Talk:Foodfight!

U.S. Release Date?

Who said that the U.S. Release date would be 4/11/08? Cite source please. Inkan1969 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As repeatedly added, do NOT add information on an alleged release date (or similar info) without citing a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, ANY claim this film will be released, with or without a release date must cite a reliable source. All current evidence suggests the film has been indefinitely shelved. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material removed again. See WP:BURDEN. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to the sources

I am scaling back this article to match the few available sources. I will continue to revert any and all unsourced changes. Should it become necessary, I will have the page protected to prevent all edits by any unregistered users. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shelved

Is it possible to mention why it was shelved? Quite a major point. Centrepull (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure -- if we WP:CITE a reliable source. - 16:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Release

Ok, is this every getting a release? Or is information just gonna sit around. Ive heard about this for like the last four years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.181.184 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If we had a reliable source saying what was going on, we could/should/would include that in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Continue to keep? Or not?

Considering there hasn't been almost any movement on discussing the importance of keeping/deleting this page, I thought I might establish it.

It has been nearly five years since this film was announced and (excluding a few plot/cast details and an informal trailer) there hasn't been no further major information on it since then. There hasn't been any release date announced, no distributor, marketing or even awareness. In basic terms, this article has turned stagnant, insignificant, and blatantly stolid. The discusion of whether to keep this article is up and anyone who wants to discuss it, please add your thoughts here. Thanks. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed out a whole bunch of unsourced crap from this article over the past couple of years, including several release dates (all of which have now passed) and a distributor or two. I kinda thought I had put it up for a prod at some point, but I can't find that by a quick once-over.

IMO, the sourcing was weak to begin with: primary sources, the "Digital Content Producer" article and, most importantly, the interview in Arizona Republic. I do agree the notability is marginal, but I see it as a very weak keep. That the film has not been released and, according to my crystal ball, probably won't be, is a moot point. While I can't support a prod deletion, you won't get a fight from me in a AfD (unless solid sources materialize). - SummerPhD (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spot on, spot on. I guess we should wait on what others will say until we can make a final verdict. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be beneficial to take the article to AfD so we can get a consensus on if the article should be deleted or not. —Mike Allen 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I think its pretty weak. My !vote would be "Meh." I won't personally send it to AfD. If it goes up, I'll most likely just follow the discussion. Unless there are strong points either way that I'm currently not seeing, I probably won't !vote at all. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lionsgate

Even though the film has not be distributed, Lionsgate is still credited as being the distributor (they even released a publicity still via their Lionsgate Publicity website). Perhaps they did pay for the distribution rights. Not sure why the film was not released and the article doesn't make it clear -- are there any information out there about it? —Mike Allen 01:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also to Summer, even though we don't use IMDb as a general source, the writing credits come from the WGA. See here. Also when you reverted my edits, you also removed other tweaks I did. I redone the cast section per the WP:MOSFILM. The other acting credits came from Allmovie (located in the external links), which is a reliable source for film information. I removed the starring roles in the infobox, since it's unclear who had starring roles. Thanks. —Mike Allen 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, given the tenuous nature of most of the info for this article (and the repeated drive-bys by apparently conflicted editor(s)), I'm trying to keep as much of this sourced as possible. In the even this goes to AfD, I want it to be clear what sourcing we do have. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For Sale

Look at this article from Cartoon Brew: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/for-sale-foodfight.html --Morbid Duck (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Coming to DVD in the UK

Apparently, an entity named Boulevard Entertainment is going to release FoodFight on DVD in the UK. Here it is on their official site. --Morbid Duck (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. It says "coming soon". (That is far from the first time we've seen that claim for this tripe.) When they give a date or actually release it, we'll have something to add. As it stands, we really have no way of knowing if that page was recently added to their site or has been sitting there, blaring "coming soon!" for a couple of years. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If the trailer on Boulevard's page is anything to go by, it appears the film has already been released in theaters (two months ago, in fact). There is also a general rating and reviews on IMDB to prove this. --Morbid Duck (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is really odd. For starters, let's dismiss anything we get directly from IMDb as it is not a reliable source for much of anything (though most editors -- including me -- will accept it for basic information on released films). For example, IMDb says the film was release in the U.S. in April 2009, while every reliable source we have after that date says that simply is not true.

