AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs) fix |
65.0.174.173 (talk) →HI!!!!!!!!!!!: new section |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
:The protection will end on the forth. Feel free to discuss new additions before then and they can always be editprotect requested if there is consensus for them. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
:The protection will end on the forth. Feel free to discuss new additions before then and they can always be editprotect requested if there is consensus for them. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== HI!!!!!!!!!!! == |
|||
Hello!! [[Special:Contributions/65.0.174.173|65.0.174.173]] ([[User talk:65.0.174.173|talk]]) 11:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:42, 3 April 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Official Domestic Website is up
Here:[1] And it says the title is Dragonball Evolution. Does this warrant the move? --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd call that good enough. Wasn't showing the title as text earlier when I looked at it, guess they are still tweaking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now. : ) – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or not. How come there's no move bar at the top of the page? :P – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) - Yes, there should be a move request. I'm just relieved that they finally selected a title ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay...since no one else apparently has done it yet, I've filed an unprotection request with a note that the article also needs moving...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"Criticism" section
We should open a new section on fans' reactions to the movie. There seem to be different opinions about it.--Quinceps (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- No we shouldn't. That would be considered personal point of view. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Read by the orange circle with "!" in it (at top of page). – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Criticism is something that should be included into a Reception section, but only if it can be sourced to a reliable publication. However, most fan opinions can't meet this standard. --Farix (Talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's really why some Wikipedia's rules should be revised and discussed. You say "only if it can be sourced to a 'reliable publication'". So what in the world is a "reliable publication", and how can you assess whether or not a source is reliable?--Quinceps (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- What's so wrong about subjective views? Haven't you see the criticism sections in many of the articles on Wikipedia including Science, Philosophy, Anime, Religion, etc.? Do you really think they should be deleted? For instance, in articles about philosophers there are always sections showing criticisms and even replies to those criticisms. Without those references, the articles would be really poor. So even if they contain subjective views, they are needed yo have a more comprehensive scope on the subject. I've found there is already a petition on the net (undersigned by nearly 3000 people so far) demanding that the release be canceled. Let's call it "reception". I feel the name is irrelevant in comparison with the body itself.--Quinceps (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a matter of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which are core policies that all articles must follow. Hence why any reception section must be backed up by a reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- This makes sense. One can cry "No original research" but the fact is that everyone on the internet and off is ridiculing this movie and an organic encyclopedia should reflect this. 24.119.163.71 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- If everyone on the internet and off is ridiculing this movie then it should be trivial to find and document a reliable source that reports that ridicule and finds it notable. --NrDg 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect, if you read through some boards, like the imdb board, there are quite a few supporters. Also, it IS original research.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- How would Wikipedia possibly benefit from having an "Internet Reaction" section like what is being suggested? If a reader desired to know how the internet population is receiving the film, they can simply look on the internet! There are plenty of opinion based sites out there, Wikipedia is not one of them. Also, petition to have the film canceled? What the hell type of Internet Nazi-ism is going on there? Bishoppendragon (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- [2], it's from a mexican magazine called primiere. The fact that not only a magazine, but one of the actors of the film are aware of the criticism, then one has to assume that it is worth mentioning. By not mentioning it, when it exists, wikipedia is showing bias towards the movie. It's just comon sence. Also, i got the link from [3]. Just scroll down to "entradas antiguas", and then in the next page search for the other pics. I can't trasnlate it, and the only valid translator i can ask is against the movie.Tosta mista (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is an image on a blog, not the magazine. The actual magazine itself is needed, not someone's "scan", possibly edited. And it has nothing to do with showing bias towards or against the movie, its called verifability. Fan reactions are, quite frankly, worthless. Reliable, verifiable reviews from legitimate, reliable sources are what Wikipedia looks at. If someone wants fan reactions, they can Google it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless, notes about fans criticizing a movie for personal reasons is a violation of WP:POV and non-notable. This "criticism" is nothing new. Spider-Man 3 was criticized by fans because the black spider-suit was nothing like in the comics, Venom/Eddie Brock was dis-Graced, not to mention he only got 15 minutes of screen time before being killed-off completely. Transformers movie was criticized because Optimus Prime had flames and wasn't a flat nose "block" truck, and because Bumblebee wasn't Volkswagen Beetle. The fact is that this proposed criticism section serves no purpose and only promotes the propaganda of these obviously disgruntled fans of the original source material. Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, the section will not be added.--UnquestionableTruth-- 23:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is an image on a blog, not the magazine. The actual magazine itself is needed, not someone's "scan", possibly edited. And it has nothing to do with showing bias towards or against the movie, its called verifability. Fan reactions are, quite frankly, worthless. Reliable, verifiable reviews from legitimate, reliable sources are what Wikipedia looks at. If someone wants fan reactions, they can Google it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- [2], it's from a mexican magazine called primiere. The fact that not only a magazine, but one of the actors of the film are aware of the criticism, then one has to assume that it is worth mentioning. By not mentioning it, when it exists, wikipedia is showing bias towards the movie. It's just comon sence. Also, i got the link from [3]. Just scroll down to "entradas antiguas", and then in the next page search for the other pics. I can't trasnlate it, and the only valid translator i can ask is against the movie.Tosta mista (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah i suppose the scans can't really be taken into acount. If anyone has access to it though. Anyway i was just trying to help out. To be honest, i have never seen a movie get this much flame before it's release. To me, that's the only thing that could justify a mention.Tosta mista (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Go read some forum postings on some of the remakes of "classic" kids cartoons, like GI Joe when the first promo images came out. *grin* Man...the language! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- How would Wikipedia possibly benefit from having an "Internet Reaction" section like what is being suggested? If a reader desired to know how the internet population is receiving the film, they can simply look on the internet! There are plenty of opinion based sites out there, Wikipedia is not one of them. Also, petition to have the film canceled? What the hell type of Internet Nazi-ism is going on there? Bishoppendragon (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Dragonball (film) → Dragonball Evolution — See "Official Domestic Website is up" for details. — Farix (Talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support - Given this is the official name now, it wouldn't be proper form to keep it under a tenative title. -12.77.8.176 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - per the above discussions, and the official website. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - an unprotect request was already filed and granted, but admin forgot to actually unprotect :P Was already going ot be moved anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Official name according to the official website. A terrible title for a very terrible looking movie. ^_^ – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
I really don't expect anyone to contest the move. But given the technical difficulties that's been encountered, I figured that filing a procedural request will resolve the problem. So let's hope for an early WP:SNOW. --Farix (Talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article has been moved. I think it's about time to close this survey. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PSP Game
Think it's time to add in the movie game in the article. http://dbthemovie.com/ http://blog.wired.com/games/2009/01/screens-namcos.html Killa Koz (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hm...a game? Yeah I think we should add that, a reliable source here. : ) – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Action Figures
Action figures and other toys have been announced right here: [4]. I think it should be mentioned in the merchandise section. Who's with me? Kazaan (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's it. I did it and I provided a reference so you know it's legit. Kazaan (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Poster
Who changed the movie poster?, shouldn't it be the original movie poster that we had before rather than the most recent one. There's been several posters for the movie, we should just stick with the first. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, no, it should be whatever one of the official poster's ends up being, with the proper film name. If the film had actually been released with the first poster used, then yes, but since it wasn't, its fine (though it should have been done as a new file). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why not put it under a new file then rather than under mine? :( :P Goku1st (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why not put it under a new file then rather than under mine? :( :P Goku1st (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
tentatively titled Dragonball
Is this really needed? What other film that went through a name change has this in their article? Killa Koz (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it isn't needed in the lead, and took it out again. In the production info, it is relevant and should be noted at least in passing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, to answer your question Killa Koz, French Bean was moved to Mr. Bean's Holiday right? I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the working title in the lead paragraph. The production section is quite sloppy at it. Would a source help bring it back? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, how's this source? Any comments? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- A source for the title change, but I talked it over with Collectonian recently and it was decided that it wouldn't be necessary in the lead. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, crap!
