Talk:The Wandering Earth

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

Suggestion

Hi, User:Chang Kaishen, User:Mariogoods, User:Cirolchou, User:Charlotte2018, User:Getareu8, I think this below subject (Paragraph) could be noted in this Article and will be useful for reader. What's your comment? Forest90 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to statistics, Wandering Earth broke the record between China's film. This film released over the holiday season, lunar new year , and earned more than 2 Billion Yuan (232 Million Euro) in six days.[1]

"My film was successful but I don't want to speak about only one successed film and China sci-fi move could be find a new way for being better in 2019" The Movie director, Frant Gwo told to the China.org.cn[1]

Liu Cixin, the author of the novel Wandering Earth said to the state broadcaster CCTV, "Chinese studios have no interest to invest in sci-fi films. US sci-fi films audiences have trust but this trust between audiences and China sci-fi movie haven't been exist and this is the main difference between Chinese and US sci-fi films. He said it is challenge because this trust must build between producers, investors and the audience until people have faith in a Chinese sci-fi movie.[1]

I quickly checked the sentences and I found it no obvious problem. Also, I think they are useful to improve this article.Mariogoods (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before improving the article, looking at film GA such as Iron Man 3 is helpful. (Although it is not relevant to the discussion)Mariogoods (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

  1. ^ a b c Kuo, Lily (11 February 2019). "China challenges Hollywood with own sci-fi blockbuster". theguardian.com. theguardian. Retrieved 13 February 2019.

Article protection

@

edit warring is against Wikipedia’s rules even if you are right. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Messed up the ping. User:Wraper11, User:Lester1231, and User:DannyS712, this means you.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I have made 1 set of 2 edits, and since then have tried to make it clear that I don't want to be involved. I offered to help with the issue of composer vs additional composer, because I know some Chinese, but I do not want to be involved in the dispute about the coverage of the music - I have made it clear that I have no strong feelings either way. Thanks for the ping, but I don't intend to edit the article again - @Wraper11 and Lester1231: please use this opportunity to discuss the coverage. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712 and MelanieN: Thanks Danny and MelanieN! My opinion is clear here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DannyS712#Protecting_the_Wandering_Earth_Page ), that I have no problem with Liu Tao is the additiona composer, and I didn't make any change since MTIME changed the title to Liu. But In order to keep the objectivity of The Wandering Earth page, I think the music cpoying issue must be metioned in The Wandering Earth page since the media report it, and there has been large discussion in China. Also, as the film crew, user "Wraper11" removed the music copying issue, the negative news to the film, I don't think that is a RIGHT behavior the The Wandering Earth page. I also agree with user:DannyS712 to use "trace of suspected mass imitation" instead of "direct copy" in the description of music copying issue since some of the cues contain the similar structure, similar key, similar rythm, similar BPM, similar arrangment, similar melody and similar musical source. Thanks again!-- Lester1231 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i want to point out that I didn't suggest using "trace of suspected mass imitation" - that's what that source said, which did not support the claim of "direct copy" in the article. I don't mind if its used in the article or not, but Lester1231, please don't "agree with me" about an idea I never agreed to. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712 and MelanieN:Sorry, that's not the point, the point is just wether the dispute of music copying issue should be keep on The Wandering Earth page, my opinion is yes, and the film crew coundn't remove the music copying issue. Thanks.-- Lester1231 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN, DannyS712, and Lester1231: I strive to keep the objectivity of the page on Wikipedia, and here're a few reasons why Lester1231's words of copying issues should not be added to the page:

1. The sources Lester1231 cite are not reliable sources, because his sources are self-media or BBS. According to: [WikipediaReliableSources]

"Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable."

Soundtrack magazine is not an official media but a self-media at wechat platform(the Chinese self-media platform where people publish their own articles, and its known to have issues of misinformation and not be reliable. More about wechat platform self-media's misinformation: how-self-media-in-china-has-become-a-hub-for-misinformation). The other source tieba.baidu.com is a BBS/forum at Baidu which is just one of many Chinese BBS/forums and Wiki's rules for reliable sources clearly says: "Self-published book...Internet forums are all examples of self-published media."

Both his sources are not reliable sources.

2. The self-media "soundtrack magazine" is created/operated by Lester1231 himself at the wechat Chinese self-media platform. The intention he kept adding the changes during the editing warring by citing from his own self-press is questionable. I hope he won't come back using another ID to do similar changes.

3. Let's look at his source the self-media "soundtrack magazine" article, the main part is a video comparing the wandering earth music to some of Hans Zimmer music. But in that video, the videomaker changed wandering earth music by modulating its key signatures, beats per minute, music panning and other elements. So technically it's not the music of wandering earth anymore, but they still do the comparison and say such wandering earth music (which is modulated/modified from the original) is mass imitation or copying of Hans music, making this source not reliable even more. Wraper11 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: That's ridiculous, all I know about the Soundtrack Magazine is a media company has their own film music journalists witch has a great relationship with Chinese and Hollywood film composers like Alexandre Desplat, Howard Shore, John Powell and many others, just check their offical page of Facebook please, it is not a somthing "self-media" he called, Wechat is just a majar platform of distribution in China. I'm also just a film music fan in China, a eidtor cared about the film Wandering Earth. However, user "Wraper11" said he is a "offical film crew", I have no interets to accuse a guy I don't know, just check this screenshot please, he has no rights to remove anything from the page, thanks! https://www.dropbox.com/s/qu9frk90rnlsiuv/Wraper11.jpg -- Lester1231 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Everyone. I am a Chinese. 我可以看中文. Wechat is a social network media. Lester1231's source or the soundtrack magazine is a Wechat self-media (微信自媒体). It does not qualify the reliable sources definition and should not be considered as sources. 04:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Kaby (talk)
@MelanieN:I'm tired to explain wether the Soundtrack Magazine in China is a "self-media" or not, all the reasons can be seen above. Also, the “Weibo Movie (verified as the OFFICAL Weibo Movie account ,it is the official film focused source runs by Sina Weibo, and can be considered a reliable and verified source in China.)” also reported this issue, just check here please https://weibo.com/3506400592/Hg1Hj7jWS . Btw, Wechat is NOT a social network media, it just a IM app, and a news distribution, Soundtrack Magazine running on Wechat is just like New York Times and Variety running on Line, Facebook and Twitter. Thanks! -- Lester1231 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding me, I searched it and found that so-called "Soundtrack Magazine" describe itself as “国内最权威、最专业的影视游戏音乐自媒体” ("The most authoritative and professional video game and music self-media in the nation (China)"). Most self-medias are unreliable. Also, Weibo, like Twitter, should not be considered as reliable source in the first place. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 12:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the "Soundtrack Magazine" is running by a company NOT a single user, as I know, this platform contains the film music journalists from International Film Music Critics Association, the definition of "self-media" in the slogan is quite diffrernt from the "self-media" as Wiki defined, it just wanna show the different with the traditional media like TV, newspaper I think. How can a "self-media" as Wiki defined and running by someone held a meeting with Mr. Alexandre Desplat? -- Lester1231 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"it just wanna show the different with the traditional media like TV, newspaper I think." Such kind of self-published content should not be trusted. Please provide the evidence that the author him/herself is a member of the Association, so we can verify it. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 16:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found the attribution at the article's bottom. I tried to find who he is, but failed. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 16:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No futher explainion, just check the offical site of International Film Music Critics Association please.-- Lester1231 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the author has no notability and you won't provide evidence, the source should be treated unreliable. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 01:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So when you're reading on an online news platform, you'll check the journeylist first to make sure wether the writer is reliable and not the platform is reliable? That's interesting. -- Lester1231 (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gorath

The article is locked at the moment but hopefully an editor can add in the controversy that the movie is facing. Most of the articles regarding this issue are rapidly being deleted in China by the government. Most truth bearing critical articles are being deleted by the state. Hopefully wiki can include this to be fair based.

"Even though in the Chinese internet, The Wandering Earth is praised for making a breakthrough in China’s sci-fi genre, the movie has been accused of plagiarizing 1962 Japanese film Gorath. Directed by the director of Godzilla, the movie is set in Tokyo the year 1980 and a huge planet is on course to collide with Earth in 45 days. The world teams up to find a solution and build a giant ejector in the South Pole to help Earth depart its original track. The two movies bear many similarities in terms of escaping objects from outer space and building large machinery to help Earth deviate from its path."

Many articles were written and deleted, and even mentions of this on social media and movie reviews were intentionally removed because this movie is a state backed first blockbuster science fiction movie.