That said, the source you are using is, in essence, already in the article. (It is cited by the source we used to give it a "2012 - Direct to DVD" release.)

Looking to the sources we usually cite, Rotten Tomatoes has no release date, no distributor, no box office, no professional reviews -- nothing usable. (Some user reviews, yes. Some of them make it clear they are rating the movie based on the trailer and/or the idea of a feature length ad.) Box Office Mojo has a 15 June UK release date with an opening weekend of $20k (also its total gross), but no distributor (except in Bulgaria and Russia...). Elsewhere, it gives Lionsgate as the distributor. In Russia, meanwhile, it has no release date, but a box office of $53k.

Going back to the site you provided, it gives Boulevard Entertainment (a DVD wholesale distributor) as the distributor, with a theatrical release date in July. Yikes. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The movie's out. Not only did I find it on Amazon.co.uk (but not the American Amazon.com), there's also a LiveStream channel dedicated to streaming the movie 24/7. --Morbid Duck (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

NYT article

An in-depth piece from the Times.[1] I don't have time to work through it right now. If anyone wants to, feel free. Otherwise, I'll get to it in a few days. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Budget

The reliable source cited in the article says the budget was $45 million. Changing this to $65 million while leaving the source, "Why "Foodfight!" Cost $45 Million And Was Still Unwatchable", in place is rather pointless. Changing this to $65 million and forging the name of the source to reflect the claim is absurd. Changing this to $65 million, removing the source and not including a new source is ... damn ... take the hint.

If you have a reliable source giving a budget other than $45 million, we should discuss which source to use. (With conflicting information from sources, we often include both, unless one source is clearly superior.) If you don't have a reliable source and do not have an objection to the current source, leave the cited figure alone. If you have received the truth by channeling the space gods or using your secret decoder ring to decrypt Mayan records we can talk about that as well, but probably shouldn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The CartoonBrew source for the $45 million number does not seem that reliable; "The NY Times descibes how businessman/producer Larry Kasanoff (pictured below) raised $45 million to make Foodfight!" - though the NYT article budget related words are "Mr. Kasanoff raised an initial $25 million for production costs in conjunction with a Korean investment consortium and expected the rest of the budget, which Threshold projected at $50 million". It's tricky to trust CartoonBrew that much when their apparent source does not contain their number.

I suggest that rather than using CartoonBrew's questionable $45m number, or IMDb's unsourced $65m, we instead say "$50m (estimated)", while citing the NYT piece. Thoughts? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If anything, I'd go with "projected", assuming the $50 million is the total. It's a bit unclear whether the $50 million is the projected total budget or the projected "rest of the budget". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bumping this. We seem to have a tug of war between $65m, which the Wikipedia-declares-unreliable IMDb seem to have plucked out of thin air, and $50m, which the less-than-reliable Cartoon Brew seem to have inexplicably found between the lines of the NYT piece. The only decent number we have for the budget is "$50m (projected)" from the NYT. Shall we change to that? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

IMDb now report "$45m (estimated)" --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unhappy viewer

An editor has repeatedly re-added various claims that are unsourced/trivial/incorrect.

First, we have an opinion, citing what seems to be their own posting at Rotten Tomatoes. We do not use individual user postings.

Next, we have a claim of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. There are no professional reviews on RT and the user score is 73%.

We have a claim of 1/10 on IMDb. We do not use site users' scores and the score at IMDb is 2.4/10.

I'm at 3 reverts. I'll leave this for someone else to revert or revert it tomorrow (assuming the user continues to ignore talk requests). Assuming the reverts continue, we can block him. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we describe the film as a critical faliure in the lead?

Due to its limited release, Foodfight! doesn't have the volume of critical reviews normally associated with a critical consensus, for instance Rotten Tomatoes' entry is basically blank. Currently cited in the article we have a New York Times article and the AV Club (both mainstream sources) and two popular YouTube reviewers (not mainstream, but the film's place in the "bad movies" internet subculture is notable). Additionally there exist at least five more published critical reviews from non-mainstream reviewers, though these haven't been quoted yet and probably shouldn't be. All agree that the film is terrible, and the film's poor quality is evidently one of its most significant features.
Can we agree a way to get some sort of critical appraisal into the lead? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are not enough reviews to determine a collective consensus, and we cannot do that anyway based solely on individual reviews. It is not always possible to reference such a reaction in aggregate. The best we can do is to just reference the authoritative reviews on hand (and to leave out the blog ones). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The two youtube ones aren't reliable sources and wouldn't have been included in the article at all had the New York Times not made passing references to Foodfight's harsh reception amongst internet critics. There just isn't enough criticsm from reliable sources to include something like that in the lede.LM2000 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nostalgia critic

