Talk:My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film)

Animated

Animation: Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

My Little Pony Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of My Little Pony related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.My Little PonyWikipedia:WikiProject My Little PonyTemplate:WikiProject My Little PonyMy Little Pony articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/10/03/17/my-little-pony-movie-likha-ng-pinoy-animators (in Filipino) https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2017/10/11/1747779/pinoy-animators-work-their-magic-my-little-pony-series-movie (in English)

In light of unreliable and/or conflicting sources on the film's release date, I believe it is best to list the date as simply "2017" until we get a more reputable source.

We have two sources claiming November 3, 2017 Box Office Mojo and Hasbro at Twitter. Unlike a writer saying something during a con panel, they seem to know what they are talking about and are definitely the more reliable source. Therefor November 3 is the best sourced date and should stay in the article.

Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur with

Immblueversion, is there an issue with this source? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Not with this source in particular. This is my first time hearing of a direct confirmation outside Box Office Mojo.

talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Great! Matter appears settled, then. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The release date may have been settled with a direct confirmation from Hasbro, but what to do about Box Office Mojo listing

I've looked but cannot find any other sources reporting on Blunt's involvement. Unfortunately, BOM is now under IMDb, which is not a reliable source including for casting, so I would disregard BOM here. It is generally appropriate to avoid these kind of database results. We can exclude Blunt for now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing I need clarification for. Is the "Music" section in the infobox limited to just the score composer (

Never mind, I've looked around and film score takes priority.

talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am wondering if any statements have made regarding where this takes place in respect to events in the TV series. One glaring bit of info for example would be whether or not Twilight has her wings, which would guide us to the former or latter half of it. If the Cutie Mark Crusaders had their marks would also be important for pinpointing a region of it happening. --184.146.6.191 (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bit borderline for a lot of us, however a good argument was made that there are sources that have some of the performers saying that they've started or finished recording, which would show that production has begun. I'm going to ping @

• Also, it looks like the film is going by the name "My Little Pony: The Movie" per this logo.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:NFF, so I'm okay with the mainspace move. At the very least, we definitely now have more information than we did back in March, when we merged it. Thanks for your help! Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Not a problem - maybe it was just one name too many? I normally do the individual pings, but have been playing with the ability to group the names together. I might go back to that.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Took me a while to notice the article wasn't a draft anymore. It's great to get this page back in business! User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Rebecca Shoichet (the singing voice of Twilight) listed here like Shannon Chan-Kent (singing voice for Pinkie Pie) and Kazumi Evans (singing voice of Rarity) are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C101:4A30:695B:8630:3A09:233D (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has not been confirmed to be involved yet. That doesn't mean she isn't in it, just that we can't confirm either way. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Unlike Shoichet, both Chan-Kent and Evans have verifiable sources confirming their involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubZeroSilver (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the addition of unsourced content appears to be a chronic issue, I've gone ahead and added an editnotice to this article, viewable here: Template:Editnotices/Page/My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film). If it needs to be changed, feel free to let me know. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160612040055/http://comicsalliance.com/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-interview-sdcc-2012/ to http://comicsalliance.com/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-interview-sdcc-2012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the release of the teaser, I felt I should start a discussion on the actors to be listed in the infobox's "Starring" section. According to the template guidelines, actors must be listed in the order they are listed in the poster's billing block (i.e., the small, halfwidth text usually found at the bottom of the poster). If there is no billing block, then they should be ordered by on-screen credits. And since the trailer only lists the celebrity guest stars, those actors should definitely take priority. What this leaves out, however, is the voice cast for our actual main characters. And since consensuses for additions is allowed, I think there should be one for whether or not we should include them in the infobox.

On the one hand, it makes sense to add them since they are the film's main characters, as I said. In the event we were to add them, they should be listed beneath the actors shown in the trailer, at least until a billing block or the movie's credits show otherwise. On the other hand, the actors are already listed in the "Cast" section and header, so there shouldn't be much of a fuss if we omit them from the infobox alone. Personally, I'm not opposed to including them, but I'm leaning more towards keeping things simple and only using what we see in the trailer for the time being. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Until we actually get the poster, which is usually how we set the bar, I would use common sense: Tara, Andrea, Tabitha, Ashleigh, and Cathy should led since we know this is the principle cast throughout the film, and the main actors as revealed on the teaser trailer in that order under them. As soon as the promo poster is out that list the names directly, then we can readjust if they put the guest stars over the main actors. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to start thinking about whether this film is the

• My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film) → My Little Pony: The Movie
• My Little Pony: The Movie → My Little Pony: The Movie (1986 film)

Another alternative is, if neither film is the primary topic, we could move

Far far far too soon. We need to see how the movie is received at release. Moving now is resting too much on RECENTISM. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen much about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77B4:EBD0:6116:8DB8:FF4C:FBF6 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not.

Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm already familiar with the rationale listed in Template:Infobox film: to cut down on overabundant information, it's recommended to limit this kind of information to just the film's home country or countries, as well as whichever country or countries it was released in first. However, it turns out that Russia isn't the only country with an early release: Chile, Peru, Germany, and Ukraine all share the October 5 release date, and most of them have different distributors. While they all fall under the rationale, it all just seems like too much. So unless we pray for an earlier sneak peek at a film festival or something, I think something has to be done.

We could use a table in the "Release" section like the example Water, except here we could simply link to it in the infobox. The same goes for the distributors. Anyone else care to share? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems someone came up with the idea to simply list the other countries as "international". I think that's an excellent idea; it's an effective banner word without bogging down the infobox, since "international" doesn't necessarily imply "all nations". Of course, any earlier premiere date will automatically take priority. Hopefully that will happen so we can put this behind us. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When will the full trailer be released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Margery (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is only for talking about this wikipedia article, not for talking about the film itself. Once there is a trailer, it will be mentioned in the article.

Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The official MLP Movie Twitter has unveiled the new poster. I've updated the infobox to include the information we can gather from the billing block, including writers, editors, and cast billing order. Now we just have to update it for the article. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the film distributor be

Is there any particular guideline for the order of actors listed in the cast section? The lists on the posters and official website order the actors alphabetically by first name, sorted by celebrity guest stars first and regular voice cast second. I'm considering rearranging the section to match the official artbook, which lists the main characters as they are on the current character page, and the guest characters in general order of appearance and modified for importance (i.e., Grubber appears before Tempest, but is mentioned after her as her sidekick). User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --

talk) 20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

If there are no objections, I'll go right ahead. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we should know, Lionsgate is the distribution company for the film responsible for advertising the movie. But according to recent edits, IMDb has listed Lionsgate as one of the film's production companies as well, i.e. a company that actually helped make the film itself. Now, IMDb alone is not anything to go by, but it has to have been added on that site for a reason. Can anyone verify that Lionsgate didn't just advertise the movie? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 08:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I already saw the billing block, and I looked up the standard structure. When a company is listed as "presenting" the movie, it refers to the distributor and/or studio. I also checked Lionsgate's IMDb page, and for the majority of films where it's listed as a "production" company that "presents" them, it's actually just the distributor. Take that into account with the numerous reports of Lionsgate being the distributor and Allspark being an extension of the studio, and we can safely say that Lionsgate is not the production company for this film. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you'd like to know, The film is distributed in Canada by

Okay, should I add Les Films Séville (Canadian French language distributor) to the infobox? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The movie isn't in French, so I wouldn't. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, okay. Thank you for comment. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's local distributor (for example, in Russia the distributor is Central Partnership, in Ukraine the distributor is Ukrainian Film Distribution). The

talk) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

On the same day as the United States release, the film will also be released in Canada and South Africa, distributed by

Entertainment One Films Canada and Times Media Films respectively. On October 20, Lionsgate UK will release the film in the United Kingdom and Ireland. On November 2 same year, Madman Entertainment

will screen the film in Australia and New Zealand.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not specify local distributors (there are a lot of them). There is a

talk) 18:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I see Lionsgate is increasing output deals with nationwide and region-wide film distributors (like Central Partnership in Russia you just mentioned, Nordisk Films in the Nordics, and Metropolitan Filmexport in France), but the company doesn't directly distribute their films worldwide like many of major studios (Disney and Fox, for example, distribute their films worldwide through their subsidiaries outside the USA), and still has to rely on local, non-American distributors. In many cases, there are many areas still without an output deal between Lionsgate and a local distributor (South Korea is one of such examples I can say).

For the record, Lionsgate's distribution deal with Entertainment One stems from Maple Pictures: Maple was acquired by Alliance Films in 2011, before EOne bought Alliance in 2013.JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 12:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The premier's been shown, when is the movie going to be summarized here? Or did it suck as much as Valerian and The Nut Job 2? 68.150.5.99 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the content is reliable sourceable. A private screening is not a reliable source.

Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That depends on when will the review embargo lifted. For example, the review embargo for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (the worst film) was lifted four hours before the premiere. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a summary all prepped in my sandbox. It's currently exactly 700 words (unintended, if you can believe it), so any changes should only be made for concision's sake. Feel free to look over it. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the anon was talking about critical reviews? Anyway, in which point does Songbird Serenade appear? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 01:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two scenes: once in the first act, right before Tempest invades, and again during the conclusion to perform her song. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Starlight Glimmer, Princess Cadence, Granny Smith, Big McIntosh, Apple Bloom, Scootaloo and Sweetie Belle ever appear in the film? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll stop now. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 19:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My only quibble is that you used "respectively" twice in the same line. Also, "Mark and Nicole Oliver" might imply they're related, which I don't know to be the case. Dogman15 (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having trouble avoiding the "respectively" thing while editing it to make it seem less redundant in separate sentances. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editors

Agree. --

talk) 01:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Permission granted. - Jasonbres (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Art of ... and the special "The Making of..." are completely good sources to expand on the development section. I haven't had a good chance to pull from these but these absolutely should be used more. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Another good source for cinematography part! --

talk) 05:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Her name.. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 09:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any talks of a sequel so far? Rumors? Comments? Anything? Austin012599 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone following this page may have noticed, a user has been repeatedly adding Derpy's appearance to the plot summary even though it's only a cameo with no importance to the overall plot. It's clearly not frequent enough to count as an edit war, but it's still incessant. I've left a message for the user to stop, but if these edits keep up, what do you propose we do? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the

WP:PP to comment but maybe that's worth a read. (Aside: does my love for Derpy count as a conflict of interest? Haha.) Arzg (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No offense, but what it has currently isn’t enough to compensate, and is too vague to really help people get the idea of what critics think of the movie.Austin012599 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Austin012599 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep,

go for it. Relevant guidance on how such receptions are generally written can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response. I've been interested in adding this information to this article for a while now, but alas, real life has prevented me from doing much content work in general lately. Mz7 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you.Austin012599 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Austin012599 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reviews that we need to put on this page are ones that are reasonable, smart, and ones that say that the critics actually know what they’re doing and reviewing. Any review commenting on it based on it being made from a toy line should not be put on. Austin012599 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, make sure you aren't letting your own feelings on the film influence our editorial responsibility to describe the film from a

neutral point of view. In order to maintain neutrality, we have to present all significant viewpoints that have been published on a subject, in proportion to their prominence. Just because we disagree with them doesn't mean that we should exclude them. Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

We could put in some. Austin012599 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a notice for a clean up in the recently expanded reception section's tone. As it currently stands, the things that need fixing are:

• Misuse of the citation template
• General capitalization, grammar and markups
• The excessive number of paragraphs and detail (there shouldn't be one paragraph per critic)
• High repetition regarding how each critic received the film
• Certain misuse of words and grammar (i.e., an "acclaimed review" would be "a review that is acclaimed")
• Instances of
  editorializing
  with statements such as "Despite its mixed to reviews from critics however, it received universal acclaim from audiences", and the currently unsourced "praise directed towards the performances of its ensemble voice cast, characters, music, message about friendship and trust, direction, story, and even the animation", which suggests a non-neutral point of view towards the subject.

User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’ve made some mistakes here and there, but that’s only because I didn’t know how to complete the work entirely. Even if there are instructions (and yes, I have looked at them), they just don’t speak clear English to me. I can’t understand them.

Besides that, every edit you keep making concerning what I edit, like taking away what I put in, makes me feel like you’re targeting me just to give me problems and make me feel less appreciated.

I would have liked it if for once someone would help me complete the work I’m doing. I don’t know how to do everything here! Austin012599 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the reviews made by the India Times & The Straits Times?

I really liked those reviews. Nothing personal, but, they were the positive reviews that stood out to me the most. Austin012599 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The negative review of The Deseret News also stood out to me out of all others. Austin012599 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted: These additions are either too specific on the details or add no new perspective. And to call a review "acclaimed" would mean the review itself was well-received, which is not what this section is for. And use the citation template properly, please.

Well, that’s the problem! I don’t know how to use a citation properly! And I have looked up the instructions, but they’re not very understandable nor specific. I am autistic, there are things I do understand, and things I don’t understand. The instructions something I don’t understand. Austin012599 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any talks or information about a sequel to this movie?

I certainly hope there is, because that would be great. Austin012599 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no verifiable information at this time. Any discussion beyond general improvement of the article will be ignored. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on My Little Pony: The Movie (2017 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170919105054/http://www.ks1075.com/contest/ks1075-morning-show-wants-send-you-premiere-my-little-pony-nyc to http://www.ks1075.com/contest/ks1075-morning-show-wants-send-you-premiere-my-little-pony-nyc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170806141617/https://www.thebookcon.com/en/Sessions/45628/Ponies-on-the-Page-My-Little-Pony-The-Movie-Prequel-Stories to https://www.thebookcon.com/en/Sessions/45628/Ponies-on-the-Page-My-Little-Pony-The-Movie-Prequel-Stories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could not hire all the big time actors on 6.5M and also pay the usual cast and the animators and also do marketing on that low of an amount. The sources states are not reputable. This comes from Hasbro Studios itself. The next movie will have a bigger PR budget and less on the animation side, but it will still be 43M.

Budget Rundown Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magomags (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A link to IMGUR is not a good enough source. Can we get a link to the original document or webpage instead of a screenshot?

Box Office Mojo lists $6.5 million as the budget.[2] The Numbers.com also lists $6.5 as the budget.[3] We have little choice but to go with what the available sources say.

Sidenote: Hasbro financed the film but P&A costs were paid by Lionsgate.[4] -- 109.79.81.27 (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the gross budget for this film was exactly: $24,315,625. The film received a ~$5.5 million tax credit from Canada.

I can't show my source as this information is from a leak and I do not want to share the file publicly. However, I can guarantee this is the actual budget (sans advertising).

The $50 million figure in that image is likely a somewhat accurate estimate since it includes P&A (publicity & advertising) costs with the budget. Iamtheplauge (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

My apologies. The general guidelines for

billing block, which is shown at the bottom of the poster. The actors are listed alphabetically there, just as they are in the film credits. Because this was never objected towards, I came under the impression that it was the accepted version. I should have discussed the issue here and with User:BestTestini first. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

So what now? I left the message to BestTestini after they made the same edit again, but I haven't reverted it for fear of fueling the war, even though the guidelines still specify the billing block order should be used. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for too long. I've made a request for semi-protection. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now the edit war seems to have shifted to using "disowning" vs. "denouncing, see this example. Those edit wars are not constructive. All involved users (including me) should stop that and use the talk page. Please state your reasons why to use one version over the other.

I propose we get rid of disown and denounce entirely and say as follows: (Twilight and her friends get into a heated argument over Twilight's actions, ending with Twilight angrily berating her friends for treating the fate of Equestria as a joke and her friends walk away to cool their anger. After the argument, Twilight, deeply remorseful over her actions, gets kidnapped by Tempest, who gains her sympathy upon revealing how the loss of her horn as a filly following an ursa minor attack caused her own friends to shun her out of fear, which also caused her to see friendship as a foolish notion.) User:67.255.12.186 (User talk:67.255.12.186) 20:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content about a MLP movie “sequel” has been added and reverted too much. Adding hidden text doesn’t seem to help, as seen in here. There are numerous problems with that source.

• First, the source is said to be a fan site.
• Second, the source doesn’t say anything about the movie being related to the so-called sequel.
• Third, it has been confirmed that the 2021 MLP movie is a separate project.

Is there an effective way to stop this? I would like to discuss this issue with 
Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

If the problem persits, you can bring the apge up at the admin noticboard and request a semi-protection, preventing unregistered and new users from editing it. But as this would also stop constructive work from them, I would recomend just reverting it until it stops.

Gial Ackbar (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Flikering Myth is not the original source as it directly cites, "Via Equestria Daily" at the bottom. Equestria Daily as best I can tell is a fan site. If it has been confirmed as some else (Third), then update it at Allspark Pictures, where this same information is repeatedly added and remove (where I am more active in removing this information). This might cut it off at the pass there and might stop those who saw it there and restore the information in both places. It would also give us a place to point and say what is really the case with the 2021 film. Discussing it here also, gives us a place to point as to not add this info with out new sources. Spshu (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]