Talk:Mulan (2020 film)

Remake and original tone and rating

The film is rated PG-13 and has a darker tone than the original, so can this page say it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:6C7D:ECF4:CCEF:2C3E (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Renamed characters

Characters based from the 1998 original film had made themselves their new names for example:

• Chen Honghui (Li Shang)
• Bori Khan (Shan Yu/Genghis Khan)
• Po (Chien Po; simple)
• Commander Tung (General Li)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source for that, we cannot use it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

First version of this article

I actually created an article about this movie back in 2010, two days after THR wrote about it. My article ended up userfied, though. Here it is: User:Manifestation/Mulan (upcoming film)

It's a stub, but it might contain some useful information for the new article. For one, the current page states that Chuck Russell was to direct the ill-fated 2010 attempt on making Mulan. While Russell was indeed considered, Jan de Bont was ultimately given the role of director, with principal photography set to begin in Shanghai on 15 September 2010. However, a 2010 net loss of the Bona Film Group caused the whole thing to be shelved indefinitely.

I actually googled this movie a few times in the years after that, hoping there would be news about it. Only just now did I see that a new Wikipedia article was created about it, and moved to mainspace in August 2018, almost eight years after I wrote my article!

Anyway, I'm a big root for this film. Let's hope it will be good! Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mulan 24-hour global trailer debut viewership information revealed

Deadline is reporting that the first trailer for Disney's live-action Mulan made 175.1 million views in it's first 24 hours, with 52 million of the views coming from China: https://deadline.com/2019/07/mulan-teaser-trailer-175-million-views-24-hours-china-worldwide-disney-1202643480/.

I'm hoping we can post this info in the "Marketing" section of the film's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.177.176 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Alleged Budget?

I’m a box office/budget nerd, so the alleged $290 million+ production budget of the film interests me. There’s plenty of articles surrounding the cost of the film (https://comicbook.com/movies/2018/05/07/disney-live-action-mulan-budget-most-expensive-movies-ever-made/ and https://www.cbr.com/disney-mulan-record-high-budget-studio/ to list just two, plus Gong Li’s claim), so is it worth listing in the article y’all think? Just curious others opinions on it TropicAces (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Villians

China has a slight problem in its restive provinces like Xinjiang and Tibet, so therefore the next Mulan sequels should cover the diversity of China. Ruski653v (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)\18:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)\\~~\

Hong Kong Comments By Main Actress

Hi! This story is still developing so I don't think it's yet ready for inclusion in the article, but the actress who will play Mulan in this movie, Liu Yifei, recently commented that she supported the HK police. