Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Protected edit request on 1 July 2018

Change it from #REDIRECT [[Sonic the Hedgehog#Theatrical film]] → #REDIRECT [[Sonic the Hedgehog#Film]]. JE98 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the companies

According to the teaser poster and copyright information in the trailer, the holders are Paramount Pictures and Sega of America. Should we make consider changing Sega in the lead and the infobox's production company parameter to Sega of America? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Yes you should change what is necessarily even changing the parameters.

Sonic Franchise damaged Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

Sonic franchise is damaged because of this official movie trailer, fans should edit for feedback, character does not look at all from the games (his eyes, arms, legs, skin color) nor his friends are in it. Sonic looks creapy humanoid and not like an hedgehoge, his arms and legs are too long and his eyes are normally open. Fans or die hard fans like us could comment for feedback on the wikipedia what can make a movie a succes or not. Without feedback the movie will lose millions of dollars of making , why make it if it will flop. This official sonic movie trailer does not look like a family movie. Where's his friend fox the tales and knuckles 86.91.235.146 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Title

If, as some hapless IP keeps insisting, the title of this film is just Sonic, then we need to move the page. I can't find any sources saying this, but I haven't looked very hard. Anyone know? Popcornduff (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Sonic title is just coming from an allegedly "leaked" logo. All sources I've seen call it "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "the Sonic the Hedgehog movie", so I think it should stay here for now. JOEBRO64 11:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: Coming back on this, footage from the film shown at CCXP 2018 [1] seems to indicate the title will end up just being Sonic JOEBRO64 23:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this ping somehow. But now they've unveiled the first poster and they seem to be going with Sonic the Hedgehog. Can't wait to see how horrendous this film winds up being. Popcornduff (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please delete the pictures for sonic the hedgehog Jeff fowler say they are changing the design for sonic so please delete it Sonicmainac760 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Can fans of the Sonic Franchise have at least have an section what's wrong with the movie character Sonic on the wikipedia movie somewhere belowe visual effects and design. Many summary points are missing what's all wrong with the character Sonic, his eyes, arms and legs and that he misses his friends, can't tales the fox be digitally be inserted? Where are the negative points of this character on the wikipedia? Maybe certain die hard fans should be invited by the Sonic team for feedback on the movie, and write a two paged letter why they have the quality to change the movie to a succces. I mean it is a succesfull franchise for young and old. I would love to go and give Sonic team special feedback like Sonic Mania Plus Christian "Taxman" Whitehead and I meself would go on an plane trip to Sega or the movie production company, 90 million dollar this Sonic movie looks barely 1 million produced. I mean 90 million dollars for a Sonic movie people can do wonders and produce 4 movies out of it like me. This movie with Sonic looks creapy humunoid, childern will be scared, there is no connection with the audience. How to destroy a wonderfull franchise, whe are talking about a franchise for childern. 86.91.235.146 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Asked and answered above; also see WP:NPOV, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RS, etc. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

Benjaminkiriko48 (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

James Marsden's name in the casting section on the right side of the page should be placed below Ben Schwartz, since Schwartz is voicing the main protagonist of the film, Sonic the Hedgehog.

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019

talk I want to update the visual effects and design section on the Sonic Film Page. Since, Tim Miller stated about the design. Source:https://variety.com/2019/film/news/sonic-the-hedgehog-redesign-tim-miller-1203263993/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fans232Gamer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Paramount Animation's involvement

While looking for research whether or not Paramount Animation was involved, I did some background research, and I found this from the Los Angeles Times, which says:

An earlier version of this article included a mention of “Sonic the Hedgehog” and described it as a Paramount Animation movie. It is a Paramount Pictures film.

Given that most of the sources in the "Production" section don't even mention Paramount Animation at all, what are we supposed to do about it? IceWalrus236 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Can i add the fact that leaked images of the Sonic redesign were shown today? [[2]] I want to add this to the visual effects and design Mariofaner232 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done—hasn't been picked up by a reliable source yet, and it's still a WP:RUMOR. JOEBRO64 01:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

Re sentence: "Filming took place between July and October 2018 in Vancouver, Ladysmith and elsewhere on Vancouver Island." Implies the city of Vancouver is on Vancouver Island, which is not true. Better rendering: "Filming took place between July and October 2018 in Vancouver, and in Ladysmith and elsewhere on Vancouver Island." 204.110.121.114 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've reworded. NiciVampireHeart 07:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Victor?

