone find any verifiable information about that? I think it was on the ABC (along with other classics like Inspector Gadget, Monkey, Astroboy, Bananaman, Dr Who, The Goodies and Dangermouse.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean in the 1980s right? (Digifiend - I daren't log in as a hacker has been found in the building I'm typing this from!) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.191.46 (talk)

Yes.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this page (Anime Australia) which is an Australian website and mentions ABC in the 80's. Hope that helps. 81.151.69.169 (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It aired in Australia in the 80s on The Afternoon Show, on the ABC. The host was James Valentine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.200.66 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is comprised of?

Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, “to include” and “to consist of” (The United States of America comprises 50 states), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning “to form or constitute” (Fifty states comprise the United States of America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings “to consist of, be composed of”: The United States of America is comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing.

And this is from Bartleby.com:

If you follow the traditional rule, you say that the whole comprises the parts and that the parts compose the whole. Thus you would say The Union comprises fifty states and Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. While writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of fifty states. Don’t be surprised if this usage still elicits comments, however. In an earlier survey, a majority of the Usage Panel found this use of comprise unacceptable 213.218.242.73 (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...so are you saying you support a change or that you feel "Comprised of" is fine? In Wikipedia, using "comprised of" is considered acceptable usage, except by Giraffedata who runs around changing it all over the place because, as his user page notes, he has a personal dislike of the phrase. Occasionally, a supporter shows up who agrees with him, but if you check his talk page (and history) you'll see most people do not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing

There's quite a few grammatical errors in this article but the worst is this paragraph sentence:

The year in which the events of the series occur is 1532, a period of time when the Conquistadors - Spanish occupiers and adventurers - sail towards the new world in order to become rich and find gold, and in order to achieve that they robbed and destroyed without mercy the native cultures which prospered during those days in the Americas.

It looks like it's been edited by someone who objects to European Imperialism, however it doesn't read well and has little to do with the article which plot section is too big in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master z0b (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Taiyō no Ko = Boy from the Sun ???

Whoever has put that translation also correctly referenced Studio Pierrot's site, so there's no point discussing it, right? Well, if you take the time to read the short synopsis in the referenced page, you have to notice that it's written in an awkward English, at best. Given the context, a proper translation for the title should be "Child of the Sun", not a "Boy from the Sun" that makes Esteban an unlikely alien. Anyone mastering Japanese may confirm, please? On the French Wikipedia page, it's "l'enfant du Soleil". This is embarrassing since Studio Pierrot should indeed be considered a relevant source, yet they are publishing an official inaccuracy. --VKed (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but as Studio Pierrot is the studio who made the series, they can "translate" the title into whatever English they want. It isn't for you to argue with, at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. They say it is Boy from the Sun that is what we will note. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry too, there would be a few things to discuss about your points (yes it is for me to argue with, because if nobody does, who will?), anyway... At least, the "lit." should be removed ; nobody can seriously endorse the literalness of such a translation.--VKed (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The English dub refers to Esteban as a "Child of the Sun", so I went with that. Brittany Ka (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RV. What Pierrot refers to it takes precedence over what a character within the series is referred too. Two different things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely have to agree that at the very least, the "lit." should be removed, as that is NOT the literal translation (whereas "Child of the Sun" is both the literal translation and what is used in the English version). I wouldn't go so far as saying that we should ignore the studio's preference, esp. if there is Wikipedia policy about that (is there?), but portraying it as a "literal" translation is dodgy at best. If the studio used a totally wacky translation like "Doughnut Smoothie", what would be the right thing to do? Orinthe (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, "Child of the Sun" is used for the character, but not the series itself. We can't extrapolate that one should be exactly the same as the other. If the studio was using a very different translation, such as Tramps Like Us being used for Kimi wa Pet, then including a literal translation with "lit" is appropriate. In a case like this, however, when it is really isn't that different and appears to be more a difference in translation preferences, then it really isn't needed unless there is some reliable sources making a big deal about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as it stands, the page is just not accurate. The article is not saying "Pierrot calls the series 'Esteban, a Boy from the Sun'", it is saying "the literal translation of 太陽の子エステバン is 'Esteban, a Boy From the Sun'. Furthermore, Pierrot's site does not even purport that it is a literal translation—in fact, in the studio's Japanese page , they list it as 「太陽の子エステバン"The Mysterious Cities of Gold"｣; the site does not indicate by format or content that the English page is a direct translation of the Japanese. Leaving the page as-is would not be giving preference to the studio's name over another name, it would be incorrectly portraying one of (and not the only one of) the English names used by the studio as a literal translation, rather than an English title. I'll try to accommodate for both studio preference AND accuracy, but I can't see any reason not to change it based on current information. Orinthe (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I might note here that boy from the sun could be the correct and intended translation given that in Shinto (a kind of Japanese pantheon) It is believed that the emporer of Japan is a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu. It could very well be that he is a boy of or from the sun in the sense that he has a devine relative. In Shinto I believe that all Japanese people are also accepted as the children or some othe kind of relative of Amaterasu. Not to mention that Esteban's father was a sun priest from Japan, so that could also be how he is a boy from the sun, with sun representing his connection to the sun temple or priesthood. In fact this is probably the most probable reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.33.218 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Esteban and Zia

Is it worth noting in the synopsis that Esteban is the descendant of the Atlanteans, whilst Zia is the descendant of the Mu (Hiva)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.130.74 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New sequel

A new sequel has be announced in France (November 3, 2008) ... as I am french, I don't speak/write english as well as required to publish an article; I am the webmaster of this french website http://www.lescitesdor.com and have regular mails with the MovieGroup/Jean Chalopin team which produces the new show (last mail was yestarday), please juste visit this page : http://www.lescitesdor.com/actualite/mco2/mco2.php translate what you need/want and update the wiki page !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.184.234.246 (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that the rather naff one that ended up having to be renamed The Adventures Of Esteban and having relatively little to do with the original because of licensing problems? But isn't mentioned at all in the article text? In which case I wonder about the accuracy of the other statements regarding a "new" series and a film coming up if that hasn't been updated either. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As the first contributor of this section of the talk page, English is not my primary language...

The article said that the sequel was abandoned; I revert it to before, when it said it wasn't abandoned.

Numerous french websites confirmed that a sequel is in production, but none talks of its abandon; I think the editor, as the second person to respond to this subject, was confused because two series claimed themselves to be the sequel of MCoG, one been unofficial. This unofficial serie has been abandoned due to lack of interest. The official sequel seems to still be on schedule, although the most recent posts on http://www.lescitesdor.com/actualite/mco2/mco2.php, the most complete website on the subject I found date from 2009. In conclusion, it is confirmed that a sequel of MCoG is in production, it is also confirmed that another, unofficial was launched and died soon after, but its not confirmed the official is dead--69.157.246.168 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)