Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's (film)

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

Five Nights at Freddy's (film) → Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Five Nights at Freddy's (film) → Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film

Is this the actual official title for this upcoming horror film? Or is it not? Because if this isn't the official title, we should request a move from Five Nights at Freddy's (film) to Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film. — JuanGLP (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Yes I agree with Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film until an official title is announced. It's using a working title of Bad Cupcake, so no help there. Mike Allen 07:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I also agree. Until there's explicit confirmation of a title or an official poster or trailer, it should be considered an Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film. ArojamDharkon (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I can't recall seeing an official title announced. while it's likely that it'll just be called Five Nights at Freddy's. it's not accurate to refer to it as such. PhantoFantasma (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Wholeheartedly agree. Скибид вапа) (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If moved, we always use "film" rather than "Movie". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I see editors saying it should be considered as: Untitled Five Nights at Freddy's film (which replaces the word "Movie"), I gave in and it should be. — JuanGLP (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023[edit]

there has been a lot of things that has been missed out on this page, I just want to add what is not mentioned but was confirmed UltraGod9000 (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, isn't suppose to be 5 animatronics because golden freddy? 180.191.178.150 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023[edit]

per the New Orleans productions website, the end date is now April 3, not April 6 85.186.62.79 (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks,Mike Allen 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023[edit]

Add the date the film will be released (reference citation here https://variety.com/2023/film/news/five-nights-at-freddys-release-date-peacock-1235575257/) by changing

== Release ==

The film is scheduled to be theatrically released in the by Universal Pictures.

to

== Release ==

The film is scheduled to be theatrically released in the United States on October 27th, 2023 by Universal Pictures.

Alinanonymous (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done (seemingly). I'm not sure where in the article you're referring to - it looks like every reference to the release already includes all this information. Tollens (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Members of the Cast Revealed[edit]

John Stanford Moore will be voicing and doing the motion capture for Bonnie, Ted Atherton will be voicing and doing the motion capture for Golden Freddy, and Jane Wheeler will be voicing and the motion capture for the Puppet. TheMan88888 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS NON NOTABLE ARTICLE RIGHT NOW!!!![edit]

It is NOT notable! NOT A SINGLE SOURCE EVEN MENTIONED THIS STUPID MOVIE NO ONE HAS HEARD OF!!!! FAILS WP:GNG!!!! 178.138.192.53 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable, just like the games in the series. I can't think of a case as to why this isn't notable. ButterCashier (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite notable. I can't see why it won't be, this is a very anticipated movie amongst most. 2001:E68:5431:EEA1:D407:6B17:DD8A:2EAA (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Edit Request: Production[edit]

On April 5th, 2023, Jason Blumhouse announced in his twitter:

“As promised:

  1. FNAF FANS: You asked and we delivered.
  2. FNAFMovie is coming this Halloween on

October 27. 2023!!!!!” Waste connections (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is already in the article. Mike Allen 14:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't iMDB a reliable source?[edit]

Why can't we just list the entire FNAF cast and list iMDB as a reference? Just asking. 178.138.195.78 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just read WP:IMDb and apparently it's not. (Same person btw, i have a dynamic IP.) 178.138.193.78 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name[edit]

Is the name of the film official? — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 01:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as it's currently known, yes. ButterCashier (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I see they released a trailer with a poster. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 11:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023[edit]

The full name of all the animatronics are Freddy Fazbear, Bonnie the Bunny, Chica the Chicken, and Foxy the Pirate. Please update accordingly in the premise section of the article PeskyOlive (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. AnnaMankad (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rating?[edit]

What's the rating? 172.116.157.241 (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't even completed post-production yet. If you are in the US, check out filmratings.com in a few months. Mike Allen 00:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its 4.4 stars according to google. User:Cats1231c

Release Date[edit]

the earliest official release date for the film is on october 25th in the philippines. the official tweet Im.scaredofclowns (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film delayed?[edit]

Someone said in the tweet talking about the film been delayed for "unknown reason". Is that true? OnionBoy779 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not been officially delayed (and honestly seems unlikely to be delayed). The account that made that tweet seems to be a troll/not serious account. ArojamDharkon (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank goodness :) OnionBoy779 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coryxkenshin's apperance[edit]