Can anyone explain to me what "Victor" is? I don't know why it keeps being put back in the article. TheBigMan720 (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Starring

Note the official billing at the bottom of this promotional website. In order: Marsden, Schwartz, Sumpter, Carrey. We should use this in place of the poster to establish billing for the "Starring" field in the infobox. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

why is the box office section no longer there? when can it be added again?

on the majority of new films ive seen, the box office section is there. why is it not here in the article of this film? is it too new? does someone need to add it again? --Inkpistachio (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Why’d you lock it?

No source has been saying it’s unoriginal Wikiuhoh01 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

films that just came out tend to be locked for at least two weeks. i think it's to prevent vandalism and edit wars between new/unregistered users, considering that lots of reviews will be coming out and people might want to flood the article with them. hope this helps.--Inkpistachio (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Budget

That article from IndieWire, found here seems to have been misinterpreted. The articles states "One tweet alleging the redesign cost $35 million and brought the film’s total budget up to $125 million." 90+35=125. So one can naturally assume the budget was $90M, but that tweet was proven to be wrong and that same tweet could've possibly inaccurately inflated the budget to $90M just like they inaccurately inflated the redesign costs. This article which is now being used to support the $95M budget claim in the infobox is going by information reported by that false tweet via IndieWire. Also, that article was published in November, so the info is outdated. Now that the movie is out, THR reports the budget was $81M, but BOM reports it was $85M, so reporting the budget as "$81–95 million" in the infobox would be accurate. Thoughts? User:TheJoebro64 and User:TropicAces, you guys seem to be the supporters of the $95M budget claim. Discuss. Armegon (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what the issue here is. The initial reported budget was $90 million, and according to sources involved with production (which IndieWire obtained) the redesign pushed the cost about $5 million upwards. That'd be $95 million. The $5 million figure is not information based on the incorrect tweet. JOEBRO64 02:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying is that the $90-95M budget claim came directly from that false tweet, which could have inaccurately inflated that number. None of those with the production confirmed that the budget was $90-95M. All they confirmed was that the redesign was actually $5M, not $35M. That report of the $90-95M budget was an estimate, a rough calculation, and it was published in November 2019. It's outdated. Now that the movie is out, we have verified sources confirming the accurate budget, which is $81-85M and we should stick to what new sources have confirmed rather than stick with outdated sources. Armegon (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
No it didn't. The $95 million number came from IndieWire, which is reliable. The budget has been reported to be $90 million since filming began. See Wikipedia:Infobox film: "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." JOEBRO64 02:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The “incorrect tweet” was the one citing the $125 million figure; IndieWire wasn’t disputing the original $90 (then ipso facto final $95 million) cost. Plus I think I’ve seen other publications as recently as last week cite “mid 90s” as the cost (although most figures are $81, $85 or $87) TropicAces (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Countries

So, I've been noticing that the countries section of the article is currently crediting the film as a solely United States production, despite the fact that Sega and its Marza Animation Planet subsidiary (both of which are Japanese) based are co-producing the film. That being said, is there a source available crediting this film as a US-Japan co-production? IceWalrus236 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s fair to list Japan as a co-production country, half the production companies are Japanese. However I don’t agree with Canada getting listed. None of the producers/companies are Canadian, and The Numbers isn’t an official classification site like AFI or BBFC. In all likelihood, they list Canada because that is where the film was shot, however that doesn’t automatically make the country a co-production. Star Wars is not a British film just because that’s where Disney films it. TropicAces (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Genre

Simply saying this is an adventure film does not sound accurate, as it gives the impression it is a grounded, realistic adventure film like Life of Pi or Into the Wild. However, the existing source calls it a "live-action adventure comedy". Would that do? Or should we find a source calling it a science fiction adventure film? Popcornduff, you happen to be an expert on this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I'm an expert on is deleting excessive stuff.
I don't mind which genre we describe this as, as long as 1) it's the primary genre described by sources and 2) it's a single genre (and not a combination of two, or three, or ten). "Live-action adventure comedy" is too long. See WP:FILMLEAD. Popcornduff (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn’t it be called a superhero adventure comedy film? MrWii000 (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
MrWii000, as per WP:FILMLEAD, we should only mention the primary genre in the lead. Anything else gets too wordy. Additionally it must be the genre stated by sources. Popcornduff (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest this is more a live-action film, the kind that combines animation and live-action scenes. GUtt01 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding genres

Ah, how I hate dealing with genres. They're often subjective, and often tricky. Per WP:FILMLEAD, "the opening sentence [of an article for a film] should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. [...] Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."

Back in November 2019, I first added genres with supported citations to this article's opening sentence. Over time, the genres have mixed and morphed to include "action", "adventure", "action-adventure", "comedy", "family" (which I'm pretty sure should never be used), "fantasy", and probably more. As I'm writing this, the film is referred to simply as "action-adventure". I attempted to restore "comedy" alongside "action-adventure", but that edit was reverted by Popcornduff, who suggested in their edit summary that we "keep genres simple in the lead sentence". Though I can understand wanting to prevent a downward spiral into "live-action/computer-animated adventure fantasy science-fiction comedy film", I really don't think it'd be bloated to simply include "comedy" alongside "action-adventure".

