Talk:Super (2010 American film)

Archives

"Themes" section[edit]

This is just nonsense, written up to increase traffic to an amateur review site; it does not belong on the main page for this film. Does the original author of this section (I assume one of Red Letter Media's founding members) wish to defend this piece? If not, I will delete it in a week. Theintrepid (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original author is User:CartoonDiablo, who is not affiliated with RLM and hasn't even touched the regular RLM article. I'll bring this to her(?) attention.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a he :P but no I'm not affiliated with RLM but that is clearly a reliable source for the article. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they're notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article and they've garnered some significant mainstream coverage in the press. It's not like it's someone's blog.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most senior editors would have taken one look at that stuff, dead centre of the article, and blown it straight to wherever such things are blown to.

The idea that an established critic like Gleiberman rates 2 sentences, while this C+ high school report appears ahead of him ...

As a gesture of kindness, I shifted the section to the end, with the argument that it might serve as a framework for legitimate critics to discuss the subject.

CartoonDiablo has now seen fit to make this the dominant element in the article once again, ahead of genuine critical opinion.

Varlaam (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This section is safer now at the end where it is less conspicuous and less likely to be noticed by a deletionist. I have seen those people blow away material 10 times stronger than this, citing one of their standard excuses.

(Why create anything of your own when it's so easy to delete somebody else's work?)

In the meantime, this outline can be further legitimized with similar notions from more conventional critics, turning this C+ into an A. Okay?

Varlaam (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is kind of ridiculous, there's an obvious consensus for it, RLM is a reliable source and it was place in the "center" of the article because it logically follows reception or plot (and it's important to note wiki formatting doesn't discuss whether something should be in the "center" or not). I'll return it to where it was soon enough and believe all Varlaam's objections have been answered. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note

Most senior editors would have taken one look at that stuff, dead centre of the article, and blown it straight to wherever such things are blown to.

You're right. I took it out before even getting to this talk page, although I kept a small amount that related to the film's similarity to Kick-Ass and merged it into the section below.

The author of the review may have notability, but that does not mean the review itself is a suitable source. Relevant policy here is WP:SECONDARY:

Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

and WP:Identifying reliable sources:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Plinkett's status as a minor online celebrity does not make him an established expert on film criticism or film theory. Having his videos embedded by or mentioned on various websites is not the same as being "published by reliable third-party publications".

Additionally, the material in question was not only poorly-written, but inappropriately made the review itself the subject of a section. -- Hex [^t/_c] 16:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section[edit]

I do think that the controversy regarding the similarities between Super and Kick-Ass is noteworthy.
Regarding the following quote from this section:
Gunn responded to the controversy with, "It sucks on the one hand and then on the other hand, who gives a shit? There are 4,000 bank heist movies. We can have five superheroes-without-powers movies", referring to Defendor, Hero at Large and Special, in addition to Kick-Ass and Super.
I feel the wording as above better reflects the context of the quote, which does not make reference to the order the movies were released reference
-- SarnXero (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If viewers are going to see a similarity, then it is better to deal with that and not devote a lot of space to doing it. Varlaam (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bear in mind how often you note a similarity between films but there is no citable source that draws the same inference. Varlaam (talk)

I have condensed and copy-edited this section. -- Hex [^t/_c] 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive references to the Brightburn cameo[edit]

It was in three different places, including being given a full "section" to itself. Cut that one, but probably should get rid of one of the other two references. Is it even confirmed that it was Rainn Wilson in that film's photograph? Even if it was, it's an insignificantly small role, and unless Gunn confirmed they actually are the same universe, it could just be an Easter Egg (after all, it's implied BB's Crimson Bolt has superpowers, where Frank is a regular person). 2803:4600:1116:12E7:84CD:A541:5CD1:1396 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]