Talk:Cinderella (2015 American film)

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

question

can this be considered a remake of the animated version? you know, to celebrate its 65th anniversary?

It is safe to say it is a remake, since this time it is finally Walt Disney Pictures doing it, who branded the Cinderella name that is known today. Live-action adaptions from comic book/animated always have some changes to it to reflect the era of the audience, "real life" is now a popular trend.Soyasauce (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

This film is rather epic and the detailed plot is excellently accurate and concise, and should be trimmed with care.Soyasauce (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal

The article says glass was replaced by crystal. The kind of crystal being referred to is crystal glass, which is glass.76.126.195.34 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Somebody please clean up the sloppy grammar. 76.126.195.34 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The Plot summary DOES NOT NEED any changes anymore. The grammar has already been checked, and there's no need for additional details. For more information, read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I'm going to keep an eye of this page.

Bianca Anne Martins (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you took your eye off the page for a while. I got here weeks later and found that changes were needed. The Plot section had errors in word usage, now corrected--and, to cite an egregious example of a needed change, clocks do not strike 11:59, they strike 12:00. No contributor owns an article. Cognita (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The fairy godmother She uses her magic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.244.33.154 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

talk) 08:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Lapadite77, regarding what I stated here, I am correct. With several years of experience editing this site, including pointing out to people what the
talk) 08:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
And if you want an example of a Critical response section for a film that got higher
talk) 09:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Flyer, you
talk) 09:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Your interpretation of the WP:Neutral policy in this case is incorrect. Nowhere did I state that the Critical response section for this article should give WP:Undue weight to negative reviews. I am arguing for appropriate weight with regard to negative reviews on this matter. You are under the assumption that this film getting an 84% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 67 on Metacritic means that no negative reviews should be in the Critical response section of this article. Before your "09:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)" post above, it seemed that you were stating that not even one negative review should be in the article. You are incorrect either way on that. Why you feel that this article should be treated special in that no negative reviews should be included, I am not sure. But I do not feel like debating it. Therefore, I will alert WP:Film to this discussion. And as for stating, "Plus, a critical reception section shouldn't comprise a sampling of every review available but be a concise representation of the general reception", that is not something that I need to be told. But I will point out that "concise" depends on the topic at hand in such matters.
talk) 09:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
And you should again refer to the
talk) 09:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well it appears we've misinterpreted each other's comments. I did not say non-positive reviews should not be added, in fact I said the complete opposite (quoting myself: "and could be expanded with the negative and one or two more mixed"). Your "a few of of those" with respect to negatives - which I initially questioned - remains unclear, however. What other negative reviews, besides the one on Metacritic, are you wanting to add? I haven't read every single review so perhaps I missed the presence of another negative. --
talk) 09:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I alerted WP:Film to this discussion.
talk) 09:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I know. You can also continue discussion.
talk) 09:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Lapadite77, there are several notable reviewers who gave negative reviews of this film. Just looking at the "Rotten" tab on Rotten Tomatoes, you can find that The New York Times, New York Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The AV Club, and The Fort Worth Star-Telegram all gave negative reviews. There is plenty of criticism. Sock (tock talk) 13:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
So you've been arguing over semantics, then. I believe Flyer was going for the inclusion of reviews that aren't wholly positive. I think you're just taking the usage of "negative" way too literally. Sock (tock talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sock, I'm not sure how Lapadite77 is judging those reviews, but if they are listed as "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes, which they are, then they count as negative reviews. Indeed, Bill Gibron's review from
talk) 13:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 02:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Lapadite, your comments on this matter are, to me, all over the place (and by that, I mean contradictory and confusing). Either way, since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to
talk) 12:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Flyer, I've not contradicted myself once. You again misinterpreted my point - I didn't say one prefaces with "in a positive review" or "in a mixed review", I said that one should stick to the source, per WP, and represent a review as it is; e.g., if it is mixed, don't just summarize or quote a negative line from it. Couldn't be clearer if you ask me.
talk) 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not misinterpreted anything you've stated in this discussion, and I'm done with this discussion. I will be adding two or three of the aforementioned negative reviews to the Critical response section of this article. There is no need whatsoever to add a positive aspect of a review that is mostly negative. A negative review is a negative review, no matter what perceived upside to the topic the reviewer noted. That section already has enough positive reviews, especially because of this expansion by you, and it already has enough "mixed" reviews; actually only one "mixed" review as far as I can see (the
talk) 23:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It seems the guiding principle (WP:DUE and providing representative summary and exemplary description of external reviews) is recognized by both sides. Since according to rotten tomatoes 84% of the reviews are positive, the article could stick to positive reviews only for its exemplary reviews. However this depends on how extensive the section in the article is. If it includes 6 or more exemplary description of external rewies, than one of the included should be a negative one. However for 5 or less (as currently) including a negative review could be seen as violation of WP:DUE and as giving the reviews a more negative spin than appropriate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry miscounted/misread the paragraphs at first glance. With 10 review incorporated into that section adding 1 or 2 (notable) negative reviews seems appropriate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary statement