The film, which has a significant emphasis on humor throughout, is described as an "adventure comedy" in its official synopsis (see here, here, or here). It has also been classified as a comedy (or, more specifically, as some variation of "family-friendly action-adventure buddy comedy") by a number of mainstream reliable sources, including:

In summary, I think that this article's opening sentence should describe the film at least as an "adventure comedy", or at most as an "action-adventure comedy". Sources generally describe it as such. —Matthew - (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well lets sum it up with what each source actually says. I don't think we should use Rotten Tomatoes and stick to people who have actually seen the film.
Collider: "They’re off in something that’s sillier and goofier, but the overall movie demands that they play by the beats of a standard buddy picture/road trip comedy."\
GameSpot: "Sonic the Hedgehog is really a buddy comedy about Tom and Sonic"
Guardian ". Rather than Roger Rabbit, its chief inspiration is more likely last year’s Detective Pikachu, which also put a Japanese video-game character into a Hollywood family comedy, and cleaned up at the box office." (this source also lists genres at the bottom, but I'd stick to prose over article tags for a source)
IGN "While this family-friendly action-comedy..."
RogerEbert.com: "Sonic the Hedgehog” is a bad action-adventure, video game adaptation, and buddy comedy"
Variety |the blue-furred speed-demon mascot of the Sega video game–turned–live-action kiddie adventure"
Vox states "Sonic the Hedgehog is a road trip movie and an action-comedy, too." and "Sonic is a buddy comedy in this way, focused heavily on the relationship between a grown man and his teenage, talking-hedgehog pseudo-son."
So some sources definitely jump around, i'd lean towards buddy comedy. The adventure aspect isn't really laid out as the characters don't really go anywhere exotic as the adventure style implies, they are on a road trip. I'd have to see the film myself to level what constitutes as action but but I mean, I don't think that genre should be shoved in here as its not exactly Die Hard we are talking about and that's what the link to the action film would be discussing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove "action" or "adventure" in favor of just "comedy" or "buddy comedy". Note that many of the above sources (including Rotten Tomatoes, which I don't see justification to omit from this discussion), also describe the film as "action-adventure" or one of the two. There are also a number of other sources which classify it as "action-adventure", including this Washington Post article and this Variety article. —Matthew - (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Well those comments aren't really reviews, I think its best to take these only from reviews as those are people who have seen the actual film. That makes more sense to me. I'd not use Rotten Tomatoes as it can't be attributed to an author, just a summary written by...someone? Seems less notable than the other sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Even if we were to specifically stick to sources written by people who have seen the film, the above reviews by IGN, RogerEbert.com, Gleiberman of Variety, and Vox describe it as "action-adventure" or one of the two, alongside "comedy". Also, while not really a review, the actual text of the Washington Post article I linked to indicates that the author has seen the film. —Matthew - (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I do consider more than one genre bloat in most cases - for the lead sentence at least, where we need to define the subject in only the most basic terms. I also don't think "comedy" is a defining genre here - it's normal for action/adventure films to contain elements of comedy, often major ones. But if others feel "comedy" is critical information then I'll live with it. Popcornduff (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna put my "two cents" here, and say that while this is certainly a film with action and adventure in it, it might be worth noting that the film also involve live-action animation within it. Comedy elements are here, but we most certainly must not stipulate that this is the case; its humorous, most certainly, but it is in no way designed to be a comedy film. In terms of the reviews from the various sources, we can't really define the genre with these - there is too much of a mix of differing opinions on genre from the reviewers. Thus, we would be better off defining it ourselves, neutrally, with the genre(s) that best suit it. I would throw in the ring that this is more a "live-action adventure" film in all sense. GUtt01 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

replace revive with restores sonic's condition 2600:1700:74C1:10B0:79B3:25B1:850:64C5 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Rejected Not acceptable to state that they "restore Sonic's condition" - it's confusing. To revive him is what the characters are doing, because he's out cold from the explosion, in terms of the plot by that point of the film. GUtt01 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Category quesiton - "Films set in 2010"