@2001:1970:5f60:d00:806f:fc03:c610:5ce6: Wikipedia cannot include information that has not been published in a reliable source. You need to cite your sources. It doesn't really matter, but I rewatched the trailer a few times and Cory didn't appear anywhere. (Sorry, didn't realize a new trailer came out. Point still stands, though: wait till it's covered in RS). — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kh98963: This is actually mainly aimed at you. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 15:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because it is seen in a trailer doesn't mean the scene always makes it to the final cut of the film. That's why we require it to be reported in reliable third party sources. Thanks. Mike Allen 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SaulGoodman6969: Have you read my edit summary? The source you cited was a WP:SYNDICATED article from We Got This Covered, which is considered an unreliable source. It says that the article is from this website at the top of the MSN article. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 01:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell did you not see the trailer? It's literally #1 on trending on multiple social media websites. He's literally starring in the movie and getting talked about being in the movie on multiple different websites. Even if it gets taken out, movies are still required to credit the actors EVEN if they only appear for that one scene. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just seem like an unreliable editor. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What websites that are not blogs? Mike Allen 03:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you sassy? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which YouTubers are appearing in the FNAF movie? - Dexerto SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why can't the link post? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1]https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/which-youtubers-are-appearing-in-the-fnaf-movie-2192137/ SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, sassy pants. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SaulGoodman6969: First of all, that is just... immature. Second of all, Dexerto also isn't a reliable source according to Wikipedia:VG/RS. Third of all, are you seriously blaming me for not watching a movie trailer?
(I live in Australia and the trailer came out at midnight when I posted the first message in this thread. I was about to sleep and was checking something on my phone on Wikipedia. However, as I was the one who created the CoryxKenshin article, a notification comes up every time somebody links to it, which is what attracted me to this page. I only found out about him being in the trailer when someone posted about it on Discord after I posted the message, and by then I was going to sleep: I didn't have time to watch the trailer. And not every person you find online is going to be a FNaF fan or someone who keeps up to date on everything trending on social media.) — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A whole article about it was published in the Los Angeles Times. I've added it to this article. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I was being immature on purpose. lol
2. Wikipedia literally thinks websites like screenrant are reliable sources (even though they literally stole someone's video word for word), but not vortex apparently. Wikipedia isn't always reliable.
3. Yes, I am blaming you. The freakin' trailer was trending everywhere online; You act like the only thing you use on the internet is wikipedia. How could you not have seen it? Lmao
Cory was like one of the most talked about things in the trailer online. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're not here to run a fan site. It's an encyclopedia. That has guidelines and policies. Fandom may be a better fit for your editing style. Mike Allen 00:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why the hell is his wiki here? Lmao SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic doesn't quite seem to make sense here. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think Wikipedia is a fan site? You may not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. Mike Allen 04:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SaulGoodman6969:
2. I think Screen Rant and Valnet-owned websites as a whole are clickbait sites, but I've seen it used on other articles. I personally dislike using it as a source.
3. Like I said before, time zones. It was released midnight. Didn't have time. Besides, it's ridiculous to expect a random person to have automatically already watched a trailer just by virtue of being on the internet.
4. True, like a fan site, Wikipedia articles may be written by enthusiasts and fans of their subjects. But even traditional encyclopedias are written by those well-versed and enthusiastic about the topic they are writing about. What MikeAllen is trying to say is that Wikipedia has higher standards and more stringent policies. It also has a different goal: to be a comprehensive general encyclopedia. The fact that all the Stranger Things actors have articles doesn't mean we are a Stranger Things fansite. It's because they are considered notable enough by Wikipedia standards to be included here. Your logic doesn't make sense. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this? The original topic of the thread (Coryxkenshin cameo) has already been dealt with. If SaulGoodman6969 wants to respond, they can do so on my talk page. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like y'all are taking this way too seriously at this point when it's already been dealt with. lol SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just responding to what you're saying — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have to respond back with an essay, though. lol SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very lengthy responses are common on Wikipedia. Mine wasn't really that long — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is kind of long. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime: True or False?[edit]

Is the runtime of FNAF at 180 minutes? BlackBuick2099 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been confirmed. Mike Allen 00:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Runtime - 1 hour 48 minutes (108) SeerixSR388 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added and sourced since October 4. Thanks. Mike Allen 13:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Theaters has revealed movie's official length[edit]

On AMC Theaters, the FNAF movie's runtime has been revealed as to been 110 minutes. Should it be included on the article?

Here's the website so you can see with your own eyes:

https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/five-nights-at-freddy-s-73212 SupraMerioBros. (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now. Movie ticket sites aren't reliable, and we usually wait for something like the BBFC to post the runtime. Edwordo13 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - SupraMerioBros. (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trailers[edit]

@ErnestoCabral2018: and @Bmoviebuff93: Please do not restore deleted content with no explanation. You have been offered explanations in edit summaries, per WP:FILMMARKETING. Plus we do not use the word "fans", we would use "audiences". That is, if there was significant third party reliable coverage on it. We are not here to promote the film. We are here to work collaboratively to build a neutral encyclopedia, that requires communication.

This part that keeps getting added: However, fans were heavily divided over the addition of the characters' glowing red eyes. The BBC source just cherry picks a few quotes from a Freddy subreddit. Then the article says "It's not unheard of for films to change before release after fan reaction to a trailer.". If it was to change in the final film, that would be noteworthy to add in a Marketing section.

The other part of the edit is merely adding when each trailer and TV spot was released and is just sourced to the video on YouTube. Completely goes against everything WP:FILMTRAILER stands for. Mike Allen 12:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023[edit]

I request permission to include a list of the animatronic characters featured in this movie, most of their puppeteers and voice actors have been confirmed and I will only include the characters that have been confirmed for the film via the official movie trailers. Eiznek200 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023[edit]

it should have been Jason Blum And then Scott Cawthorn not all way around 105.158.102.6 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023[edit]

I suggest adding a disambiguation message to the top of the page. Not much else I can say about it. AverseABFun (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per WP:NAMB, it is unlikely anyone will land on THIS page while looking for the game series. PianoDan (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023[edit]

The Five Nights At Freddy's movie released in the United Kingdom on October 25th at cinemas nationwide. This has been stated and shown by countless UK trailers for the film. 2.28.164.69 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WanderingMorpheme 01:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast change after seeing Film[edit]

Watched the film last night, brilliant to say

Matthew Lillard needs to have a second name placed alongside the Steve Raglan one, he IS William Afton! and Vanessa is Vanessa Afton, This was revealed in the film just before the climax. (without too many spoilers) SeerixSR388 (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also watched it last night and I agree that it was brilliant. I second the motion. HiveEmperor (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Write a plot section to fill that in. Mike Allen 20:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film comes out in the US tomorrow, as a UK viewer I got to see it earlier so I’ll see what I can do. HiveEmperor (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will be released on Peacock in the US today at 7pm CDT (1am UK time). Mike Allen 21:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was proven false and it says on Peacock’s website that the movie will be coming out tomorrow. HistorianL (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching it now on Peacock. Mike Allen 00:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It came out in some theaters earlier today. I’m going to see the film later today and such will provide a spoiler free update on the film (if acceptable) HistorianL (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished watching the movie myself and I will later begin working on a plot summary. If @HiveEmperor gets to it before me or wants to help I'll either help or we can both do it. NegativeMP1 00:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don’t see why not. HiveEmperor (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot in cast, and non credited names[edit]

The cast section goes by credited roles per WP:FILMCAST. It is also not to add plot details, that is what a plot section is for. @HiveEmperor: please do not edit war over this. Mike Allen 20:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception in lead[edit]

@BaldiBasicsFan: You can't WP:SYNTH from 2 sources to say The film was received negatively by critics, who labeled it "not scary", "bloodless", simplistic, and confusing; with many naming it among the worst films of the year. Please stop. You call me an "unreliable user", but I follow guidelines whereas you just pop up to cause disruption. Wasn't you on the The Super Mario Bros. Movie during its release causing the same type of disruption. Fancy seeing you here, again. Mike Allen 02:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was referring to SaulGoodman6969 when I mean by unreliable users not you. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I was the one that reverted all of it, so I assumed it was me. I will strike it. I need to take a break from this page.Mike Allen 03:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add an audience rating in reception[edit]