I have reverted SummerPhD's removal of a sentence linking to Nostalgia Critic. I have done this for the following reasons:

• Nostalgia Critic is a notable entity, in that he is notable enough to have an article.
• If this article is not permitted a link to that article, there are few, if any, articles that could link to Nostalgia Critic and make that article not an orphan.
• The film has had little "mainstream" critical attention, so discussing 'lesser' critics is useful to addressing the film's critical reception
• The internet's reaction to the film is a significant part of the story of Foodfight, and this is best addressed in a citable way by referring to Nostalgia critic.

What are others' thoughts? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic (and the related pages) are routinely added to numerous film articles by drive-by IPs, and routinely removed by just about everyone else. (Immediately before note for your revert was a "thank you" for the removal from LM2000.) Nostalgia Critic is a comedian, not a professional film critic. The lack of professional reviews does not mean we drop our usual standards and start adding primary sources for mentions in standup routines, radio shows ("Crazzzy Bob and the Mornin' Crew at Smokin' 107 FM!" or some such probably mentioned it...), etc. Nostalgia Critic's (and related articles') near orphan status does not make material about the webshow less trivial here or elsewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic is a fictional character played by Doug Walker. He belongs in the commentary section of films about as much as Stephen Colbert (character)'s opinions belong on political articles. If a reliable secondary source were to mention his commentary I would be okay with mentioning it as it would make his satirical comments notable but I haven't seen anything like that. The New York Times mentioned "Internet purveyors of bad cinema" but never mentioned anybody by name, it would be WP:OR on our part to assume they meant JonTron and Nostalgia Critic.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just chipping in: while I certainly have led (and will continue) to lead my crusade for Internet original media (because seriously, guys, we're in the 21st century, traditional amateur/pro d...[that's a discussion for another day]) to get more recognition on Wikipedia, I will note that the essential problem lies at the fact that Doug's "reviews" as the Nostalgia Critic are written with very few exceptions to be as scathing as possible. Now, regular viewers will note that he occasionally includes actual criticism/commentary in there as semi-out-of-character summaries, but the focus is on being entertaining. The moment he chooses a film to make a review on, you know that most of his comments will be mocking and generally negative.190.109.207.3 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to campaign for that, by discussing the issue. Please do not crusade by adding material against the current WP:CONSENSUS. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I didn't choose the best words there. My campaigning is indeed primarily urging people to have better criteria when choosing the most appropriate sources in talk pages. I have tried a few times to talk people into not giving undue weight to more viewed pages written by people who clearly are not specialized enough (yes, subjective), but I desisted when I got against a revert wall. 190.109.207.3 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

" It has been regarded as one of the worst movies ever made"

This statement seems unsupported (essentially, the question is ). While the film is obviously terrible, it is not found in List of films considered the worst. This is probably because a) it is largely unknown, b) a lack of a theatrical release in the US means it probably doesn't qualify for many of the lists which are the sources of List of films considered the worst. Overall, it is not correct to have this statement if the film is not mentioned in the linked article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It actually is found in List of films considered the worst.LM2000 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aw man. I could have sworn it wasn't there when I did a Ctrl-F earlier. Lemme add that back in with a source. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh... looking at the sources cited in List_of_films_considered_the_worst#Foodfight!_(2012), I'm not sure there's anything there that's really proper reliable source material for "one of the worst ever", the Indiewire source [2] is pretty low-rent and uses the qualifier " one of the worst animated films ever made". All the other sources are already used in this article. I'm just gunna wash my hands of the whole thing. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bporter28 seems to have been pushing pretty strongly for this.[3] Prior to that, it was William09181's crusade[4] (William09181 was pretty much a SPA for the issue). It was added to the List of... by Edunk5.[5] - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think Foodfight! belongs on List_of_films_considered_the_worst. While the reviews are unanimous, they're not numerous enough. Notably it appears on Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst/Removed_films#F. Not keen to get into a fight on another page though. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• OK, after another addition of this here, I've bitten the bullet and posted to Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst#Foodfight!_(2012) that Foodfight! does not belong on that list. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• And again. Added to the lead by PatTheMoron: "Foodfight! received widely negative reviews from critics upon release, with criticism focusing on the poorly-rendered animation and use of innuendos inappropriate for a children's film; it is now frequently cited as one of the worst films ever made."