Why are we using this category for the film? I can understand many would agree the film's story takes place in 2020 (although this might not be the case, per se), but why in 2010? Isn't the category for movies set in that year on Earth? GUtt01 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just as confused as you, but the category was probably placed there because the prologue is followed by a 10 years later jump. However, a film’s year of setting doesn’t change when the release date gets pushed back, and I don’t recall any explicit reference to it being primarily set in 2019, let alone the 2020 the release was pushed to. My arms are also crossed for the “Films directed by Jeff Fowler” category, when this was his directorial debut, and single instance categories are usually frowned upon on the Wiki, right?--Duroq145 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I would say its questionable to create a category which will only have a single linked article to it. Better that it remain a draft piece, until the director has done further works. I think a category should only really be conceived when at least 3-4 articles can be linked to it. 1-2 just doesn't feel right in warranting the creation of an article. Also - I look up at Filming and have a big question mark on something: Why is there a category for "Films shot in San Francisco", when the information in the article doesn't mention this? Is there evidence of this? Or were the scenes in San Francisco done through computer animation and photography? GUtt01 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I hope Fowler will get more opportunities but it definitely jumps the gun to make the category now--Duroq145 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tails Mid-Credit Scene

To avoid a conflict of editing perception on this, I raise this question: The mid-credit scene features the character of Tails from the video game, yet the character (and their voice actor) are not credited in the film's official credits. Thus, should the character be referenced by their name as such, or under the description of "twin-tailed fox"? GUtt01 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Referenced by name, as per WP:EGG. The only potential room for debate is whether to refer to him as "Tails" or "Miles Prower". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Development Section - Suggestion

Just a suggestion here, but does anyone believe it would be best to split the section into two sub-sections: one for the original plan, and the second for the conceived project for the eventual film? GUtt01 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible New Section name: Aftermath

New Section: AFTERMATH. The Vancouver branch of MPC (Moving Picture Company) Shut Down after the redesign ThaTricksta (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC) The $200 million budget of the Sonic The Hedgehog Movie has likely been one of the main causes of the studio branch in Vancouver to shut down. A letter was allegedly sent out to employees citing "increasing external market pressures in Vancouver and more attractive opportunities in other locations" per Cartoon Brew, who link to an unverified anonymous posting of the letter on Imgur. Articles lack a lot of coverage on this epidemic. Fanbyte, Screenrant.

Can’t be aftermath if it’s prerelease--Duroq145 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

BFI

The BFI lists Japan as a production country. However, the BFI lists any production company listed in the credits as being included. As there is no specifics on how BFI lists its credits, I'd note that the actual credits (as seen in the infobox sources). Now combining this information with other published sources (such as the Screen Daily source, which only lists United States) . So which is correct? Do we include things that are primary funding sources? Which is more accurate? I tried doing some research and it generally says anything with "in association with" did provide some funding here Now, how do we know if this makes it a national production then? It all depends as different countries have different rules of whether enough money makes it part of the production. As the Screen Daily source is credited to an actual author and isn't a database entry where the site doesn't credit anyone nor does it say how its information is gathered, I'm leaning towards we predominantly focus on material that had a bit more dedicated research (i.e: a database entry with little input on how things were catalogued). Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

