Talk:Alita: Battle Angel

Editing Needed

Whoever wrote this article needs to go back in and edit it. It's filled with grammatical mistakes, particularly misplaced modifiers. The first couple of paragraphs contain several glaring examples, making the sentences grammatically nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.74.7 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Anime News Network as a source seems to be somewhat troublesome.

Today I went through and deleted two peices of information cited by Anime News Network for not actually containing any information about the film. The site seems to often report on James Cameron's plans for future movies, where the sources do not mention Alita, and then include a blurb at the bottom that says something to the effect of "James Cameron also spoke about making an adaptation of Alita: Battle Angel".These are somehow then inserted into the Wiki article despite them having no relevance to the topic at hand. Please make sure that the news in the production section actually pertains to the movie before adding it.--Deathawk (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Please cite specific examples if you want to make this claim. Until then, I've reverted your changes per WP:BRD. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: 1. The most obvious (which has now been changed) stated "In April 2016, Deadline.com reported that the original two Avatar sequels had been expanded to four. It was not clarified whether this would further delay Alita: Battle Angel.[26]" Link The Anime News Network specificily notes that "Deadline did not report if Cameron made any comments at CinemaCon about whether he delay and expansion of the Avatar films will mean further delays for the Alita: Battle Angel film.[[1]]) and in fact searching for the name "alita" or "Battle Angel" in the original article does not bring back anything except those from the comment section. (Link)Given that this happened after Robert Rodriguez was already in talks to direct. I do not see any value in including in the article itself.

2. The Wiki as it currently sits states "Cameron indicated that his plans to make the film directly after Avatar had been cancelled, and he would instead be working on a film titled The Dive, a biography of freedivers Francisco Ferreras and Audrey Mestre.[17]" The Anime News Network however, other than in the title does not mention the film at all except for a small line at the bottom which states " Cameron told MTV in June of 2006 that he was working on both Avatar and an adaptation of Yukito Kishiro's Battle Angel manga as potential future franchises, but has not elaborated on his Battle Angel plans since then." which does not mention a timeframe for either much less that one had been "cancelled" (Link)

In addition to this I would say that I am very concerned about how the article reads like a timeline currently more so than an actual encyclopedic article, I started working on getting it to be more Prose and less Proseline but I seemed to of been interupted. However I do want to get this matter settled and I imagine that that's a discussion for later. --Deathawk (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: does this work better, in your opinion? And by the way, fixing a ping won't work unless you also redo you signature to give it a timestamp to work with. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@G S Palmer:It works better, but it's still not great may I suggest "In May 2008, Cameron indicated he be working on a film titled The Dive, a biography of freedivers Francisco Ferreras and Audrey Mestre. Thus delaying the film again " The issue is that he did not specificly discuss delaying the movie, but rather plans for a new movie that just happened to delay the old one. (hopefully the ping works this time) --Deathawk (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alita: Battle Angel. 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/20161012022941/http://gov.texas.gov/film/hotline-crew/22597 to http://gov.texas.gov/film/hotline-crew/22597

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AlitaBattleAngel2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Alita Battle Angel Final Poster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AlitaBattleAngel poster temp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Critical response

I think the critical response is unfair. The so called consensus was written early on and many other reviews came after that. The critical response gives WP:UNDUE weight to rotten tomatoes and not enough other reviews are inlcuded. -- 109.79.74.194 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hannah? Bhuvan? Leon?....

The name of the characters and places seems to be related to another translation of the film while removing the original names of the American film, please try to hang into the official data for the American version of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travsam (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Salazar playing second character in the film

I just saw a snippet of an interview with Rosa Salazar in which she says she also appears in the film as an extra (in addition to her mocap work as Alita), calling this second appearance an "easter egg". The interview I saw was posted as part of an Instagram Story, and the original source isn't identified, so it's pointless to cite as it'll be gone in 24 hours, but if she repeated this in a "cite-able" source, it's worth noting in the cast list. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Odd phrase

"Frustrated, Alita mangles Ido's trolley" is accurate but may be confusing. The "trolley" referred to isn't a streetcar, but a rolling stainless steel tray holding surgical tools. Scanlyze (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

English is a language with many variations. In British English a cart such the one Ido uses for his surgical instruments would commonly be referred to as a trolley, and in British English the trolley/tram/streetcar usage would be more unusual. Obviously it is a good idea to avoid unnecessary Britishisms and a good idea to avoid unnecessary Americanisms too, (even if this is an American film) since an encyclopedia should keep it simple and take reasonably efforts to be widely understandable.

