Jump to content

Talk:Ballerina (2016 film)

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

Soundtrack

[edit]

This article says that there is a song "Cut to the Feeling" by Carly Rae Jepsen. This article says there is a track by Sia Furler. User:Sgcosh or User:Somambulant, can you reconcile this somehow with the filmmusic listing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon UK and the Itunes UK store both currently have a soundtrack album for the movie listed for sale with a tracklist matching the filmmusic listing. Sgcosh (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian release date

[edit]

This wiki article currently has the film being released in Canada in December 2016, sourced from this article. I can however find no evidence that it's currently showing in Canadian cinemas, nor any reviews or box office results to suggest it has actually been released there. This article however states it will be released in the coming months in Quebec. MarsToutatis (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. I think maybe the French version was released in a limited release in Canada, and the English version will be released throughout the country around the same time as it is released in the US. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Box Office Mojo didn't show any Canadian revenue, I decided to remove the information about the supposed December release in Canada. Sounds good? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The film has since opened in Canada. Someone edited out this link I shared. It has a poster for the French Canadian release that states it was a Les Films Séville release that launched Feb. 24th. Anyway, during its opening weekend in French Canada, it grossed $581,031 CAD, placing it as the ninth highest grossing film and highest grossing Canadian film of the frame. As of today, the film's total is over $1.5 million CAD. Most Canadian box office receipts are included with the US estimates, but given the split release dates, distributors and titles, I don't think that'll be the case for this movie. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not a WP:Reliable source. Les Films is a subsidiary of Entertainment One, in any case. Is Playback Online a WP:Reliable source, and if so, are those statistics of encyclopedic importance? As for box office numbers, we will give the domestic gross, but we don't give a breakdown by country. Can any experienced members of the Film project comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Playback is a Canadian film industry magazine that's been running since 1986. It has its own article (as poorly sourced as it is) so I imagine it's reliable enough to count. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we do not separately report the higher box office amounts from France, UK, Australia, China, Italy, Russia and Spain, why pull out Canada? Also, I note that Box Office Mojo has not reported the Canadian box office results -- does that mean that they will combine them with the US results, as they usually do? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think France should be highlighted too. The film is a Canada-France co-production. Those are the film's "domestic" markets. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Let's see what happens with the US release and reconvene here a few weeks later to comb out a good section on the various releases with the perspective of 20-20 hindsight. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone's interested, it appears the film did just under $3.6 million in Canada before being pulled from theatres. Given how far apart the US and Canadian dates have become, I suspect BOM won't combine them. - Damnedfan1234 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of film

[edit]

The film is French-Canadian. "Canadian-French" means Québécois, which this film is not. — Film Fan 18:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the film is French *and* Canadian. I don't know that "Canadian-French" means Québécois. What do you base that on? So far, it seems to me that Nardog is correct. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian-French is a language aka Québécois, the same way Brazilian-Portuguese is a language. "Portuguese-Brazilian" means a combination of Portuguese and Brazilian and does not refer to the language - same job with French-Canadian. I mean, just Google the terms if in doubt! — Film Fan 16:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base that statement? I did a Google search, but it did not help. Do you have WP:Reliable sources that say "Canadian-French always (or even generally) means Quebecois"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If "Canadian-French" is so awkward or misleading we can alternatively write "internationally co-produced", as some users (namely, Lugnuts) seem to do. Nardog (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen numerous outlets by now describe this movie as "French Canadian", not even "French-Canadian", and I think there's a fair chance they looked at the lead of this article (formerly it said "French-Canadian" and then "Canadian-French") and thought it meant "Québécois", not "of Canada and France". I guess whether it's "French-Canadian" or "Canadian-French" both are inherently ambiguous and confusing (and the former would give undue weight too because RSes say Canada first) because they could be taken as the province or the language spoken there. Of course we could say "a co-production between Canada and France" in a separate sentence or something nevertheless. Nardog (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original language

[edit]

Variety can be often wrong (as seen in the release date article) so I'm not definitive and I'm open to possibilities, but we'd need a more reliable source to say that it's otherwise. IMDb used to list both English and French casts but now it's English only, so that's another indication (albeit a weak one) that English is the only original language.