BFI is listed as a reliable source at WP:FILM/R. It lists Japan as a production country for Sonic due to the fact that one of the three production companies is Marza Animation Planet, which is based in Japan and owned by Sega Sammy, as mentioned in this article and on the film's poster. The Sonic page at Metacritic also lists Japan as a production country. There really isn't anything to dispute here. Sonic is an American-Japanese co-production. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is dispute as we have other sources which strictly call it an American source. We shouldn't use Metacritic which states it uses its film information from IMDb, which fails WP:RS/IMDb. etc. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It also appears that Marza has animation offices in Burbank, and the press releases from the Burbank based studio are for the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not a logical argument. Saying a source only mentions X does not mean Y is automatically excluded. BFI is a reliable source as per WP:FILM/R, and it explicitly lists Japan as a production country. As for Marza, your own source explicitly states that it is based in Tokyo. Having a Burbank branch means nothing, since plenty of American studios also have branches across the world. Again, there really isn't anything to dispute here. Sonic is an American-Japanese co-production. Maestro2016 (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It is, as I have a equally fine source that states only the United States as a production country. Screen Daily, which is a source that specifically tries to keep track of foreign film product (i.e: non-American). We have contradictory sources so just because one is listing one, doesn't make it the end all and be all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, that's not a logical argument. Saying a source only mentions X does not mean Y is automatically excluded. That's a logical fallacy. Just because Screen Daily only listed one of the film's production countries (the US), nowhere does this imply that there is no other country involved in its production. Their reviews simply list the film's primary production country. If it was the reverse, a Japanese-American production in the Japanese language, then they'd simply list it as Japan and not bother mentioning the US. So your argument does not hold water. In no way, shape or form does Screen Daily contradict BFI. You're trying to find a contradiction where there is none. We already know one of the three production companies, Marza (owned by Sega), is based in Japan. And BFI (one of the most reliable sources for production countries) makes it clear that Japan is one of the production countries. Maestro2016 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying that BFI is wrong specifically, I'm saying that one source only states one. How do you know BFI is correct and the other is wrong? I'm not even saying one of us is right or wrong here, I just want to get to the bottom of it with more specific sources. Making claims that one is "one of the most reliable sources for production countries" doesn't really hold water as the BFI source does not state how they collect their information or anything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove a template tag until there is a consensus. This is against the rules of wikipedia by the way. Also, when adding the Numbers source, why didn't you add the Canada country that is included in that source? Why doesn't BFI mention Canada? Which is correct? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, your argument is a logical fallacy, i.e. a false dilemma. We have two reliable sources, BFI and The Numbers, which explicitly list Japan as a production country. Your argument for excluding Japan is based on a single Screen Daily review written by critic Tim Grierson, who only mentions the US. That review is not claiming no other country is involved in its production, but it simply mentions the US as the primary production country, not the only one. Tom Grierson does not contradict BFI or The Numbers in any way. All three sources are consistent with Japan being a production country. As for BFI, the British Film Institute is an extremely reliable source and one of the most highly reputable film organizations in the world. See WP:FILM/R, which lists BFI as a reliable film source several times. The Numbers also agrees with BFI that Japan is a production country. And we already know that one of the studios, Marza, is based in Tokyo. At this point, you'd have to be grasping at straws to deny the obvious (that Japan is a production country). As for Canada, that's certainly debatable (since The Numbers lists it and BFI doesn't), but Japan is not debatable. I believe The Numbers lists Canada because there was a Vancouver studio (which shut down last year) that was involved in production. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it all comes from assumptions. BFI must be correct, cause we list as a source! But we have evidence that shows contrary. You are putting puzzle pieces together because they fit, which does not mean they are accurate and the information is not verifiable. I'm more concerned that other parts of sources you have added do not contain the stated information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Should we do a straw poll regarding which countries to include in the infobox (i.e. U.S., Japan and Canada)? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that, I can't recall the article specifically, but to avoid having incorrect information in the past we only use the country of production listed by all sources. That way it wasn't necessarily complete, but it also wasn't displaying incorrect information either. I think we aligned to leaning towards confirmed information and avoided adding information that is potentially incorrect as all sources couldn't confirm it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind. I'd be fine with that. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I would be too, but that would mean dropping Japan as its not included by Screen Daily. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Nope. See my comments above explaining in detail how and why Japan is factually a co-production country. Just because a critic (Tim Grierson) was ignorant and/or forgot to mention Japan in his review is not an excuse. Even his own review lists the Japanese studio Marza Animation Planet as a production company. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You see if it was unanimuous we could say its factual, but we do not because we have sources that disagree. You have no proof other than your own original research that suggests that its correct. We have no point to suggest that Screen Daily is a one off error, and we are actively ignoring that sources disagree here which is misleading to readers. I would suggest placing the only countries that are confirmed (United States), and perhaps putting a sub-note stating sources disagree and that other sources mention other countries. I believe that would be the most honest to editors and clarify that this information has not been 100% confirmed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
We know for a fact that Marza Animation Planet is based in Tokyo. This is an indisputable fact agreed by all reliable sources. Several strong reliable sources such as BFI and The Numbers agree Japan is a co-production country, all reliable sources agree Marza Animation Planet is a co-producer, and all reliable sources agree Marza Animation Planet is based in Tokyo. Your argument for excluding Japan is weak, putting WP:UNDUE weight on a single Screen Daily review. And even then, that's your own WP:Original Research interpretation, as the source does not explicitly exclude Japan (but that's how you wish to interpret it) and clearly lists Marza as a co-producer. The consensus among virtually all reliable sources is that Sonic was co-produced by a Japanese studio. Your original interpretation of a single Screen Daily review cannot override what all other reliable sources are saying. Please see WP:UNDUE. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You can't keep referring to the The Numbers as a source if we are only picking and choosing what you want to use as a source. Despite it being a source, you are actually pacing far too much undue weight on BFI as we've have several sources listed that do not list it, and are making assumptions based on our own conclusions which are strictly based on the fact that "the puzzle piece fits, therefore it is is correct" which is not accurate and not right for readers. I'm not trying to outride it Screen Daily btw, I have found a source that happens to disagree with yours and the material clearly needs more research applied to it. Whether it can be found or not is not always simple. I'm personally not trying to disclude Japan, I have just found one reliable source that does not mention it. You have found a source that mentions Canada and are blatantly ignoring it. I'd love for this to have a simple solution, but from all evidence here it is not clear. We can't disprove each other here without clear information. And it may appear simple, but its really not.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
So far, you have only presented a single source (a Screen Daily review) to support your argument. That is undue weight, when we have two other strong reliable sources (BFI and The Numbers) listing Japan as a co-production country, and have a ton of other sources listing the Tokyo-based studio Marza Animation Planet as a co-production company. Most of the reliable sources support the position that Japan is a co-production country, not the other way around. And for the record, I already added Canada to the article earlier, before it was removed by another editor. Like I said, Canada is debatable, but I have still yet to see any rational reason why Japan shouldn't be listed. Either way, it looks like we're probably not going to agree on this issue. It's best to wait for input from other editors on this matter. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think its fair to count the sources you are using if you have disincluded them yourself is more what I'm saying but sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Frequent attempts of Name Change