Hardly anyone is worried about what critics say about this film, as its primary audience was the fandom. I am surprised to not see a response from the fandom mentioned, since again, that’s the primary target audience. Not0nshoree (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't include audience scores per MOS:FILMAUDIENCE as the reviews are considered self-published. Also, there isn't any user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes yet. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If CinemaScore &/or PostTrak ever does an audience poll we could do that, since it’s not self published.
“Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available), may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section” Not0nshoree (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I think it will be worth mentioning the reception from the general public after it has released everywhere, maybe give it a week or two. My reasoning is that there is a stark contrast between public reception vs critic reception at the moment. I think other people feel the critics aren't reflecting the views of the majority of people right now. Happy to discuss. AlfehBusiness (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CinemaScore and PostTrack scores will be released today or tomorrow and will be added. User ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, will not. Mike Allen 15:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I forgot about CinemaScore. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that mention the contention between critic and fan scores whenever there is a stark divide. The suggestions in MOS:FILMAUDIENCE are not hard set rules. If there are secondary sources reporting on the divide those might be worth adding. 2600:1009:B022:92D5:150F:4F8D:A4FB:8255 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name one article (that is heavily sourced with high quality reliable sources). It happens, but it is rare. We will not know about a significant divide on day two of release. At least allow the film to make it out of its first weekend. Mike Allen 19:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources report the audience response and note the significant discrepancy it might be possible to add it to the article based on those reliable sources, but it is the difference of opinion that is notable not specifically the score itself. The box office grosses already strongly imply that audiences are liking it a lot more than critics did. FYI Paul Tassi at Forbes wrote: "Critic scores are trash but audience reviews and its A- cinemascore are extremely high."[2] and Variety wrote: Reviews are terrible (it has a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes), but that doesn’t matter because audiences have been digging the film, which has an “A-” CinemaScore.[3] So there are sources reporting the difference of opinion, and local consensus could be enough to justify making an exception and adding it to the article, but there is already the Cinemascore and Postrak ratings the box office is so strong I don't think it is even necessary to mention the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. -- 109.78.196.154 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake[edit]

I pressed some deleted stuff by mistake. Can somebody please fix this? Iacowriter (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

box office[edit]

Not sure why this page is locked but you need update the box office numbers. It's now 68 million, breaking numerous Halloween weekend records. Source (Deadline): https://deadline.com/2023/10/box-office-five-nights-at-freddys-1235584788/ 66.109.35.61 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but no. The weekend isn't over yet and they're saying $78 million and technically those figures are all estimates. Editors of this encyclopedia should not be misrepresenting estimates as actual box office grosses, and really should wait until Monday or Tuesday when the actual box office for this weekend is officially confirmed. -- 109.78.196.154 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023[edit]

"Plot" Section. Change "The mascots drag him into the back room where the blonde boy locks the door" to "The mascots drag him into the back room where the blond boy locks the door." Minor grammatical error, blonde being the strictly feminine term, and blond being the masculine or general term for someone pale yellow hair. Drewskiac (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Thank you for your concern |ans=yes Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|ans= true Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023 (2)[edit]

Due to the character being male they should be the blond boy and not blonde boy. An e is only added to the end of the word when it’s for a female character 195.213.28.186 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take it up with the person who officially credited the characters. It's in the end credits that way. Also, it really doesn't matter.. really. Mike Allen 22:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MatPat character name[edit]

MatPat's official character name is Ness

Source: https://youtube.com/SzwEzpec7CA?si=eFhMoIL9QMBD-rYw

Timestamp: 10:30 24.251.249.242 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what a cast member is credited as. He made a cameo as a waiter, his uncredited "name" is irrelevant. Mike Allen 00:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something can be added to the page, concerning that? Unsure, but it seems interesting. BetterThanWig (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{sic}} could be used, specifically {{sic|hide=y|blonde}} or {{sic|hide=y|blonde boy}}. (Another option might be the {{Explanatory footnote}} but that would probably be too much in this case.)
Also the plot section is too long, at approximately 750 words when it should be 400-700 words, see WP:FILMPLOT. -- 109.78.196.154 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023[edit]

There is a slight error in the cast section of the page. It refers to Matthew Lillard as "child murder" which makes no sense, and should be edited to "child murderer," or even "child murders." MrMoheck (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed completely because it is already in the plot section (where it belongs). Thank you! Mike Allen 13:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023[edit]

Plot synopsis currently says aunt Jane hired "juvenile delinquents" to vandalize...but while they might be delinquents, I would argue they cannot in any real way or reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered juveniles. I suggest dropping the "juvenile delinquent" and the link to "juvenile delinquents" wiki page and changing to thug. In the cast, also drop "juvenile delinquent" change to "thug" in David Lind's character description 72.207.101.166 (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done "Juvenile delinquent" is more formal and neutral than, "thug". Mike Allen 13:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More formal? The term juvenile delinquent has specific parameters that people obviously in their late twenties to MUCH higher do not meet. Call them vandals then, but they are not minors even colloquially. 72.207.101.166 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mike Allen 20:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoryxKenshin/Cabbie mid credits scene[edit]

In the plot section I think the mid credits scene where the cabbie is frightened by the balloon boy bobble head toy should be included. The “Come find me” in the credits was included so I believe adding a section that mentions the cabbie being scared by the balloon boy toy would also make sense. 170.76.230.106 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section is too long already. WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words and it is remains over 700 words. If editors want to add anything more they need to remove something else. -- 109.79.168.117 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mid-credit scene with Balloon Boy doesn't affect the plot at all. It's not necessary to include it.$chnauzer 04:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok so why is there a audience reception score[edit]

i like this movie but like no other current film articles have a "audience reception"... also listing screenrant as a credible source??? feels like trying to compensate for the critical score when in reality that and the box office are the only numbers that should be listed. it also reads like a news article which wikipedia isnt so i strongly suggest we remove it NoKNoC (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i will say you can put the score somewhere but it doesnt justify putting a whole section that isnt in tune with the rest of wikipedia NoKNoC (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. It shouldn't be in the lead. Unless there's a general consensus among sources - it should be excluded from the lead. IMDB, RT, and Metacritic aren't reliable sources. KlayCax (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen any audience scores listed in the lead. CinemaScore and PostTrak are in the article and will remain because they are not "user scores" done with some unexplained algorithm such as with IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic. Mike Allen 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audience reception[edit]

@MikeAllen, I think it's valuable to include the RT audience score somewhere in the article; it's notably higher than the critic score. I've kept your revert, but I'd like to work it in somewhere. If you think it fits in a different section, let me know. Catalyzzt (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing previous discussion, it seems as though multiple reliable sources (1 & 2) are now reporting on the critic/audience disparity. I think it's worth re-evaluating. Catalyzzt (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found another one Catalyzzt (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t post the user scores. WP:FILMAUDIENCE. Just stick to the facts of what reliable sources say about the film getting positive audience reception. Readers can view the scores by going to Rotten Tomatoes, etc. Mike Allen 18:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that this falls under WP:IGNORE. The section really does not work without the scores included. Per MOS:FILMAUDIENCE...
Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as these are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew.
...but my point is that the demographic skew is the point of this section, as is commented on by the Forbes article. It makes sense only in context, which is provided by the sources and quotes that I added. Catalyzzt (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can add that the audience reception was better than the critics, but we do not need to add actual scores into the article. Also, we can not use that Forbes source (WP:FORBESCON). We can get second opinions from WP:FILM, if you want. Mike Allen 18:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Audience reviews almost never belong in the lead. Reliable sources are clear that *mainstream, tenured critics* have given the film bad reviews. That's not an instance of WP: NPOV to say so. KlayCax (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First I don't think the user scores should be included, there's really no need for it, and especially not in the lead section. Secondly Screenrant is a very low quality source. But I do want to warn that editors are continuing to misunderstand the intention of WP:FORBESCON because they haven't seen the discussions and the state of the Forbes website at the time that prompted that guideline. Years back the Forbes was publishing a lot of web only content and opinion pieces with very little overview from irregular "contributors" (the site was even noticeably split into different sections). That guideline was never intended to exclude a Senior Contributor and the main Forbes film critic Paul Tassi. If you don't believe me then please go ask WP:FILM or dig out the old discussions from the archives. That is only a minor quibble because there is no need to include low quality user scores in this article. -- 109.76.138.72 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audience score: arbitrary break[edit]

Again, audience reception scores aren't supposed to be in the lead. Does everyone forget the whole Morbius incident? (Wikipedia initially said audience reception was "positive" then, to.)