I found on Twitter co-director Éric Summer say "Designed in French, script written in English",[1] but writer-producer Laurent Zeitoun has replied "No, French and English at the same time."[2] So apparently even the filmmakers can't decide what the original language of the film is! And obviously tweets can't be reliabe sources. Nardog (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The film was released throughout France in French on December 15, 2016. https://cinema.quad.fr/project/ballerina
It then opened in the UK in English on December 23, 2016: http://www.firstshowing.net/2016/uk-trailer-for-french-animated-film-ballerina-featuring-elle-fanning/
I don't read French, but there is a lot on Google about the French version. The film's biggest market to date, by far, was France:
It also played in French Canada in French: http://fr.canoe.ca/divertissement/cinema/nouvelles/archives/2017/02/20170215-140752.html
Also, note that the Variety article that you are relying on is from 2013, more than 3 years before the release date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the French version was released first doesn't automatically make it the original language of the production. To state that it is a French-language film is to state that the French version was specifically developed and produced prior to or simultaneously with the English version by the original filmmakers, which we would need a reliable source for. The Little Prince is a very similar case. (I wonder which version the lip movements of the characters match. That alone wouldn't be enough to determine it is one way or the other though.) If you still disagree (or think we need further verification), I suggest you take this to WT:FILM. Nardog (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lip movement is French. Why are we on this "original language" research thing? The film was made in two languages, and the animation is clearly made for French language. Then each version was released in different countries. There are more films that have two "original languages". Hoverfish Talk 19:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, if we must state one original language, and since Unifrance in the technical specs states that: Production Language: English AND Original French-language productions: Yes [3], we can safely state it was originally French. Hoverfish Talk 20:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And since we are at it, the The Little Prince is also Original French-language productions: Yes [4] and it should be corrected there too. Hoverfish Talk 20:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In both films, the lip movement is English. — Film Fan 20:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I only believe my eyes and ears, I would need a citation to accept this. Hoverfish Talk 21:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See you own citation above. — Film Fan 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Hoverfish Talk 21:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says ENGLISH. — Film Fan 21:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It also clearly says Original French-language productions: Yes. Isn't this what we are looking for? Hoverfish Talk 21:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted and took away the citation? Well, that's the way!! Hoverfish Talk 21:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply reverted. "Production language : English. Production country : France" There you go. But other sources confirm this too. — Film Fan 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not obvious to me how to interpret http://en.unifrance.org/movie/39798/ballerina:

  • Production language : English
  • Original French-language productions : Yes

Does that mean the animation was done in English and then dubbed into French, or that a French-speaking company created an English-language film? I don't think either side of the debate has scored the winning goal yet. At this point I would just say that it was a French-Canadian co-production and the film was released in English and French language versions. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how I understand what Nardog offered above writer-producer Laurent Zeitoun has replied "No, French and English at the same time." If the writer-producer says this, he knows very well that both languages were done side by side. One thing I am not sure is if both versions have the same lip take. The French version is so perfectly lip-synced that no English wording could have the same effect. Hoverfish Talk 13:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is specifically about the English version, with a vague note that there was a French version too. Take a look at the French article. Both voice casts are presented and this should be the correct way here too. Hoverfish Talk 13:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two press kits for the film too, one for each language. It does appear to be the case that creating two language versions was part of the original creative process. This is not the same as a foreign distributor buying up the film and dubbing it for their territory. Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan, would you kindly make the appropriate changes in the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to, but only if Nardog and Hoverfish are on board with the suggestion so we have a clear consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stating it's a French-language production just because there's a French press kit would be definitely OR. We'd need a reliable source which explicitly states it's a French production in order to say it is. Nardog (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We would be stating it is a French-language production because a source explicitly states it is also a French-language production. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Production language : English ... Original French-language productions : Yes", whatever that means, is inherently an oxymoron and therefore useless as a source. Nardog (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, "Original French-language productions" seems to be in reference to les œuvre d'expression originale française (the French version of the page simply says "EOF"). A Google translation of the article reads: "In the French cultural policy, French-language works (EOF) are a type of cinematographic or audiovisual works in respect of which television stations have a number of obligations (broadcasting quotas, minimum expenditure in their favor) because they use the French language..."
Now if you search on UniFrance for unquestionably English-language French films like Lucy, Personal Shopper or Valerian, it says "Original French-language productions : No" (Suite Française has "Unknown"). So that seems to confirm it's also a French-language production. Nardog (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not so fast. Song of the Sea, another unquestionably English-language French co-production, has "Original French-language productions : Yes". So animated films might be exempt from the original language rule since they can be dubbed into French. Nardog (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinocchio, despite being in Italian, has "Yes" too. I don't think UniFrance is useful in determining what the original language of an animated film is. Nardog (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinocchio is a co-production between four countries, one of them being France, so it seems highly plausible that a French-language version was also produced. Obviously the two language fields are not "oxymorons"—as is being argued here—if the original script was in English and a French version was simultaneously produced along with the English version during production (which incidentally is an interpretation vindicated by what the director says on Twitter). There is obviously a reason why they have two separate language categories and it seems to me that you are the one applying original research here because you are refuting a reliable source which explicitly labels this film an "original French language production". Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you wouldn't go and edit Pinocchio (2002 film) or Song of the Sea (2014 film) to say it's a French-language film simply because of the UniFrance site, would you? The "Original French-language productions" field is all about whether the film qualifies in the quota of the films TV stations are obliged to air under the relevant law in France, so it can't be definitive in what the original language in the common sense is. If the "Production language" field alone had both English and French, that's when it's useful as a source. Nardog (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this citation is taken to mean something other than that an original French language version was produced along with the English one, we will have to find a clearer citation. I mean isn't this what the writer-producer said in the tweet anyway? It strikes me as odd that you offered the tweet and then said apparently even the filmmakers can't decide what the original language of the film is!, so instead "we" decide this here by stating