Can editors please understand that we should not, in all good-faith, not amend the name of one character in the Cast section to include a first name? The character in question is Dr. Robotnik - people have attempted to insert a first name, which may be what is stated on the character's article, but that name pertains to the character in the videogames, not the version for the film; particularly as the official film credits have the character credited as "Dr. Robotnik" and with no additional names associated to them (including NICKNAMES!). GUtt01 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020

2A00:23C4:5536:C801:6DCF:D2BC:E735:2D01 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)This Is Sonic The Hedgehog 2020
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

I think you forgot to add Canada to the set locations as Ladysmith B.C. Canada played a huge role for the Montana scenes. 2001:569:BCA0:4E00:E8D3:BAEC:C88B:B9D7 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357  (Talk) 10:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Remove mention of Sonic The Hedgehog in the 2020 3D Films category 2020, as Sonic The Hedgehog was never released in 3D ZTR2001 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

216.98.213.16 (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Description of the film

Hey, fellow Wikipedians! Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) is an computer-animated action-adventure film. Don't refer to it as just an action-adventure film.2402:4000:2282:268F:55A3:1865:656C:5A2B (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless 100% animation, generally we don't include that. Even taking into account WP:OTHER:
And so forth. All the above relied heavily upon computer animation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, best to keep genres/adjectives in the lead sentence simple. A basic definition is fine. And per WP:FILMLEAD, which says the lead should specify "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", I would support removing "comedy" too. It's just overkill. Popcornfud (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Good article?

The way to decide the merits of this being a good article (not whether the nomination is valid) is by discussion - not edit summaries, or reverting.