Hopefully the Chinese won't come and mess with the page if someone adds in this to the page. Vivogram (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivogram, and thanks for your input. There is a discussion above about whether the music is plagiarized; this adds a new dimension. Can you supply any links to published sources about this Gorath allegation? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: It didn't take me long to find 1, 2 Japanese sources and a Chinese one about this film's plagiarism of Gorath. It seems to be a big thing in China and Japan. Adam9007 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be cautious with sources like
NTDTV though, as both are run by the Falun Gong with its well known political agenda (I don't know anything about recordchina.co.jp). I read the plot descriptions of Gorath and The Wandering Earth. There are certainly similarities, but many sci-fi movies are similar and I doubt these reach the level of plagiarism. There's quite a bit on coverage of The Wandering Earth in mainstream Western media, and I haven't seen any mention of potential plagiarism. -Zanhe (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Another one (Chinese). That article was used as a source here, though it appears to be user-generated content. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MelanieN, I think it will very be hard to find western articles on this. Gorath is a very old Japanese movie and the Wandering Earth is a very new Chinese movie... and I really have doubts how many of those critics have seen both. The only english article I've seen that talked about this is the Jayne Stars article (US website reporting on Chinese entertainment). The first voices that raised this issue were actually the Chinese movie buffs and any talks about it on weibo and douban were deleted shortly. I think though it's true sci fi movies have a lot of similarities, in this case it's a little bit too specific. Check out this side by side comparison video and watch it to the end if you'd like to. It shows how similar the opening credit is, including the typesetting shown during the last few minutes of the video. [1]

Apple Daily (one of Hong Kong's largest entertainment news media)[2]

Now news (Taiwan news media)[3]

Sanlih (Taiwan news media)[4]

Hong Kong Economic Times (Hong Kong news media)[5]

Liberty times (Taiwan news media)[6]

Men Club (Hong Kong news media)[7] Vivogram (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all, for the input. The plots don't seem that similar - only the premise - but you are right about the opening credits. They show the kind of things that all scifi movies show, but in a selection and order that is almost identical. Anyhow, that's Original Research on my part and I can't read the articles. I will leave it up to the discussants here whether there is sufficient coverage of this claim to include it - and if so how to word it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

@Epicgenius, OhanaUnited, and Deryck Chan: Hello! Please excuse the ping, but this page needs some input and possibly supervision from Wikipedians who know Chinese and can read and evaluate sources. I didn’t intend to get involved in the content here, but people keep addressing their comments to me. I am having trouble following the issues. I had locked the article because of edit warring about whether to include allegations that some of the music for this film was copied directly from other films.[8] Two sources were provided; there is argument here at the talk page about whether the sources are reliable. Now a new allegation has been raised, without sources, that the movie plagiarizes a Japanese film. (If we can’t find sources in English or Chinese there might be some in Japanese.) This movie, The Wandering Earth, is a huge deal in China, and it is entirely possible that there might be attempts here at the talk page to keep anything negative out of this article (I notice one brand-new user making their very first edit here). If any of you can take a look at this article and provide some input it would be greatly appreciated. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, thanks for reaching out. Here's my assessment of the situation:
    1. The two links go to the same content. The first link goes to a 影乐志 (Soundtrack Magazine) article that criticises the music in the film. The second link goes to an archive copy of the same article on a forum website.
    2. I don't have the expertise to decide whether Soundtrack Magazine should be treated as a reliable source. Taking the article at face value, I have no reason to suspect any bad faith about the article or the online magazine.
    3. I disagree with Lester1231's text which stated that music in this movie "were apparently copied directly from some of Hans Zimmer's scores". The cited article analysed music in The Wandering Earth and compared it to Hollywood soundtracks by Hans Zimmer and others. The article noticed similarities but did not go so far as claiming illegal plagiarism in this case, though it did mention past legal cases where songwriters were heavily penalised for copying Zimmer's works. The article concluded that music in The Wandering Earth was heavily influenced by Zimmer's style and sought to emulate it, resulting in music that lacked original creativity and that felt awkward in some scenes.
    I hope that helps. Deryck C. 17:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan I did some research and I found the so-called "soundtrack magazine" has a history of personal attack to wandering earth composer Roc Chen(阿鲲) in the past. So I think that article is in bad faith. 哈利波菜 is the operator of soundtrack magazine (see: https://www.douban.com/note/354037030/?type=like) and also have a history of personal attack to composer Roc Chen:

哈利波菜 weibo accuse Roc Chen is only a shoe lifter in Kung Fu Panda3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6zxwigr5fop2to/IMG_6978.PNG?dl=0

And here's Roc Chen's weibo photo showing he is doing the recording for Kung Fu Panda 3 with the Kung Fu Panda 3 official logo/poster on the right https://www.dropbox.com/s/46kdk9u1uow8fve/Screen%20Shot%202019-03-07%20at%2011.22.52%20AM.png?dl=0 The Imdb page also confirm's Roc Chen official title: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267968/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm Thus proving Lester1231哈利波菜 is totally slandering Roc Chen.

Another evidence of "soundtrack magazine" personal attack Roc Chen https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xO_smYN9BLgo17_EpEX5uA

Thus I believe soundtrack magazine's article is not in good faith and can not be trusted as a reliable source. Wraper11 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Deryck! Quite aside from the "reliable or not" question: if indeed Soundtrack is the ONLY source for this allegation, I think we would have to leave it out, wouldn't we? Controversial or negative material is supposed to need multiple sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN:Film music is a kind of extremely minority interest in China, few media would noticed it. As the film Wandering Earth is the so called Chinese first sci-fi movie, considering the public opinion environment, most of the negative material and discussion were removed. But I've still listed some discussion and analysising video before the "Soundtrack Magazine"'s report above. Also, in the report of "Soundtrack Magazine", it compared the score of Wandering Earth from musical structure, key, rythm, BPM, arrangment, melody and musical source with Hans Zimmer's works, so I think it's a profesional and objective report and should be considered in, Thanks -- Lester1231 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the full-protection will expire soon. Let me remind everyone NOT to make edits to the article on this subject - the music - without consensus here. At this point it looks like consensus is against including the claim about the music being similar to Zimmer's. And we can't add anything about Gorath because it is unsourced. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for 影乐志 / Soundtrack Magazine in both Chinese and English, and found zero third party coverage of it. I doesn't even have a website, and the only links I could find are blog or forum posts (such as the two links cited here, one on WeChat/Weixin, another on Baidu's forum). It appears to be a personal blog masquerading as a "magazine", and cannot be considered a reliable source. -Zanhe (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it said "self-published media are largely not acceptable.", but it did not say "self-published media are ALL not acceptable." Let me give some reasons that why this article from "Soundtrack Magazine" can be considered as reliable source.
  • "Soundtrack Magazine" is running by a company, NOT a single user, it's a only platform mainly focus on film music in China, it DOES NOT belong to any single person. And the fact is, we Chinese usually consider reliable sources all come from the media in China running by the goverment, but that's not a necessary requirement to consider a media as "reliable".
  • "Soundtrack Magazine" is a profesional film music platform running by least two members from International Film Music Critics Association, they're professional, reliable, and they do have responsibility for the comments and articles to the platform, International Film Music Critics Association and public.
  • The article about the score of The Wandering Earth is profesional and objective comes from the film music journalist, it compared the score of Wandering Earth from musical structure, key, rythm, BPM, arrangment, melody and musical source with Hans Zimmer's works, the conclusion in the article is no problem.
  • The large disscusion about the music copying issue really happened, but they had all been removed.