only the English language. Case solved? Not really. What I am trying to pass here, is that it should not be an EITHER "original English" OR "original French" language choice. It is no more an "original French language" film that it is an "original English language" film, because both language-versions were produced in parallel. And this is so for several other films, even non-animated films where actors actually spoke two different languages for several scenes and two language-versions were produced at once. The only problem is that we can't find easily this fact stated in citations online. What we can and do find easily online are simple classifications made for various commercial reasons. Hoverfish Talk 18:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For other examples, take a look here and here. We also have an article that is very very incomplete and poor in citations here: Multiple-language version. Hoverfish Talk 18:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was "an either-or thing". I said, To state that it is a French-language film is to state that the French version was specifically developed and produced prior to or simultaneously with the English version by the original filmmakers, which we would need a reliable source for. And I'm saying the UniFrance link is ineffectual as such a source. All it says is it's a film whose production language is English and which qualifies as EOF, the kind of film French TV stations are obliged to air. Nardog (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the œuvre d'expression originale française, I see that it affirms that films marked as EOF have indeed French as original language, and it is not just a tag they place on any film just to have it aired in TV under certain obligations. It is a linguistic policy, but this talks about the original language of a film as well, unless we suggest they may place false tags on films. By the way, in your translation above you seem to avoid the word original "Original French-language works (EOF) are a type of... (etc)". Now why should they say "original"? Hoverfish Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't avoid it, that's just what Google Translate yielded. Nardog (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the French language sources here state that the French version was specifically developed and produced prior to or simultaneously with the English version? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Producer Laurent Zeitoun called me and showed me ten minutes of the cartoon," says Camille Cottin. I was struck by the beauty of the pictures. The actress had only seen the movie in its English version (where little Felicie is doubled by Elle Fanning, the heroine of "Super 8" and "Malefic") before disembarking for the three days of recording.[5]
There you go. So by the original filmmakers? Yes. Prior or simultaneous? No. Nardog (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this was during production, before the film was released. Here it says: Elle Fanning, etc gave their voices for the English version of the film, so the French version was interpreted by Camille Cottin, etc. There were two versions before the film was released and the French version was released first. There you go. Hoverfish Talk 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hoverfish: simultanious: Yes, since it was *originally released* in both languages. Indeed, the French release was first. Which voice talent was in the recording studio first is just one part of production. I still don't understand why we can't say that the film "is a 2016 French and English-language Canadian-French" film? Clearly it was released in December 2016 in both English and French (there are references for each), and clearly the producers are Canadian and French. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lips move to the English language, so the French version is technically a dub. It's an English-language film. — Film Fan 19:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is from February. The film was released in France in December before anywhere else, which we always knew. So your link reveals nothing new.
If we applied what Hoverfish and Ssilvers are arguing, that would affect The Little Prince too (both English and French version premiered at Cannes at the same time, though the former was made first). I think there's a bigger issue here than what is specific to this film, i.e. what constitutes the original language of a film? MOS:FILM currently doesn't define it, so I bet this is something better discussed over at WT:FILM rather than here. Nardog (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have very limited time to participate while on vacation, but we have to work on this at WP:FILMS first, and given all the information we've come across while trying to resolve this one, we'd also have to decide on whether all films should be stated as having one original language only, or whether another statement is more correct for films that had more language versions made during production. Hoverfish Talk 00:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly what we've been debating about. There are films whose multiple language versions unambiguously exist, such as Kon-Tiki and In the Land of Blood and Honey. Ballerina and The Little Prince are not such films. Rather, the question is whether or not a language version of a film which was not produced during the original filmmaking process but was nonetheless made by the original filmmakers and released prior to or simultaneously with the