Talk:Child's Play (2019 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit warring

There is an edit war over proper grammar. I hope this can be resolved between myself and the other party.(Sellpink (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Don’t use the term edit war so flippantly. I reverted you only once. This summary of yours is so needless, to assume I’d be angry over something so minuscule is ridiculous. Anyway, it’s not an incorrect phrase, and it is employed throughout this encyclopedia. See The Color Purple, RoboCop, Life of Pi. Rusted AutoParts 04:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the correct term. If it's being used incorrectly on other pages, that's not a justification. You are intentionally using the improper term because you are upset at being corrected. (Sellpink (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

That is egregious bad faith. I showed you examples of the articles that use the exact same phrasing (which of course you went to those articles to change the phrasing there too). It’s all the more absurd when the literal definition of title is “a NAME for the work which is usually chosen by the author”, as well as having no consensus to make these kind of changes in the first place. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would use 'name'. I see no film-specific reason to favour title, and the common phrase for general use would certainly be 'of the same name'. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I, too, believe that "name" is the best word in this context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The specific reason would be that this is the appropriate term and proper English. You "believe" it's the best word? Based on what exactly? Can you cite one example where a printed English language encyclopedia uses the term "name" rather than "title" when describing a book or film? Is the word 'title; in any way inaccurate. It's poor grammar to use the term "name" instead of "title" here. The vapid attempt to justify this by citing other articles that use the term incorrectly is absurd. Yes, the definition of the term title obviously has to incorporate the word 'name' in order to define the subject. what is the exact rationale here not to use the term title? In most cases, an edit like this would usually go without comment. If the terms are both acceptable, then I would as to why a user would feel the need to rush back and revert it back to 'name' if it's appropriate either way. It just seemed to me, and perhaps I am misunderstanding this, that this seems to be a bit of a power struggle for no real reason. I say 'title.' (Sellpink (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

And just what valid objection would anyone have to describing a book or film as having a title? Is that NOT The proper term? Please explain that. I think we should take this a bit further. Thank you (Sellpink (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

User:Rusted AutoParts claims that he didn't respond in anger to the word being replaced, but he immediately rushed back to not only revert it but felt a need to address me publicly in the comment section when he could have addressed it on my talk page. His actions don't really align with his claims that this was not personal. Since when did anyone need "consensus" to change one word and replace with a more specific and accurate term? That's absurd. I simply can't assume good faith such a person. My feeling is that this has not yet been addressed properly. Having editors opine that they "believe" or "feel" that one word is correct is no different that saying they have a "hunch" it's correct. (Sellpink (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

However you took my edit summary is how you took it. Regardless I know for a fact I was not making a personal dig at you nor was I angry about your edit. That’s bad faith on you to assume that, as well as dashing to report me after I reverted you the once, and reporting me again for supposed insulting and combative conduct. As stated by Andy below, “of the same name” is the common and proper wording in this scenario. By itself you are correct, a film/book/song has a title. But it’s not correct to utilize the wording in that phrase. Rusted AutoParts 15:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not using 'title' vs. 'name' though, you're using 'of the same title' _{(ghits: 2,930,000,000)} rather than 'of the same name' _{(ghits: 5,030,000,000)}. Now as a single word, you'd have a point. As a phrase though, the alliterative 'same name' is much more common in general use than 'same title'. Nor is the choice of noun an issue of grammar: linguistically they both carry out the same function in the same position within a sentence. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Name" is fine, folks. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As is 'title.' (2601:981:C080:4F90:899F:1D45:DD80:68F8 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Canceled remake of Mancini

Is is okay to mention it on this article? It seems like it belongs to Child's Play (franchise) rather than here. Sebastian James (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Please do not change the genre in the lead to another one based on personal interpretations. We require sources for genre per WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production company

I have added a source for the production company. Please do not change it without a source or dicussion. It has been removed without reason seemingly the past few edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source was never removed from the article, but only from the infobox. Variety says that Bron Creative co-financed with MGM, and the Hollywood Reporter lists Orion Pictures, Bron Creative, KatzSmith Productions, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Oddfellows Entertainment, TF1 Studio as the production companies. Bron Creative is a Canadian company. What do you think? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Variety gives more specific details than Hollywood Reporter do. I tend to source things that have more specific details instead of just listing every company that lists. So as Variety goes into more specifics in their review, I would lean towards that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit concerned of Orion being listed as a production company. Its on the poster and listed by the sources you gave, but specifically your other sources state that KatzSmith is a sub-company of the others. I'm a little confused and its not 100% clear. Sometimes sources state the production countries of the film, but I would like to find some that would be confident in that. Preferably not a database site like AllMovie or Lumiere, but a document posted elsewhere. I am thinking about a document like this one that Dredd has that specifically states the details. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Pictures, MGM, and Bron Creative are easily verifiable as production companies, and so I've added them with additional citations. I've added Canada to the countries, since Bron Creative is a Canadian production company. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to reach a conclusion before we move forward information. The items that have been added contradict each other (specifically the Variety sources I was using before). Also, we do not have a source specifically saying it's a Canadian co-production. Can we get anything that confirms this after the films release? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You found a source with incomplete information. Plenty of sources provide more complete production details. There is no contradiction involved. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of that as we only have two sources stating whats a production company for a film, and no source post-the films released saying it's a Canadian production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources state that its an American production? Also, the source you are relying on (from Variety) was also published prior to the film's release. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Variety source is a published review, so it's after a release. I'm not sure what source would post it. We just have to still look. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Child's Play (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Child's Play (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Child's Play (2019) as a "slasher film"

The article currently refers to the film as a slasher film when it arguably isn't. The definition of a slasher film antagonist is "a human (or at least formerly human) killer whose actions are objectively 'evil.'" Nor does it revolve around the retribution for "a past wrongful action causes severe trauma" that defines slasher films. The 2019 Chucky is an AI-gone-awry robotic antagonist without a conscious or any motive. In that respect, it isn't any more of a slasher film than The Terminator, and it seems to get lumped in solely because the rest of the films in the series were slashers. It would be more accurately described as a sci-fi horror film. In fact, not one of the three sources cited for referring to the film as a slasher actually flat out refer to it as such, they refer to the 1988 original as a slasher or use more restrained language for this film like saying it is "indebted to", "ends like" or is a "retread" of a slasher. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with it being left as slasher. All Movie list it as horror and slasher sub-genre.

"Child's Play 2019 horror" ghits: 70,500,000 and "Child's Play 2019 slasher" ghits: 1,210,000 Mike Allen 23:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many ghits mirror this site, and many reviews that use the term are actually referring to the 1988 original. For example, Insider's review, which is cited as a source, only uses the term twice, both times referencing the original film: "update to the 1988 slasher", "Child's Play is a classic slasher film" --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]