More to the point, WP:FILMPLOT requires a concise wording, and in most cases the solution to "odd phrases" more rephrasing and summarizing. -- 109.79.64.162 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Very human, dr. Ido said it himself. Why won’t you just tell the truth

You are not being honest about Alita’s brain Bec32173 (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced claim box office point from edit summaries

Transfering this here as per request from editor talkpage where it was being discussed. User wallyfromdilbert took issue with a note stating the film was Rodriguez's highest grossing one on the basis of it being unsourced, and took issue with a sourced reference to it being debated whether the film broke even or accrued losses during its theatrical run as not notable for the lead. My response was as follows:

'Hello, I've noticed your reverts on the Alita: Battle Angel article and came here to explain. You're asking me to take it to the article talkpage but the talkpage has been commented on one time in over 1 year, it's a dead end and you know it. Instead, I brought my points directly to the other editor that engaged with us in the edit summaries and was met with no dissent when illustrating my evidence, so I am doing likewise here as it is altogether much more productive. Your concern about the point being partially unsourced is in reference to I presume it being Rodriguez's highest grossing film. I didn't see it at first as it was a long-standing edit but upon looking into it I saw that you were right, hence I have gone and found the source to corroborate the information as seen here. The other part of the point, in regards to the box office note, is supported here. Thus, both parts to the point are reliably sourced and I've alleviated your concern about the partially unsourced info. Every film's box office results are discussed in their articles, especially when there's something notable to say about them like one potentially not reaching their break even point as is the case here. To ignore such points and just talk about the gross as if it was a purely positive outcome when there's more to it and another side to it that is otherwise ignored would be against project rules as per WP:UNDUE.'

I await user wallyfromdilbert's response here per, again, his request to transfer our discussion to this talkpage. Davefelmer (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Davefelmer, thanks for copying this over here! I am also going to ping Sjones23 and KyleJoan as they expressed an interest in this edit. Regarding the "highest grossing film", thank you for finding that source. I just added the content back into the article with the source. For the content from the Deadline article, that seems like one passing line in a section about Terminator: Dark Fate. While it is definitely reliably sourced and should be included in the article, I think its current inclusion in the "box office" section is the most appropriate, and I think it lends the one line in one source too much weight if it is included in the lead paragraph. The lead is generally supposed to be a summary of the most significant content from a page, and I do not think the current sourcing or content in the main article body supports including the additional content in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did KyleJoan express any interest in this edit? It appears that you looked through my post history, saw that I had a lengthy and tedious debate with him about similar content in the past, and invited him here unnecessarily so he could likely sway the discussion towards a specific outcome. This is against wiki policy as you cannot invite specific users out of the blue into debates like this, otherwise I could simply ping several that are pro such information and it would descend into a total free-for-all. Thus, his opinion, if any is offered, will hold no weight on this discussion.

To answer your general point, there's not much basis for saying it lends too much weight when it is merely a balance per WP:DUE with highlighting its overall gross and saying it's the director's highest grossing ever film. Not only is the film debatably not breaking even significant, it is crucial in context as leaving merely the positive angles of a film where there are clearly two sides is ironically lending too much weight in the other direction. On top of that, your argument of leaving the box office note in the box office section because it is not 'a summary of the most significant content from a page' would be hypocritical in light of you including it being Rodriguez's highest grossing movie in the lead, a point that is not significant content that is discussed literally anywhere else on the page. It too would thus, by your logic, belong in the BO section. But by my logic, you could not realistically discuss box office performance anywhere else bar the lead and the BO section. It could hardly go in the cast, plot or production sections! So my point is that not only is your notion being applied hypocritically, but it doesn't make much sense. Both pieces of info are lead worthy as it is a significant piece of information about the film's results that is well sourced and both points together provide a balance per WP:DUE. Davefelmer (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:ASPERSIONS that you have no evidence for. KyleJoan thanked me for the edit, and so I pinged them to this discussion. Thanks are publicly visible to all interested editors. I don't think Rodriguez's "highest grossing film" should be in the lead either, but I figured it was fine as a compromise. We can remove that from the lead as well. If you want information in the lead, then its significance should be shown by multiple reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Very well, apologies for the assertion as it just seemed a very strange coincidence. As for needing multiple reliable sources, the box office portion of the information in question (not the Rodriguez's highest grossing film part) can be seen here, here, here and here. Davefelmer (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I don't think those sources really support the language that you added, and in any case, I think it would need more context. Maybe you could add some additional content to the "box office" section based on those sources, and then it would be easier to tell how to summarize the information in the lead? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that the point of contention is "it is debated whether it broke even by the end of its theatrical run or accrued losses of up to $53 million." The Deadline.com article from November says this almost verbatim, writing "Some debate that the movie broke even, while other finance sources contend it lost $53M off a $404.8M global B.O. and $170M production price tag". Another writes, "Fox contends breakeven is between $350M-$400M, while other finance film sources with knowledge of the budget say it’s significantly more, like in the half billion-plus range". The Hollywood Reporter article corroborated these sentiments almost verbatim as it wrote, "Fox insiders say the movie needs to reach $350 million globally to break even; outside analysts put that number between $400 million and $500 million." And The Observer wrote, "Generally speaking, studios like to triple a film’s production budget at the box office. While $405 million is hardly a bomb, it is less than what Fox was hoping for and squarely in Hollywood’s no man’s land."

Thus, all sources quite clearly corroborate the information that it may have reached the point to break even while others contend it did not reach the amount to do so. You can't really find any more sources or any greater context towards that point. What you can contextualise though is the amounts given, where I accept the exact amount of losses is not consistently corroborated, only the general point. So, given the context, I think it's clear that the fairest and most accurate summary relative to the host of reliable sources available to us here would be to remove any particular amount of potential losses and simply say 'it is debated whether the film reached its break even point/broke even during its theatrical run or ultimately lost money' (maybe add 'when all costs were factored in' at the end). Or cut it simply to 'it is debated whether the film broke even during its theatrical run.' Davefelmer (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

My problem is more with the language you are proposing than somehow including the basic content you are proposing in the lead, although I don't think it's significance has been demonstrated in the article yet either. For one, "some debate" is not very encyclopedic language, while secondly, you are using very specific numbers from one source to make a claim about "other finance sources". Hence why I recommended expanding the box office section further with the information you are discussing. The WP:LEAD is supposed to "summarize the most important points" of an article, while the "debate" about whether the film made a profit (the exact amount which is never very reliable) is only two sentences in a fairly large article. The statement that this information is significant and needed is currently not supported by the main body article content and sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the phrase "it is debated" or "some debate" or "sources differ" (which is certainly encyclopedic sounding) used because that is exactly what the reliable sources available show. Encyclopedias are based on the sources available, the wording can be tailored and if sources all corroborate the exact same information which in this case is that some sources say it broke even while others say it did not, then that is what we say in however it is best to word it. Secondly, I have no clue what you are talking about in relation to the finance sources comment, that is a direct quote from the reliable source in question. It is literally in quotation marks, and the general point there doesnt matter because it merely states that some say it broke even while some say it lost money, which is what all the other sources say too so there is consistency!

Furthermore, the discussion about whether the film made a profit or not is only a few sentences deliberately. You cannot relate it to the size of the general article because that's literally the only section it could go in apart from the lead. And it is condensed like that to keep it specifically tight while addressing what all the sources have to say about it in a concise manner BECAUSE all the sources say the same thing, that it is debated whether it lost money or not. We dont need to get to the bottom of whether it did or didnt to note the point, the point is literally that! What you are asking is essentially for me to puff out the section by going over what every individual source says to make the section several more paragraphs only to get to the same point already written that they all say it is debated whether the film broke even or not. But then it would be a larger chunk of the article so you'd be pro its inclusion? I mean sure but it's all rather pointless.

At the end of the day, your assertion that "The statement that this information is significant and needed is currently not supported by the main body article content and sources" is wrong because it simply can't be all over the body anyways as it can ONLY go in the BO section or the lead, it is condensed because fortunately there is agreement between all the reliable sources on the matter to show a unified point so multiple sides dont have to be spelled out and it IS significant because box office results are always in film articles across the project, especially when there is something notable or interesting to say about them and supported by sources. Info like that is always in the lead. Davefelmer (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If sources don't say anything beyond that there is a relatively slight difference between sources about the amount the film made, then just put "grossed over $404 million worldwide on a budget between $350 to 500 million" rather than some "debated" language. That is also much more concise. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I just edited the line, have a look and let me know if we agree it is suitable. Davefelmer (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. I'm glad we were able to have a productive discussion and reach a fair conclusion. Cheers and all the best, Davefelmer (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Budget and break-even are two different things. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

:@Davefelmer:, I am also talking about the overall budget. Do you understand that there would be no debate about the film breaking even if it budget was 350 million? The theaters get about half, so the debate is about the film break-even point, not budget, overall or production. Can you give me a citation from the article where they claim 350 budget? Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you are supposed to start a new discussion on the talkpage. Not attach your comments onto the end of an old one that's already long been discussed. Secondly, I still don't understand what you're saying. The Hollywood Reporter article in the box office section (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/box-office-alita-battle-angel-scores-needed-win-62m-china-debut-1189685) for example clearly states, "Fox insiders say the movie needs to reach $350 million globally to break even; outside analysts put that number between $400 million and $500 million." This is corroborated by other sources. If you mean why is it written as the overall budget in the intro line instead of 'break even point', then I suggest you simply read the above discussion as that was the crux of the argument. In the end we decided that this was the best wording, and the break even point is literally the film's production and marketing budgets anyways.

I trust that is now clarified, however if you have any further queries, I suggest you make a seperate thread as is protocol. I will not be replying further in this discussion. Davefelmer (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some here do not understand that studios do not get the entire Box Office gross

@Davefelmer:: Break even point is not literally the film's production and marketing budgets. Break - even point is when the studio get production and marketing budgets back. Given that theaters take about half of gross (very rough rule of tumb [2]), break-even point is often at twice this full budget. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

OK so I think I finally get through this edit of yours on our ANI thread https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=959386404&oldid=959384854 that you merely want 'overall budget' changed to 'break even point'? So that instead the line would read, "The film grossed over $404 million worldwide against a break even point of $350-500 million"? Is that what you're going for? Davefelmer (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point. Also, why remove that it is Rodrigues highest-grossing film? It is not such a "positive" thing. Regardless, I made a version with break even debate. I hope it is acceptable for others. (Modelled on Birds of Prey (2020 film) lead.) Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look and I'm fine with it. Let's see if others comment and express different views, if not then it can be kept. Davefelmer (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Alita Army: a front for Comicsgate

It looks like even years after the movie came out, there is no mention that the fabled fanbase, also referred to as the "alita army", was astroturfed by the Comicsgate hate-movement, and part of a PR stunt similar to the ones pulled by Gamergate, back in it's day. The plan was to promote a different movie with a female lead that's in the theathers around March 8, in an attempt to overtake Captain Marvel at the box office (lol). The very same social media influencers who acted as the voice of the Alita Army, were running the harrassment campaign against Brie Larson and the review-bombing of the Captain Marvel film, while spreading conspiracy theories of Disney manipulating box office numbers by buying tickets to their own film, and CM was actually aired to empty theathers. This strikes me as odd, because I'm pretty sure quite a few atricles have been published that expose this. And James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez not commenting on this is straight up disturbing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I should not need to tell you this is WP:NOTAFORUM and you need to find reliable sources WP:RS. Things that happen on the internet might seem important but it is an echo chamber and unless reliable sources report on it then it is not important enough to include in this encyclopedia. -- 109.79.164.235 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A sequel for Alita: Battle Angel?

There have already been several photos of Alita Battle Angel 2 posted on several sites posted by those who would like this film to have a sequel. Anyway, i've seen Alita pledging revenge by pointing her plasma-charged sword toward Zalem, where Nova watches from above, smirking, this force me to say that there will be a sequel. R6chid0un35 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)