original version should qualify as one of the original languages of the said film. Nardog (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "original filmmaking process" vs. an implied later "non-original process" during the production of a film a division that the filmmakers of Ballerina and The Little Prince define (or that filmmakers generally define), or one that we define here? I think of "producion" as the full process it takes for a film or several versions of a film to reach its first screening. I have not made such a division in my arguments till now and I doubt we should be making one. If however such a definition is known to exist during film production, you are right. The only difference I see till now between these two animations and Kon-Tiki is the ambiguitiy of multiple language production due to lack of sourcing here. Hoverfish Talk 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, when the "production" of a film ends is often hard to define with a reliable source (which is why we define a film's year as the year of its first public screening), so we might as well consider anything before the first public release to be part of it. Then the question would be something like whether we should count a secondary language version produced prior to the release as one of the original languages or not.
But at that point, the French versions of Ballerina and The Little Prince can be considered just "dubs", because Indian and Chinese movies often have multiple language versions (dubs) released simultaneously, sometimes with the actors dubbing themselves, but they are not considered original languages on Wikipedia (or are they?). Nardog (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original language of the film is the language the film was originally produced in, regardless of release dates. — Film Fan 10:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Film Fan, quite so, no objection. @Nardog, now we are getting closer to the issue we should bring up. And I am curious, because I see that in Baahubali 2: The Conclusion we state: It was originally made in Telugu and Tamil and dubbed into Hindi, Malayalam, German, French, Japanese and English. So we recognize a line somewhere between original languages and dubs, but not sure where. I would start the discussion inF WPfilm right off, but I am on vacation, and soon I will be also off internet for a weeks or so, and I can only participate later on. Hoverfish Talk 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This link is interesting but it only talks of dubs, no details about the simultaneous one [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoverfish (talk • contribs) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second tweet could be taken out of context and could be interpreted as meaning "we produced the original and the dub at the same time". This isn't a contradiction to the first tweet especially when you have the first tweet specifically saying that it was "Designed in French, script written in English". So the tweets could actually support each another, depending on how you interpret the second one. When comparing the lip movements on the French trailers of the source provided by Hoverfish here to the English trailer of the source provided by Ssilvers here, I find that it is very clear they match up with the English perfectly in sync while the French is off a bit if you pay attention closely. So, I have to agree with Film Fan that the lip movements are for sure in English. Also, I think that the source provided by Hoverfish is not conclusive or definitive because of the nature surrounding the ambiguity of interpreting it. However, if you combine the other sources with Hoverfish's source, then I think you have enough to justify at least a mention of the French language in the article. I think it was French dubbed simultaneously with original English. I also agree with Nardog and Hoverfish that the discussion should continue about what should be counted as an original language and where to draw that line? But, like I said, there is enough here to warrant a mention of the French language in the article. A "French-English speaking people" (Canadians) created the film. Give them a little credit for heavens sake! Huggums537 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a mention of the French version under § Voice cast. Nardog (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not a mention that satisfies WP:PROPORTION. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I failed to notice the mention of the French language in the "Voice cast" section, and I even briefly skimmed the article looking for such a mention. So, this only serves to prove that Ssilvers has a valid point about the existing mention not being significantly proportional enough to be noticed by the casual observer. To be more specific, I think the French language deserves a mention in the lead and in the infobox. If it's good enough for "Voice cast", then why not also "infobox" and "lead", in order to be more proportionate to the sources that are being attributed to it? Just to be clear though, I whole heartedly believe this is a French dub that was produced simultaneously with the original English language. However, I support allowing the addition of the French language in the aforementioned places in spite of this because the sources provided seem to indicate that it was the intent of the creators to simultaneously produce both an English/French version albeit one of them being a dub. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomatometer

[edit]

I have to say this article is the best illustration of the arbitrary nature of Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer that I have ever seen. Both versions have converged to a similar rating (5.0/5.7 out of 10) but the difference in approval ratings is startling: just under three quarters of international critics recommend it compared to just over a third of US critics, even though the ratings are separated by only a fraction of a point. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how much difference there is between the two versions aside from the voice cast. I found that a publicist told a critic who gave the original a negative review that there are "significant differences". But according to the press notes the US version has the same running time of 89 minutes and it lists no additional editor or anything, so it sounds like a mere desperate attempt to cover up the negative publicity the film has received in the US. Nardog (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the reviews are divided by language versions, but by critics. I seriously doubt the UK got the French version when there is an English version available. Indeed, the Mike Cahill review for The Guardian (a British newspaper) comments on Elle Fanning in his review (which has been placed under Ballerina rather than Leap). In fact, if you compare both the reviews for Ballerina and Leap only US critics are counted for Leap while all international critics (including UK, Australia and Canada) are logged under Ballerina. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "the original" I mean the original English version (starring DeHaan instead of Wolff), but the distinction might be based upon critics' nationalities like you say, who knows (but given I haven't seen any other movie split on RT like this one, I'm finding your theory hard to believe; on the contrary, they've recently been including reviews written in Spanish – example). (A Variety review for the original version by Guy Lodge is counted twice in both pages, which I find a bit troublesome.) Nardog (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Lodge works for The Guardian mostly so perhaps Variety just leased his review? I don't know what the situation is there, but he is definitely a UK based critic. Are there any foreign (i.e. non-American critics) listed under the Leap entry? I have never seen two entries for the same film on Rotten TOmatoes before so I am only surmising by what I see with my own eyes. Whatever the criteria is I don't think it is determined by the language of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point again – I don't think it's determined by the language, but by the release of the film. But your guess is as good as mine. Nardog (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't get the point if you don't actually make one! In your two previous comments you referred to "versions" not "releases". And if you think it is determined by "release"—the U.S. release and releases in other countries I presume—then I don't see how that point is any different to the one I am making. As I have pointed out all the critics listed under Leap seem to be American (obviously reviewing for the US release) while all the critics listed under Ballerina are foreign (obviously reviewing the respective releases in their own countries). But ultimately it boils down not to different versions but rather US critics under one entry and non-American critics under the other. I don't see any counter-examples besides Lodge (who is a British critic writing for an American publication). Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in your assumption. Nardog (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes occasionally splits films with different titles by mistake. They always fix it. I'll alert them about a need for a merge. — Film Fan 10:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Film Fan; it is certainly causing a lot of confusion here and also giving an artificial representation of the reception. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is true to some extent but the two titles have existed so long at this point that I suspect it's not a clerical error but they're split at the request of The Weinstein Company, because they seem to be so proud of the fact that they've created their own version (which, if true, would be a total mistake for them because not doing so would have prevented the RT score from being so low). Nardog (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are there two English language versions then? The original version and the Weinstein version? If this is the case this would probably explain why there are two entries on Rotten Tomatoes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been saying! That's why I wrote I wonder how much difference there is... for starters. I appreciate your honesty though, suppose we're finally on the same page. Nardog (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be sorted. Rotten Tomatoes does not create separate entries for different versions of films, unless the cuts are significantly different (Payback, Apocalypse Now, etc.) so the two will be merged. — Film Fan 13:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Film Fan that it will get sorted on RT soon enough because Nardog was probably right about the "update" from the publicist to the film critic being a desperate attempt to cover up the mediocre ratings. The film critic still has to check on that and get back to us before anything can be verified. That "update" at the end of the review was just a preliminary speculation until the critic reports back with actual findings. Not to mention that both versions/releases appear to have the same running times. So, to come full circle, I also wonder what these alleged "significant differences" would be outside of the voice casting. Huggums537 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RT didn't separate 3 Generations, another Weinstein release starring Elle Fanning that was re-edited after its premiere, so its RT entry includes reviews for both the theatrically released version and About Ray, the first publicly screened version premiered at TIFF. So that's another indication of how odd this is. Nardog (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Why is it U.S. specific? The reviews and box office projections are exclusively for that version. The original version sits at a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and the film has already grossed $60 million WW. The section as it stands doesn't even represent Canadian reception, since it launched here months ago. -Damnedfan1234 (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception on Rotten Tomatoes is split between international critics and US/Canadian critics so it covers both versions. The box office section needs to be extended to cover the worldwide gross but as far as I am aware Canadian box-office isn't documented on its own and is included in the US figures. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as far as Box Office Mojo and The Numbers are concerned, revenues made in Canada prior to the US will not be counted (i.e. probably all of it in this case because there's a months gap), with a very few exceptions: [7][8]. So there's tiny chance we will ever get a proper worldwide gross figure. This may be another topic worth a discussion at WT:FILM. Nardog (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian gross up to this point will most likely just be added to the domestic opening weekend; this is usually what happens when films open in Canada before the US. BTW you are confusing gross and admissions in regards to the French box office: Allocine counts admissions while both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers records the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? I mean, is there any source you can direct us to to confirm that? (You're right about the last point, thanks for correcting.) Nardog (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a source for that, but FWIW Box Office Mojo clarify that figures include both the US and Canada here unless otherwise noted. This is borne out by your Starbuck example, which does have a separate Canada entry and a "U.S. only" note next to the figure right at the top. Hopefully Box Office Mojo will clarify the figure when they publish the full weekend figures. Betty Logan (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Canadian gross up to this point will most likely just be added to the domestic opening weekend" Don't you think that's going to be a little odd for them to do? BOM would be reporting a $8-9M OW gross while everyone else is saying half. Then you'd have the significantly larger second week drop. - Damnedfan1234 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely be disproportionate. It would mean adding in Canada's whole gross into the domestic opening figures and I don't know if they have ever done it to that extent before. So far they don't seem to have done that though, so we will have to just keep an eye on it. There are only three ways to handle it: bung it into the domestic opening weekend, keep the figures separate, or not include Canada at all. Since we know how much it grosed in Canada (approximately $3 million) it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out which approach they take and word it accordingly. Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