I don't know whether the article is good enough, but I do know that if it isn't then the process should be to discuss what needs improving, not simply be removing the nom and pretending it never happened. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As the first person to remove the nomination, I don't believe this article is ready for GA. The nominator isn't a significant contributor to the article, and the cast, production, and marketing sections need significant work before they're ready for such. WP:GAN/I recommends that the nominator contributes significantly to the article before nominating. I will also note that myself (and others at WP:VG) typically revert drive-by nominations with little issue. JOEBRO64 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A recommendation is not policy - WP:GAN/I specifically states "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA". That happened, and rather than simply reverting, I still think that discussion of the issues would be more productive to advancing the article, rather than sticking heads in the ground and pretending it never happened. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the article is quite ready to be a GA, but as Chaheel is saying, discussion should happen to decide that versus reverting and arguing in edit summaries. And even though anybody can nominate an article for review, the nominator has authored about 15% of the article. Microwavedfork (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a very reductive attitude in my opinion to cancel a GA nom saying "it needs work" when that's the very purpose of a GA review, to point out what it's missing to be GA. I've grown tired of people idly saying "it doesn't meet GA standards" before a review, and then proceed to not help improve it at all. To have this pushback, and even get scolded by someone who's never even edited the page over wanting to find out what needs to be done, can understandably lead one to become disinterested in looking to improve it. Rusted AutoParts 02:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, Namco, you're still using the word "policy" in an incorrect context. No policy is being gone against in the slightest. Rusted AutoParts 02:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is absolutely acceptable to quickfail a GAN that is a ways away from meeting the criteria. Reviewers are also absolutely not required to "point out what it's missing" in any more detail than they did here- "the cast, production, and marketing sections need significant work". GAN is not an alternative to Peer Review. If you want detailed feedback, go to WP:Peer Review instead of wasting a reviewers time with a nomination doomed to failure. Better yet, actually try to improve the article before nominating it for things when you know it doesn't meet the bar. I'm honestly a little disgusted that you have 80,000 edits and 30+ GAs but think that not only are drive-by nominations acceptable to the community but that you are somehow owed an in depth review of an article you've spent less than 1 day improving just because you put a tag on the talk page. --PresN 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
What a vapid and nasty comment. I’ve never sat around expecting anything from anyone a day in my life, so this “owed” remark is nothing but garbage. No ones time is being wasted when they willingly take up the time to assess the page’s quality, especially when myself individually don’t see the fatal flaws that the others do that prevent this from being at least looked at by someone actually interested in offering an assessment. Referring to this as a “Drive-by nomination” is the exact reductive attitude I mentioned, especially when it’s done by an editor with who’s spent 0 days doing anything on this page. In that “less than one day”, I thought I added some helpful edits to the page (don’t worry, not looking to have smoke blown up my ass before you make some snide remark) but I guess it doesn’t show an indication of intent to work on the page. Whatever, thanks for helping me achieve that disinterest in improving this page. I’ll remember to follow your lead and chase away anyone foolish enough to consider getting this page to a higher quality. Rusted AutoParts 04:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh hey, ten days have passed and none of you who were wringing their hands about the page not being ready have done anything to improve that. Rusted AutoParts 03:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Come on, man. If people feel that this article isn't ready for GA, and that it would be a waste of the reviewer's time, that doesn't then put the burden on those people to quickly whip the article into shape. There's no deadline and this is all volunteer work.
Reading the convo above, it sounds like your intention with the nom was to quickly generate a list of things that need to be fixed for GA. If so, peer review process is ideal for this, so why not use that? Popcornfud (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I was being snide as I was working on the page and tidying it up for a GA nomination. Moreso being snide towards those admonishing me over it. It would be one thing if they at least highlighted what they felt was missing but that didn’t happen. And as such it irritates me I get scolded over trying to get what needs done pointed out by these editors yet they’ve done nothing on the page since. As for the peer review what is the literal difference and how is it wasting someone’s time when it comes to a GA review? As you said it’s volunteer work, everyone’s here willingly. I’ve done plenty of reviews myself, I didn’t sit there thinking “man what a waste of my time” when one wasn’t up to par enough. Rusted AutoParts 15:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
As for the peer review what is the literal difference and how is it wasting someone’s time when it comes to a GA review?
I see it as a good-faith issue. When I review articles I am assuming the nominator believes the article could pass the review (though sometimes, of course, they're pretty way off the mark). If the nominator actually believed the article probably wasn't ready, and was just using the system to identify holes, I'd find that slightly irritating. If they just wanted me to suggest areas for improvement for a possible future GAN, then they should have asked me to do that instead. Popcornfud (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Right but my intention was to correct the issues raised in order to get it to the GA status. I had that intention to do so, not to just have the issues pointed out just so I could know what to work on at a later date. Just so my annoyance isn't misconstrued, it's not so much the nom got pulled, it's the frankly bad faithed replies criticizing my contributions here from editors who hadn't even laid a finger on this page. Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Spin off article for Sonic 2

Should we be creating a seperate article now that we have the name, logo and release date? Solidsnake1211 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Budget

The Infobox previously listed a budget range of $81–95 million, sourced to The Hollywood Reporter and Cinemablend respectively. There seems to be a persistent problem in film articles with people deleting budget ranges and leaving only one figure. In this case someone vandalized the figures, adding a much higher figure but without any sources to support it. Someone else restored the budget but only one figure instead of both figures in the range (they apparently did not notice or check both the two references after the budget figure).[3] Then I restored the budget range,[4] but it was very soon after deleted again for reasons that are not entirely clear, it seems as if it might have been knocked out as part of larger reverts.

Please note WP:INFOBOX "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". The article body does not contain any discussion about any of the different budget figures, it only mentions that the budget went up by approximately $5 million, without actually explaining what figure it went up from. The Hollywood Reporter reference says the budget was $81 million, the Cinemablend reference says the budget was $90 million.[5] The sources do not say the budget was $95 million, it seems as if someone performed their own calculations to come up with that figure. The Cinemablend article explains that although not as huge as previous estimates that $5 represents a significant part of the $90 million budget (ie inclusive), but it did not say it was in addition to the $90 million, and it was an incorrect assumption to add $5 million to the $90 million. (I have not tracked down exactly which over-confident editor went off making their own calculations.)