talk) 01:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The text in question makes two claims:
  • "...received generally positive reviews from critics." Yes, Metacritic automatically assigns "generally favorable reviews" based on the score. Rotten Tomatoes gives no wording. If the "generally positive" is meant to reflect anything other than the Metacritic data, it is combining those sources inappropriately. If it merely reflects the Metacritic data, this is pointless repetition.
  • "Praise was aimed at (7 listed items)". If we were to read all of the critics' reviews, are these 7 items representative? Do we have a source for that, or did we pick items from several reviews and say that these are the items critics praised? I'm betting we can source "Critic A said W was likable", "Critic B said X was quite effective", "Critic C said Y was brilliant" and "Critic D said this was Z's best performance ever." (We are, of course, ignoring critics E, F, G... praising N, O, P....) We then
    combined
    the statements we selected into "critics" praised "W, X, Y and Z". We selected 7 items and said these are the items "critics" praised.
The sources say what the sources say. We have a source for "Metacritic says the film received 'generally favorable reviews.'" That is still in the section. We do not have a source saying "Praise was aimed at (7 listed items)". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also wondered if you took issue with the word "praised"; I think the editor who added "praised" simply meant "well-liked" or "particularly/especially reviewed positively", which is the other reason why I stated that I'd have to check the references. Then again, it could be that the summary statement was meant to relay that sources particularly (or especially) reviewed those aspects positively.
talk) 05:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Critical reception sections are frequently littered with over-zealous interpretation. "Joe Blow positively reviewed the film, stating..." Is that saying the overall review was positive (if so: wholly positive, mostly positive, kinda-sorta positive...) or just the statement you are about to refer to? How is that better/more accurate than simply, "Joe Blow stated..."?
Often, I'll see the "received ________________ reviews" tweaked in one direction along with additional edits leaning in that direction. General clue: If two editors read the same sources and one says "positive" and another says "generally positive", we're clearly in the territory of POV. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I reverted a recent edit you made. This is because it's fact that this film received mainly positive reviews, and this is reflected by sources in the Critical response section. Stating "and received positive reviews" was not a WP:Synthesis violation. And like the

talk) 19:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Two more followup edits here and here.

talk) 19:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

When I removed the piece, there was not a source stating that the film had received ______________ reviews, only an automatic summary assigned by Metacritic. The reception section now cites a source directly stating that the film received "mostly positive reviews". I've tweaked the wording (adding "mostly", changing a "mainly" to "mostly") to match the cited source. If you have a reliable source stating it was a "critical and commercial success" and would like to add that with a cite, have at it. (I would think, however, that stating it grossed $542.7 million against a budget of $95 million would be more meaningful than the vague "commercial success" you're looking for.) - SummerPhDv2.0 00:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that, per what I stated above, what you removed was not a WP:Original research violation; it is text supported by any number of WP:Reliable sources, including sources that were already in the article. There were already sources in the article commenting on the film's commercial and/or critical success. The one I added that states "mostly positive reviews" also comments on the film's box office success. "Unsourced" does not mean "WP:Original research" or the WP:Synthesis aspect of it. As for this edit you made, I thought about using "mostly" instead of "mainly," but these two terms are commonly used as synonyms, and using either doesn't make much a difference in this case. Using a synonym is not a WP:Original research violation. As for this edit you made, I am always tempted to add "generally," "mainly" or "mostly" as a qualification since no film gets solely positive or negative reviews, but some of our film editors, as also indicated by this discussion at
talk) 00:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That there is disagreement over whether to say generally/mainly/mostly/none is all the more reason to be as specific as possible. If X% of reviewers at RT gave positive reviews, stating that specifically -- without being tempted to create a term with or without modifiers as an interpretation -- avoids any questions.
I note you added a warning not to indicate it had received critical acclaim without a source. How is that different? If 84%, 7.1/10 and 67/100 is "mainly positive", how much below that do we go before it loses the "mainly"? 80%, 7/10 and 60/100? 75%, 6.9/10 and 68/100? Is there a line? Where is the line? Where did you get that line?
You seem to want to boil down grossing $542.7 million against a budget of $95 million to "was a commercial success". Why not "was a major/significant/ginormous/outrageous/sizable commercial success"? How is that interpretation better than the actual figures?
I still don't get whether people feel that, for example, 67/100 is both:
1) so obviously a critical success that we don't need a source providing this interpretation -AND-
2) hard enough to comprehend that we, the super-genius editors, must translate it to one word for our idiot readers who can't see how obvious it is.
If it is obvious enough that we don't need a source ("Our hero pushed the child out of the way of the falling building because a building falling on a child would hurt the child and that is bad."), the interpretation adds nothing. If, OTOH, it adds something, where did that something come from?
When the NYT says a film received "mostly positive reviews", I'm confident that we can verifiably state the film received mostly positive reviews. When the NYT says "mostly positive reviews", we can cite that. An uncited "positive reviews" (with no such language later in the article) is, in all likelihood, someone's synthesis of the sources in the article. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added a
talk) 17:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
As you know, there are frequently changes to summary statements from "generally positive" to "universally positive" to "mixed to positive" to "mostly positive" to "positive" to "mixed" without any changes to the underlying sources the statement is supposedly summarizing. Unless all but one of the statements is vandalism, they are clearly a matter of interpretation. At what points would the changes to the underlying numbers here trigger a change from "mainly positive" to something else? Where did you get that/those limit(s) from?
"Was a commercial success" seems to be a circumlocution for "made money". In numerous other cases (where the numbers are less lopsided), I'm not sure where you (and hundreds of other editors with different opinions) would draw the line. Presumably, in this case, the film turned a profit by itself. That said, I haven't seen nearly as much merchandise (fast food kids' meals, Halloween costumes, etc.) as is more typical of the Disney machine. What the Disney conglomerate hoped to get out of the project (box office receipts less expenses, plus: film rentals, film purchases, soundtrack sales, traveling ice shows, retail merchandise (toys, bagged produce, kids furnature, backpacks, bandages, tooth paste, clothes, etc.) theme park attractions, video games, books, comics, perhaps a cartoon series, spin offs, sequels, etc.) and what they actually got may or may not be a "success" to them. If, however, we were somehow forced into a dichotomy of "success" or ... what: "failure"? "not a success"? and were somehow limited to using box office figures, yeah, "success" might be the better choice. Luckily we can simply say "box office of X on a budget of Y". - SummerPhDv2.0 20:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I noted, I used "mainly positive" as a synonym for "mostly positive" or "generally positive," and doing that is fine because all of that is seen as the same thing. I was also clear that I thought about reporting exactly what the source states -- "mostly positive." That I didn't was not a problem because of the synonym aspect. When it comes to something like "universally positive" or "mixed to positive," that is a no-go unless supported by the sources. People usually know what synonyms are and aren't. And as for simply stating "positive" or "negative," I reiterate that some of our film editors want to keep it simple without a qualification, just like some (like you, for example) want no summary statement at all. I see no problem with you adding a qualification like "mostly" or "generally"; as noted above, I prefer it, but our film editors have different styles. We commonly talk out what style works best for a certain article; we don't use the same style for each article. I understand what you are stating about commercial success, and I noted that the company's idea of success should be taken into account. But, again, I'm stating that if the sources are clear that the film was a box office success, I see no issue with stating "commercial success" or "successful at the box office" (or some variation of that).
talk) 20:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Introduction