-- Lester1231 (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: Well I won't go so far as to claim that the Soundtrack Magazine has zero coverage by anyone else, nor that they don't have a website. They do have some coverage by other media review outlets e.g. [9], and they do have a domain name even though all that's on the website is a QR code to their Wechat channel... I would argue though that for Chinese media outlets a Wechat feed is more "real" than a website. My reading of Soundtrack Magazine's posts also gives me the impression that it is a review channel with multiple contributors and a chief editor, not a one-man band. But MelanieN's point stands: for controversial, critical opinions, we should probably require multiple sources that are independent of each other, unless the source / author of the review is themselves notable (which isn't the case here). So the outcome is the same - we shouldn't include Soundtrack Magazine's review here - not because the source is inherently unreliable, but because the opinion is controversial. Deryck C. 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, everyone. The protection has expired, and while it was in place we do seem to have reached consensus here. Lester, you are the only one arguing for inclusion, while three or four people oppose including it. WP:Consensus rules here at Wikipedia. You should not add it again unless consensus here on the talk page changes. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN:Thanks, MelanieN, I'll update the talk page while there were new source came out. -- Lester1231 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Deryck Chan: Obviously you and I have quite different standards for what constitutes as an RS. Anyone can buy a domain name for just a few bucks a year (heck, I have one with a "coming soon" page on it), and WeChat feeds are self-published sources, just like Facebook and Youtube channels. And I'm surprised that you'd call this link third-party coverage. Isn't it just another WeChat feed, or am I missing something? -Zanhe (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe: I'm not sure what you want to imply by "just another WeChat feed" - as if two sources can't be independent to each other because they're both WeChat feeds? Deryck C. 21:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When we talk about independent coverage, we normally refer to coverage from reliable sources, as these are the only ones that count. It's impossible to determine whether the self-published sources are related or independent, but it doesn't matter as none of them are reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separating the Book from the Film

I'm thinking of writing a separate page for the book and linking to it from here. Just giving heads up in case anyone would rather it not be separate. ADNewsom (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Rotten Tomatoes based on 31 reviews. Metacrtics based on 8 reviews. Anyone can join these nobody organisations and give reviews. 39 reviews by nobodies from the millions of people who have seen these films? Who cares? Time for wikipedia to dump thse wastes of space. (185.181.239.184 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

No. Follow the links in the references. Rotten Tomatoes [10] and Metacritic [11] have separate user reviews and critics reviews from critics selected by the website. We report the critics reviews. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the absurdity of the plot ?

Is there really nothing about the fact that that hardly anything makes sense in the main plot of the movie, and anyone who went to high school should be horrified by the absurdity. The main problem is at the very beginning, getting the Earth our of the Sun's gravitational well with man-made machines in a few decades. Anyone can calculate GMm/r, divide the result by the total amount of energy currentlly consumed by humanity in a year, and see that the film main plot is wildly impossible, because the plan would require billions of years (if 100% of the economy is diverted to the "Earth engines", with 100% efficiency), not a few decades. And what was this thing about the sea rising 300 meters or so? Or ... etc. Are there really no sources mentioning that the plot doesn't make any sense? If the film was about space dragons sitting on space turtles pulled by space pink unicorns pulling the Earth from its orbit, there would be no problem, but here they used a "sciency" plot that seems to be conceived by a 4 year-old boy who was just told what a rocket was. People used to go to schools and learn basic stuff. I guess millenials don't need those archaic institutions, but isn't there one movie critic among those dinosaurs? 151.67.44.110 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Screening the Nation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 18 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksomo, Gywlala, Erik Yitian Ma (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GBP1234, Sales.Alf, Yuwei19, Grotle07151129, Haojun1997.

no article for the book?

Seems weird that an incredibly popular book like The Wandering Earth doesn't have an article and it's just this one for the movie. 2600:1702:2110:8550:4D7D:AFD3:1DF4:FA95 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, editors on Wikipedia are not as proactive in creating articles about books as they are about films. I agree that there should be an article for the book. Do you want to try to create it? I can help find sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, the written work isn’t a standalone book, but instead a short story/novella. It should still have an article if there is enough press about the written work itself. Politanvm talk 00:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how about "Terre en fuite" (Fleeing Earth) by Francis Carsac, 1960?
The same main plot - the Earth trying to escape from the exploding Sun by building huge engines all over the earth, air is freezing and so on.
I think it worth to be mentionted in this article 93.171.214.80 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Box Office

The forbes reference (https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/02/17/box-office-wandering-earth-how-to-train-your-dragon-lego-taraji-henson-liam-neeson-kevin-hart/?sh=16147f1e7970#174650337970) does not supply the amount of $701million world wide box office. 2A00:10:2284:E401:34B8:4D0D:BD32:176 (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The $701 million comes from this link. I think the Forbes article was once used to justify "second highest grossing film in China", but since the article's publication, several films have overtaken The Wandering Earth, which now falls to fifth place according to List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_China. I think we can just remove the Forbes article as it is misleading. PetraMagna (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Carsac "Terre en fuite" 1960

Must be at least mentioned here. Trying to avoid using the plagiarism term. 178.232.214.17 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wandering_Earth&oldid=1218426202"