[edit]

There have been some recent edits to the box office data by TropicAces that I disagree with:

  1. There is no point adding such a precise figure to the infobox. As explained in the hidden note Box Office Mojo's "domestic" figure does not include Canada's gross as yet, which is roughly US$3 million give or take. Therefore the gross is actually closer to $63 million than it is to $59.8 million. Adding $59.8 million when we can demonstrably show through other sources that the box office is short by $3 million is misleading.
  2. Secondly I don't understand the preoccupation with giving primacy to the US box office in the box office section. Box Office Mojo splits the "domestic" box office from the "foreign" gross because it is an American website with an American perspective. Wikipedia on the other hand adopts a WP:WORLDVIEW. There is no reason to give primacy to US figures on a French-Canadian film, unless the gross in the US is especially noteworthy i.e. it becomes its highest-grossing territory. Please remember this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Around 60% of the traffic to this Wikipedia actually comes from outside the United States so we should not be promoting a nationalistic agenda. While I don't object covering the US box-office the extent of the coverage and the placement of the information should reflect its relevance to the article.

If TropicAces or anyone else disagrees with either of the two points above or intends to revert again please put forward your arguments here. Please remember that per WP:BRD that reverting a fellow editor must be accompanied by discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Betty Logan. We should write with a global point of view. Too much emphasis is being given to the belated US release. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog removed the local currencies from the box office section under the assumption that Box Office Mojo logs the grosses in dollars and then converts them to the local currency. I don't know exactly what this assumption is based on but it does not seem to be borne out by the evidence. For example in the case of the Japanese gross for Spirited Away you can see that the dollar gross hit $230 million before dropping to $228 million. The only explanation for this is that Box Office Mojo logged the gross in local currency and converted to US dollars; if the dollar strengthened this would result in a drop in the dollar gross. If Box Office Mojo was logging the grosses in dollars then the drop in the total would not have occurred and would have actually increased. Now, I don't know if this is the case for every country or for for every film, but unless can we can categorically state that the local currency values are indeed the result of some dodgy conversion we shouldn't make assumptions. The best approach would be to use a native source if they can be found. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you're right, the gross-to-date numbers on Mojo do indeed seem to be based on local currencies, but there's a caveat. Japanese yen has no subunit and ticket prices are usually in multiples of 100 yen, so you never see non-round numbers in Japanese box office results. For instance, Despicable Me 3 grossed ¥4,284,028,400 by August 13. Yet Mojo has ¥4,274,463,574 (converted from $38,746,044 = 1 ÷ 110.32 × 4,284,028,400). So while the numbers are accumulated in local currencies, the numbers shown in local currencies are not the original numbers but converted twice, from the local currency to USD then to that currency again. Nardog (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will be a problem with euros and Canadian dollars, since they are virtually equivalent, and even if there is some slight discrepancy then some judicious rounding will iron it out. I think it is useful to have the native grosses in there somewhere though. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Box Office Mojo has come to a decision on how to handle the unusual release pattern: it has split the domestic summary into two releases, which seems a very sensible solution. There is now a Canadian entry which details the Canadian release and an entry for "Leap", which just to clear up is the US box office. The two are added together for a "lifetime gross". Lifetime grosses are not uncommon and are often employed on re-releases. Unfortunately TropicAces is continuing to combine the two grosses into the standard "domstic" gross which is seen on other film articles, but I don't think that is particularly helpful in this case. Box Office Mojo usually combines the figures because most US & Canadian releases are simultaneous, and when they are not the release gap is not more than week or two and they are essentially treated as the same release, but in this case Canada and the US have distinct release patterns and Box Office Mojo is tracking them separately. On that note I think we should take advantage of the extra information and retain the distinction between the Canadian and US releases. All the different grosses are combined into the worldwide total anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the plot

[edit]

Various clues are given about the date in the movie, but they are inconsistent. For example,the Eiffel Tower did not begin construction until 1887. The Statue of Liberty was built throughout the 1880s. Other clues in the animation would indicate various dates from around 1880. So, the more general date is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although Victor does exclaim "I give you the Eiffel Tower", we can't say for sure that what he termed the Eiffel Tower was the actual Eiffel tower we know of. The problem with construction which began January 1887 is:
Perhaps what we see was meant to be a template? Or perhaps having the fictional Victor around was meant to have accelerated construction? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several anachronisms in the film. Construction of the second stage of the Eiffel Tower (as portrayed in the movie) took place between March and August 1888 — see the construction photos — however the Statue of Liberty had already been shipped to New York by that date, arriving in June 1885. The green patina did not cover the statue until the early 1900s; during construction it would have been copper coloured.

Luteau's motorcycle is a good 20 years before its time: the first production motorcycle was the 1894 Hildebrand & Wolfmüller, and motorcycles like the one in the film didn't arrive until at least the 1910s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E66:2F00:70AC:1FFB:1409:3041 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutcracker was first performed in 1892. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E66:2F00:70AC:1FFB:1409:3041 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a cartoon. Most of it is fiction. The statue is the wrong color or the date of this or the other event is wrong? Sure. Notice that the people in the film, WHO NEVER EXISTED, have gigantic eyes, abnormally large heads and fly over Paris.
Unless the film directly states a date, we should no state a date. Unless independent reliable sources discuss historical inaccuracies in this cartoon, we have nothing to include and this nothing to discuss. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of actual historical figures

[edit]

@Ssilvers: in special:diff/820544175:

  • Mérante being Louis Mérante: this is indicated within the film's dialogue, films can be cited as primary sources to expand upon incomplete information from secondary sources. Please restore that.
It was already restored, and Iinked to his article. I do not believe that first name is ever spoken in the film, is it? If so, do you have an independent published source, like a review, that gives his full name? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elena Dunkleman as Rosita Mauri (top dancer at the opera) and Joe Sheridan as Auguste Emmanuel Vaucorbeil (director of the opera) are both noteworthy roles. Auguste is the reason Camille and Felicie are admitted to the school via his relationship with Regine, while Rosita is the ballerina who Felicie first sees (and is inspired to do the grand jete by) and ends up co-starring with in the Nutcracker. They are noteworthy both in the roles in the film, as well as being notable people in their own right (like Louis, they have their own Wikipedia articles). Neither are "bit characters".
  • Rudolph is a recurring romantic interest in the film competing with Victor, he is not a bit character either.