... ... look at the website again... and look at the bottom of the page, they use Dragonball: Evolution while at the top of the page they use Dragonball Evolution. : ( – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- wow, maybe we should just accept that we'll never know the official name. I really don't know what to do here, It would seem that both are acceptable, but perhaps when in typed form (not logo), Dragonball: Evolution is more proper.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think Collect? – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- For now, I say just leave it :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Official Poster showing up
This is the correct design for the official poster showing up at movie theaters.[5]. No citation for this, but my mother-in-law who owns a movie theater was sent this poster and told is was the official poster. Don't know what to do to make it official but in case something can be done someday, heads-up.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Official Rating
Official American rating, yeah it's PG. And here is the link: [6] . Put it where ever you want. Kazaan (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Link ain't working so go to dbthemovie.com and it will provide a link in it's article. Kazaan (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The official website says "this film is not yet rated". – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It goes no where. American film ratings are irrelevant unless controversial, and don't get listed in articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- They do. The rating has been listed in many films on Wiki. One i can name: High School Musical 3: Senior Year. Please keep this up. Goku1st (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, they don't. People including bad content in articles does not make it valid (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Pointing to a low class article with excessive non-free images, broken code, and a bad trivia section does not support your argument. High class/quality film articles do not include this information unless it is actually controversial. It has been repeatedly rejected by the Films project as being invalid content that is Americancentric in nature and blatantly obvious systematic bias.[7][8][9][10][11][12] It does not belong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again, no. Consensus is overwhelming clear here, and it matters not who made the film. The rating doesn't belong, period. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Collectonian. Why on earth do are you fighting so hard to get it up?!--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
For the curious, the template that was being used in HMS 3 and many other articles to stick in ratings has now been deleted by an overwhelming consensus agreeing that such information does NOT belong in articles unless actually notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
i look on wikipedia for anything, from rating to how many stars in has. i think it should say the rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ratings will not be added, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to see a film's ratings, they are very easy to find for your specific country. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Dragonball Reborn (film)
DragonBall Reborn is the planned sequel to Dragon ball Evolution—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldmen (talk • contribs) 19:39, February 21, 2009
- Source? Also, sing your posts. Four tildes (~~~~). – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- A forum no less. Need I remind you that forums are not reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V?--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) Chatwin mentioned it in a recent interview. I think ANN had a news article about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the interview, but I don't understand what's the point of mentioning it when the first film is not even out. Killa Koz (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the interview. However, I don't remember reading anything about the official title of the sequel being "Dragonball Reborn".--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its not the official title, its a tentative/working one. Right now, I agree with Killa Koz, though, until more reliable sources give the sequel more coverage, no point really mentioning it in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you hear this anyway? Because i know DBMB managed to get news on a script for a sequel but it came with no name. Goku1st (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- DBMB? What's that? Do you mean IMDb? – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I read it in an interview with Chatwin somewhere, don't remember where now though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Until a good source is found, nothing can be done. On a side note, I think it is unlikely that they would exclude "Z" from the title to the sequel.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you hear this anyway? Because i know DBMB managed to get news on a script for a sequel but it came with no name. Goku1st (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its not the official title, its a tentative/working one. Right now, I agree with Killa Koz, though, until more reliable sources give the sequel more coverage, no point really mentioning it in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the interview. However, I don't remember reading anything about the official title of the sequel being "Dragonball Reborn".--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the interview, but I don't understand what's the point of mentioning it when the first film is not even out. Killa Koz (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- it is common practice in hollywood for directors and actors to sign on for sequels if the movie turns any profit at all. many film series are partially planned out before the first movie even hits the theater. the idea that there is a possible title and possibly even the early draft of a script is nothing notable. it's common practice. also i don't know why they would bother sticking a Z on the title of the second movie as the films bear little resemblance to the anime, and the manga was dragonball. no Z. either way this movie will suck hard and i'll be surprised if it makes enough money to justify a sequel.99.153.29.112 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- So because you don't think they will attach "Z" to the next film suggests you know nothing of either Dragon Ball or Marketing, one or the other. Fox is going to try to make MONEY, not comment on how "little resemblance to the anime" it has. Also, your right, the sequels have been signed for, but I seriously doubt that there are official titles yet.-FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- i really don't care for that tone. you having a different opinion than i do is in no way an indication of knowledge. i don't know how you can judge my knowledge of japanese cartoon shows or marketing based on the statement i made earlier. i highly doubt anything in any of the movies will resemble the source material in any way so for all i know they may call the sequel drgonball z and it probably wouldn't make a difference. and as far as making money, yeah they'll make a little, but this movie will mainly be seen by the existing DBZ fanbase, and only the percentage that actually thinks that a live action movie looks good. those people would see it regardless of what the title of the movie is, and adding a Z won't cause anybody to run out and buy a ticket who would not have previously. but as i already stated i would be amazed if this movie made enough money to justify making a sequel, so i don't see the point in discussing sequels.99.153.29.112 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, this is not a debate. Chatwin did mention a sequel is being PLANNED and it doesn't mean it will happen. It really depends on how the film fares and if it does well. And anyway, the title hasn't even been announced so the title Dragonball Reborn is not true. Please only use this area for updates on items you believe should be posted, not an argument debate on something that may not even be made. Goku1st (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- i really don't care for that tone. you having a different opinion than i do is in no way an indication of knowledge. i don't know how you can judge my knowledge of japanese cartoon shows or marketing based on the statement i made earlier. i highly doubt anything in any of the movies will resemble the source material in any way so for all i know they may call the sequel drgonball z and it probably wouldn't make a difference. and as far as making money, yeah they'll make a little, but this movie will mainly be seen by the existing DBZ fanbase, and only the percentage that actually thinks that a live action movie looks good. those people would see it regardless of what the title of the movie is, and adding a Z won't cause anybody to run out and buy a ticket who would not have previously. but as i already stated i would be amazed if this movie made enough money to justify making a sequel, so i don't see the point in discussing sequels.99.153.29.112 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- So because you don't think they will attach "Z" to the next film suggests you know nothing of either Dragon Ball or Marketing, one or the other. Fox is going to try to make MONEY, not comment on how "little resemblance to the anime" it has. Also, your right, the sequels have been signed for, but I seriously doubt that there are official titles yet.-FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Gross in Asia
Now for once, is this OK to add now with the total at $10mil? Goku1st (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Budget
There are a few references to the budget for the film. None are official. The estimation for a budget does not have to be official or a part of a press release to be referenced on wikipedia.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, the budget does need a reliable source, same as all other article content per WP:V. Its often overlooked, but technically, yes, it should be sourced in the article or in the infobox, and IMDB doesn't count. All those unofficial non-RS references are either making up their own numbers or had to get it somewhere official...if it came from somewhere official, we need to source that "somewhere".-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. I got two sources up for the budget, one of them is pretty reliable, quoting James Marsters.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Race Row
Shouldn't this page have something about the race row that surrounds this file and the accusations of "Yellow Face" (Painting up white actors to look Asian rather than using actual Asian actors)? It's a pretty big controversy in Asia and Anime circles and there are have been all kinds of accusations about minority actors being denied Hollywood roles because of it.
CrazyChinaGal (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you actually provide such claims or that there is any actual controversy through reliable, third party sources? If no, no. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that such an argument would be severely flawed due to the fact that over half the main characters are played by Asians.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was kinda thinking that too, but figured I'd ask if there are actual sources showing this, even if it is a misperception. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that such an argument would be severely flawed due to the fact that over half the main characters are played by Asians.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Revised budget: $45 million
Since page is protected, I guess this needs some discussion. The new figure of $45 million comes from a newspaper in Chile. See: http://dragonballmovieforum.com/showthread.php?t=2612
I know this is only a single source, but as per the discussion above the $100 million figure (which has now made its way all over the internet) wasn't all that reliable to start with.
This $45 million number seems legit, and makes much more sense given the relatively basic production values and visual effects etc. in the film. 211.31.9.243 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The full details of the actual, original newspaper article are required before it can be considered a reliable source and used to update the budget. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Reception
I think its fair to say the current information listed under the "Reception" heading of the Dragonball Evolution page should be removed. What or who gives the right to Zac Bertschy to lambaste the film when it hasn't even been released to American critics or theatres. It's clear he watched the bootleg or leaked shots and are those anything to base a film review on considering the fact that bootlegs are always of poorer quality compared to actual films. Does Wikipedia now promote piracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.114 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- How he watched the film is irrelevant. Anime News Network reviews are considered reliable sources, and they have reviewed other materials that aren't licensed. And you have no way of knowing that he wasn't given an advance copy by the company, which does send those to reviewers ahead of releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should be trimmed. That he is critical of plot elements, overall storyline, and the acting is relevant. His comments on what would hypothetically make the film enjoyable for him seems irrelevant. Surely if we are to put a specific quote, we can put something else. That just seems juvenile, and degrades the quality of the article. Onikage725 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do agree that needs rewording. When unlocked, will change it to just "he felt the film could only be enjoyed while intoxicated." Would that work? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Please end protection. The release details need updating. andycjp (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is why it was protected in the first place. People running around changing the dates over and over again, some with and some without sources, and continuing to go against the MoS in the infobox. I'll also assume your struck remark was only intended in a sarcastic fashion and was not an accusation or anything. Obviously if we were protecting the "PR" we wouldn't have ANN's review up there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to request that the article lock be removed. There is information I would like to add to the article now that I have seen the film's Australian release. Chebo (talk) 10:45PM, 2 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
- The protection will end on the forth. Feel free to discuss new additions before then and they can always be editprotect requested if there is consensus for them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
HI!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello!! 65.0.174.173 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)