Talk:Mighty Joe Young (1998 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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Disney Mid‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Size matters!

This artcle says that Joe was much larger in this version than in the 1940s original and then goes on to give the same sizw/weight for Joe as is given in that article (2200 lbs./1000kg). So, which is correct? I KNOW Joe looks bigger in the 1998 version, but that alone without a corroborating reference would constitute WP:OR. 2600:1004:B144:5853:908A:245B:D82A:E392 (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this film, it is stated several times that this Mighty Joe Young weighs 2,000 pounds. However, I think that is a gross underestimate and an error on the part of the movie. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing in the box office section

An IP editor has been adding his/her own opinion to the article. I've tried leaving messages for the IP editor, to no avail. I will leave it here, instead: Please stop adding your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. You must source all statements, such as claims that a film is a "box office bomb" or that it underperformed due to competition with specific films, to a reliable source. You may think your analysis is so obvious that it doesn't need to be sourced, but the burden is on you to provide sources once your edit is challenged. Box Office Mojo does not say that the film was a "box office bomb", nor does it say why the film underperformed. It just lists how much it grossed, and so that's all Wikipedia can report. The claim that the film received "mixed reviews" is similarly unsourced and seems to be based on original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that it is original research for editors to perform their own comparative analysis BOM only provides the domestic box-office. Even as just interested observers we cannot make an educated guess without knowing the international numbers as well. If the editor wants to add this content then they have no alternative but to provide sources detailing its loss/bomb status. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there is a reliable source, e.g. an article in an industry journal analysing the film's box office and marketing effort, which concludes that it would've made more money if it weren't for Prince of Egypt, Rugrats etc., then this could belong in the article. Also, if there is a source that the film made little money internationally, we can write it didn't recoup the investment. We can't assume that the other films are exactly the reason the film didn't make much money in the US, or that the film wasn't a success outside North America. That is entirely WP:OR territory. Daß Wölf 01:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mighty Joe Young (1998 film) (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mighty Joe Young (1998 film) (film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]