What would your requirements be for restoring the 3 roles you removed and acknowledging the full name of Merante? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show articles in independent, published, respected sources, like newspapers or major magazines, that state that the character is important to the story of the film. For a work of fiction, the best sources are usually film reviews by respected critics in news publications (not blogs, social media or personal web reviews). -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CASTLIST

[edit]

@Tajotep: seems to regard keeping to the Manual of Style guidelines as "foolish" and claims that they are different from what he is used to on Spanish Wikipedia. That may or may not be true, but here on the English Wiki they are in place to keep an encyclopedic tone and avoid articles descending into WP:FANCRUFT and WP:Original Research, of which there has already been a complaint here. Another aim is to avoid redundancy, such as that in the cast list, where descriptions of characters often repeat word for word what appears in the description of the plot. There really is no need for that when the Manual of Style recommends that such information is better included under Plot. Editors should be prepared to respect guidelines, not disrupt Wikipedia with the excuse of "returning to a version more stable". Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call "foolishness" the Manual of Style, I called "foolishness" the discussion (we were discussing the addition of only one character, is this really important to discuss?). This edition you mentioned I did it to return to the last edition of Ssilvers (06:32, 15 January 2018‎ Ssilvers (talk | contribs)), which it has no error. In the Spanish Wikipedia there is something called "versión estable", so I translated it literally ("stable version"). Tajotep (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We were not "discussing the addition of only one character". My edit summary reads "purged of information already in plot summary, per WP:CASTLIST" and my discussion above is clearly about that too. Is your comprehension of English really so poor? In that case referring you to style guidelines is obviously of little use! Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tajotep is entitled to revert a bold edit, but he must now provide justification for including redundant WP:INUNIVERSE detail in the cast list. The cast list should ideally provide real-world commentary about the casting process rather than relay further plot details. Sometimes, including character exposition is useful if adding it to the plot would detract from a concise summary, but I see no need to simply repeat details from a section directly above. Betty Logan (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic language

[edit]

I would be happy to discuss recent edits with you on the Talk page, but you must use the WP:BRD procedure. Do not simply revert to your preferred version. This language has been stable in the article, and you need a WP:CONSENSUS to change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If edits conflict with style guidelines, the length of time they have remained unchallenged has little relevance. Colloquialities like "he has a soft spot for Odette" and "go out on a date" are in conflict with WP:COLLOQUIAL and have no place in an encyclopedia, not simply for stylistic reasons but because they exclude many readers without a command of colloquial English. By allowing my other deletions (of "while also getting back at Camille" and "Victor, who has a crush on Félicie"), you appear to agree, so perhaps we have no quarrel there. My other cause for concern was the degree of personal interpretation in "beautiful Paris" (another deletion allowed to stand) and "Mérante ... has a soft spot for Odette" (where my deletion was reverted). Does Mérante actually say as much? If not, then more neutral language should be used to cover his leniency. I'd invoke WP:POV in these cases. I hardly see why it is necessary to establish consensus before deleting careless editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"although Félicie's infraction was serious, Mérante knows that she is Odette's protege, and he has a soft spot for Odette." We are explaining Mérante's action. The first clause is important because the reader cannot see the emotions that Mérante and the school officials display. We must also indicate that Mérante knows that Félicie is Odette's protege, and we must somehow note the allusions in the movie to a history between Mérante and Odette that lead him to make this surprising decision; he clearly expresses affection for Odette. If you have a better way to express it, I am all ears, but I strongly disagree with deleting the gist of it. We could change "soft spot" to "an affection". As for "beautiful" Paris, we need to express, early on, that this is the Paris of their dreams, not just another grimy capital city. I think the adjective gives some flavor to an otherwise sterile plot description. "Go out on a date" is hardly a colloquialism (which you are, in any case, over-selling), and in any case, it is very well understood by English speakers and far clearer than the state in which you had left the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ballerina_(2016_film)&oldid=1236920534"