This is a WP: POV. Unless it because a cult classic: then it is typically not included in the lead. (How many films have audience reviews in lead? Very few for good reason.). KlayCax (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What scores are you talking about? There were never any scores in the lead. Mike Allen 13:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section includes the text "audience reception being generally positive". The lead section is supposed to summarize the article body, this summary and generalization can be supported by the Critical response section which includes opening weekend audience polls from CinemaScore and Postrak. The box office grosses also supports the statement. Other sources also support the generalization that audience reception was generally positive, significantly more positive than film critics[4] industry bible Variety magazine even says "audiences have been digging the PG-13 film" [5] No specific scores need to be included in the lead section but in a case like when the sentiment is so clear and well supported by reliable source it is an entirely fair summary. -- 109.76.138.72 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discrepancy between audience and critic scores gets called out often in films each year, but that doesn't mean we need to dedicate a standalone "Audience response" section every time this occurs, especially when that section will only contain 2 or 3 sentences. In rare cases, we make exceptions, like we did for Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Captain Marvel. In those situations, there was a lot going on with RT scores getting review bombed, which received overwhelming coverage. Multiple discussions and RfC's were held to make exceptions, but the MOS:FILMAUDIENCE guideline generally advises against this. Based on only a handful of sources calling this out and limited coverage, I don't think we have enough here to make an exception. There's very little to write about. At the very least, there needs to be more discussion and clear consensus to include at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you realize that the audience mainly contributed to the film's financial success. Hell, the audience score on RT literally rose up to over 25,000 reviews within the first week, and most of them were positive. The metacritic user score is one of the highest of any film this year as well. Also, there the cinemascore for the film was given an A-, and was even used as a major talking point in the film's recent advertisements. It's pretty obvious that we should include a section for the audience's reaction to it that's similar to that of what we did with the sound of freedom wiki page. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (The audience of course being the fans of the Five Nights at Freddy's games.) SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, we shouldn't censor a good portion of what made the film such a financial success: The fans of the FNAF games. Without them, the movie would've likely underperformed at the box office in a similar vein to that of the exorcist: believer. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Also, the cinemascore for the film was given an A-, and was even used as a major selling point in the film's recent advertisements. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Audience scores from non-scientific polling methods, such as RT and MC, are unreliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. There have been multiple discussions about this at WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM if you'd like to comb through the archives (or feel free to begin a new discussion). Sources that only rely on these scores in their analysis are also unreliable. CinemaScore and PostTrak often contrast with critics' scores; this is not a rare occurrence. It is rare, however, to create a dedicated section for audience response. Even more rare is to mention something about it in the lead section.
    Are there sources making the same claims you're making here? What sources do we need to look at here? CinemaScore and PostTrak are good enough to be mentioned in the article under "Critical response", but to go further like you're describing we need more than that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SaulGoodman6969 sometimes articles examining the box office will mention the audience, those are the kinds of reliable sources you need. WP:UGC User voted web polls are still not the answer. -- 109.79.74.100 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023[edit]

Change "In August 2018, Cawthon said that if the first film were to be successful, there could be a second and third film that follows the events of the second and third games, respectively." to "In August 2018, Cawthon said that if the first film were to be successful, there could be a second film that follows the events of the second game." The source cited mentions nothing about a third film. Although the source from the next sentence does state that a trilogy has been greenlit, it states nothing about the plot of the third film. 800dbcloud (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you. NegativeMP1 18:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 02 February 2024[edit]

  • I know the page is protected to prevent vandalism, but can someone edit the Plot to say the kids went MISSING? It is never stated they were "murdered" there--just implied that they were put into the animatronic (but where/when is not revealed), but that information (bodies in the animatronics) is revealed much later in the plot as well. 2601:19C:4A03:138C:24AF:75FE:CA68:B8FE (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its put there probably of the lore in the FNAF Minigames which would match up with the movie. Cats1231c (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. If they were not murdered, how would they have got there? Shadow311 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

May you please add the audience's immensely positive reception in the lead? They are the only individuals whose opinion for this film actually matters/holds any significance.