I am going to restore the budget range again, if it gets removed again without explanation I hope others will restore it. I am going to list the range from $81 to $90 million, because that is what the sources actually say. (Box office mojo says $85 million.[6] The Numbers says $90 million [7] If anyone has reason to believe the sources are incorrect please discuss. Please do not delete budget figures without any explanation. -- 109.76.141.49 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

THR put the budget at $81 million, February 13 [8] Pamela McClintock
THR put the budget at $87 million, February 18 [9] Pamela McClintock
THR put the budget at $87 million, February 23 [10] Piya Sinha-Roy
Deadline put the budget at $87 million, February 17 [11]
There is some variation in the reported budget figure, and although the mode (average) seems to be $87, I hope this shows the need to list the budget range. -- 109.78.210.212 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the range to $85-90$ million, since I believe that the $81 million budget from THR was a mistake or misinformation. All later estimates from THR are $87 million. Thank you for finding those articles!--Carniolus (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
My main concern was editors deleting budget ranges without any explanation, and not being immediately reverted for doing it. Or editors trying to perform their own misguided calculations. I've seen too much of that already.
I would be very cautious about making any such changes, even excluding a figure that seems to be an outlier, since Template:Infobox film warns not to "cherry pick" but it is hard to know how strong the intention behind those instructions were supposed to be.
My search was not intended to be exhaustive only to emphasize that there were multiple different figures from sources that are usually reliable. There may still be sources that are more insightful. FWIW I did try to find if any reliable sources (Variety in particular) had reported the outlier $81 million figure. My search didn't turn up much, other than Forbes also repeating that the budget of Sonic was $85 million and the LA Times said $87 million and another LA Times said a very specific $87.5 million including redesign costs.
The frequent failure to get seemingly simple things like the budget or the runtime right does not inspire confidence. As long as some reasonable amount of caution and deliberation is applied I'm not going to argue about it about it. It's been discussed, a budget range has been included, that'll do, I guess. -- 109.77.207.112 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Considered

Only just recently an editor asked if film articles should include details about actors who auditioned for roles they did not get. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Should_we_mention_actor_auditions? The discussion essentially said it depends. A good questions was asked "what was the level of consideration?" and that should be asked here in this article.

This article claims that many actors were "considered" for the role of Tom and the Voice of Sonic. Considered by whom? What level of consideration?

The Newsweek article points to a Twitter picture of a what was claimed to be an internal document from Sony that includes a list of names. Newsweek does not independently verify the source or say anything about its authenticity, and they only say that it was a "wishlist" it does not say that any of these people were ever seriously considered (not that they were asked to audition or offered the part or anything like that). Newsweek then clearly states "so ignore headlines describing how so-and-so was "almost cast."" To ignore this warning and then to casually rephrases this and to claim these people were all "considered" is misleading.

Remember WP:RSPS WP:NEWSWEEK is not considered to be a generally reliable source, and even they are saying to treat this with scepticism. This is no better than rumor but someone decided to include it in the article anyway like as if it was fact. I have thought about if there was some way to word this more cautiously but this is merely speculation about things that did not happen and and should not be included at all. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it helps your argument to claim the content is not supported by the sources, as that is obviously not true. The Newsweek source describes a "wishlist" and the CinemaBlend source says "were being considered for the role". The issue here is whether the content is WP:DUE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
None of this is reliably sourced to begin with, both Newsweek and Cinemablend make it clear that they are working from the image posted on Twitter (in the Cinemablend article you can see from the text "a prospect on the short list" which links to the Twitter post. Even if you accept the Twitter picture as a legitimate internal document from Sony and not a fake someone knocked together, you still cannot be sure that it represents anything more than fan-casting by the art department who needed to create mockups. This is some weak sauce. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Doniago (talk · contribs) raised the issue of trivial casting and "consideration" details, so I'd ask if he thinks this one passes the sniff test? It's based on a Twitter picture. Sure smells off to me. -- 109.78.198.204 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
109.78.198.204, unless Doniago objects, given that no one else has responded here to your concerns, I think it would be reasonable for you to just remove the content. If someone has a concern with the removal, then they can comment here on why they think it should be included despite the reasons you have provided. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. WP:CYCLE says I can delete again if I don't get any discussion but I thought you wallyfromdilbert or maybe TheJoebro64 disagreed. It did seem a lot more like a good faith effort to preserve minor details. Either way I was waiting to find out more. I'll remove it now but if anyone has a problem we can discuss it further. -- 109.78.198.204 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to clear this up and explain myself. I was the original one that added that source in there, I wanted to let you two know that I’m deeply sorry. I thought it was a reliable source and I originally thought I can be used. I was originally gonna restore it back at first, but after reading the talk page here on you two discussing this issue, I now know that it’s not a reliable source and it can not be used. Again, I am very sorry. 2600:1000:B034:F19A:102A:62E5:3180:45EC (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment. There is no need to apologize so profusely. It is understandable to want to add information you find interesting to a film that you you enjoyed. It is not necessarily something I would have thought as much about if there hadn't been a discussion about actors being "considered" so recently. This is an encyclopedia so we have to try and hold our sources to higher standards and not risk including information that could be fake or to put undue emphasis on information that is weak or to otherwise speculate. If we cross check each other hopefully things will continue to get better. Thanks again. -- 109.76.201.155 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1225005033"