The introduction should contain more accurate information and should be written with reference to other Wikipedia articles like Big Hero 6 (film) and Into the Woods (film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Grant (talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 08:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
An article doesn't need to follow the template of another. The lead is fine as is; your edit is verbose, with unnecessary info. Readers can just click on the critical response section to see the praise. The article is not in ultimate form. A few more reviews can be added, and If this receives awards attention, that'll also be added to the lead.
talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Numerous box office hits have their success listed at the top of their articles. So I do think it is worth mentioning. I shortened it, so it would not be as long. And1987 (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring by logged-out registered editor

talk) 09:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Reported at

talk) 10:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: The archived discussion is at

talk) 21:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Narrator

I have been removing this parameter from the infobox that has been repeatedly added by an IP. Per

SDH captions and Helena Bonham Carter is credited as that character as shown in the credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Names per credits

A bit of a conflict about this. Generally we list what the film credits say for names of actors and their characters and order the list as ordered in the film credits. IMDb lists them that way and that is the way most official credit lists of other sources list names. Names revealed in dialog may be worth mentioning if description goes beyond a basic actor - character listing, but otherwise are not the official credited names. Using what is determined by an editor as the most common name used in dialog is

verify. The production team has made their choice on what they want the credits to say, this article should honor that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The easiest way is obviously re-watch the film and count the times each name is used. I am fine with including what is in the credit in the article, but some are obviously not what most viewers know them as, and may be used very few times in the film. The more common-know-as name should be included if it is also used in the film dialog, as the film itself is also official, not just what is listed in the credit. --Will74205 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not just for people who have viewed the film. Likely significant interest also from people familiar with alternative version of the story. The plot description should probably be changed a bit to use the credited character names more and any alternative names should be explained by usage in the plot description. That is the more interesting part of this article and has most of the meat of the story. The cast section is mostly an out-of-universe listing with most of the emphasis on the actors and the part they are credited as. It would be appropriate to add more information if this were a character section with more information about the characters, but I think that is unnecessary in this article as the plot section covers most of this and it would be repetitive here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one can assume people read the Summary section or the whole article to know which actor plays which, especially in this case that credited character name is not very intuitive. So my point is, if an alternative character name is used in the film dialogue, it should deserve mentioning in the Cast section. --Will74205 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember, Wikipedia is not IMDB, and there are plenty of places to get the cast exactly as credited. Adding a note on what a character is more commonly known in the film dialogue is reasonable and useful to Wikipedia readers.--Will74205 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it then, best would be to append a very short sentence character description for each character in the list and include the alternative name there. Just keep the primary information as the names listed in the credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming-of-age categories

I removed Coming-of-age categories. The movie is described in the intro as an American romantic fantasy film, no more. It is not

WP:OR personal opinions not backed up with explicit well-referenced descriptions as that as a genre. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinderella_(2015_American_film)&oldid=1206698709"