Listing this movie as being rated negative by critics does not only harm others by misinforming them greatly, but it also damages the reputation of this film, which is greatly appreciated by many, myself included. Thank you. 199.119.233.181 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics did rate it negatively. So it is not misinforming anyone. Also please see WP:ER for information on making edit requests. Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me rephrase: What I mean by misinformation is that any individual who reads that it was rated negatively by critics will genuinely believe that the movie is bad, when it is not since it catered towards a very specific audience.
This is what I mean by misinformation, as it gives them a false illusion based off the information they read online, which is harmful. 199.7.156.254 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. Critic reviews on the movie were negative, and audience reception for this movie isn't notable or meaningful enough to include in the lead unfortunately. λ NegativeMP1 16:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the problem, however. The audience reception for this movie is notable and meaningful enough to include in the lead, as they are the only individuals whose opinion for this film actually holds any significant value; critics are insignificant when it comes to the Five Nights at Freddy's movie, as this cinematic production was only meant for a very specific audience, that is the group of people who enjoy FNaF.
When you include the lead that critics rate the movie like crap, it gives people the impression that the movie is actually, in reality, bad, which is completely false.
When I went to see this movie in the theaters, everyone loved this film and there was a bunch of cheering, roaring, and screaming of pure excitement and joy.
Also, the movie holds a near 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes's audience score, which places it on the rank of critically acclaimed (i.e. Shrek, with an audience rating of 90%, is considered critically acclaimed). 199.7.156.254 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sound an awful like SaulGoodman6969 from above. Please read that discussion to learn why user ratings are not reliable (you definitely do not want to miss reading MOS:FILMAUDIENCE), and if you still have concerns and want to continue the discussion, please do as requested. Provide reliable sources that support this claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're demonstrating is still original research. My theater was cheering too, hell I was one of the people cheering, I was having the time of my life there. But critics opinions are what matters here due to the way reliable sources work on Wikipedia, and audience scores count as user-generated content. Additionally, an established consensus in a thread above concluded that audience reception was best left out of the lead. If several reliable sources demonstrated the vast difference between audience reception and critic scores, I could definitely see "though audience reception was generally more positive" or something on those lines be added, but that isn't how it is. λ NegativeMP1 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If several reliable sources demonstrated..."
Appreciate you weighing in, but I just want to clarify that a few sources gets the party started, meaning the discussion now has some teeth. Whether or not that turns into a bite will depend on the quality of each source, the quality of the analysis (scrutinizing how the determination is made), and whether or not the viewpoint is WP:DUE after evaluating the prominence it has in reliable sources as a whole. If only a tiny minority share that view, for example, then it may not be significant enough for Wikipedia. Bottom line: providing sources is only the beginning of the discussion.
Just thought I'd point this out now so someone doesn't try to hold your feet to the fire later for moving the goal post. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's what I meant, thank you for that. λ NegativeMP1 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed rated negatively by critics but it really doesn’t matter much. Generally, audiences liked it and it made a good amount of money. I think you overestimate the importance that potential viewers place on critics and their opinions, especially for a film based on a video game of haunted robots. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Justanotherguy54: What purpose does this commentary serve to Wikipedia? If you have something to add that could actually improve the article, based on reliable sources, feel free to discuss that. However, opinions are more appropriate for public forums like Reddit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was responding to the IP that thought the negative critics rating was disinfo. I explained it was indeed rated negatively but it won’t have the impact the IP thinks mentioning it will. A little reply to an editor explaining why the reasons they want article content changed are incorrect won’t kill anyone. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, misread your comment and indentation. My bad. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected edit request on 15 of Febuary 2024[edit]

What about Matthew Patricks Matpat appeareance as Ness in the diner sequence??? Can you add him to the actors list? Cats1231c (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done, he's listed in the cast section as "Sparky's Diner waiter". NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sequel pic[edit]

So Jason Blum has posted on X (formerly Twitter) an image of what appears to be a Mangle figurine on the works, along with a Toy Bonnie figurine. Should this be included in the Future section? (link to the post here: [6]) Thanks, SupraMerioBros. (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. It's not subject of critical commentary, and the sequel is likely getting its own article as soon as filming begins. λ NegativeMP1 22:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! SupraMerioBros. (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_Nights_at_Freddy%27s_(film)&oldid=1224113885"