I've challenged this with a . It's not the "worst" bit I challenge but the "frequently". This film received very little critical attention on release and is *barely known* four years later. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, I see summary statements regarding critical reviews as a bad bit of synthesis. If we're looking at RT and Metacritic, we have no business summarizing their summaries. If we're looking at individual reviews, we are assuming that the reviews we've selected are representative of the all critics' reviews and then making up our own POV interpretations of what those selected critics said.

In the present case, the film received so little attention that summarizing the reviews is particularly problematic. When we have RT and/or Metacritic pages, tell us objectively what the two sites had to say and walk away. When a film has received too little attention to show on either, take the hint and let it go. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• After a talk page notice received about as much attention as Foodfight! received notable reviews, I have removed Foodfight! from List of films considered the worst. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Content of the lead

More than half of the lead section is about the production delays and financing problems. While these appear well documented, shouldn't the details be in the production section, and a shorter summary be in the lead for reasons of WP:WEIGHT? I suggest: "Foodfight! was originally scheduled for a Christmas 2003 theatrical release, but because of various production delays and financial setbacks film wasn't completed until 2012; it was screened in a limited number of theatres in the UK and released directly to DVD in most markets."

Since critics appear to have had a reasonably uniform response, a general sentence about that in the lead that may be in order.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with the lead as it stands. Due to its limited release, the film barely (if that) meets the normal film notability criteria. However it is clearly notable because of the well-documented story of its production. IMO the production story is more important than the actual details of the film. I proposed talking about the film's critical reception in the lead a few months ago, but this didn't carry. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same story as LukeSurl here. Were it not for the big names involved and the production mess, this film would not be notable. With all the names, it would merit a permastub: who was in it, critical scores, lost money and we're done. The extended production mess was the article for several years and is likely the only reason anyone will be reading this article. Following the typical film article's arrangement (with all of the mess in a "Production" section) would be burying the lead. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foodfight!. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thresholdanimationstudios.com/foodfight.html%7D%7D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221152115/http://www.thresholdanimationstudios.com/foodfight.html to http://www.thresholdanimationstudios.com/foodfight.html

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) 08:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Box office

Our current source for the box office takings in the infobox is The Numbers which reports $73K. This appears to exclude $46K in takings in the UAE reported by Box Office Mojo. Which source is preferred? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As BOM is apparently more complete than Numbers and is one of several [recommended by MOS Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office] I'd suggest we go with that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Release date

When the lede says "low-key release", it's really not kidding... how is it possible that there are no reliable sources at all that I can find indicating when this film was actually released?

In the UK, the current source in the article, Box Office Mojo, claims a release date of June 15th, 2012. IMDb agrees. But the BBFC says it was the 1st June in the UK?

And in the US, don't even get me started - I can't find any sources on the topic at all other than IMDb! Literally none! I'm astounded.

Actually, upon finishing writing this talk note, I think I'm going to just remove the entire release date section from this article because of the unreliability of the sources, and replace it with just 2012, which they do at least all have in common. If anyone else can find better sourcing for this, please - I beg of you - make it known! It's driven me slightly insane at this point! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The film was unreleased for 9 years after its originally planned release date, leading to the rights being sold at auction. It would seem Lionsgate, after buying the film, had no interest in spending anything to promote it. An unpromoted direct-to-video release certainly wouldn't generate much (if any) press.

Still, I'd have to believe it showed up on lists of "new releases", whether from Lionsgate or rackjobbers. I can't seem to find anything with a few searches. Were it not so obviously notable (preproduction buzz, star-heavy cast, etc.), I'd think it wasn't notable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Commentary on a source (2004 NYT article)

In regards to a 2004 NYT article, this article from AVClub argued that it "feels more like a press release than a work of journalism".

If one wants to use the 2004 NYT article as a source, think about what AVClub said about it.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)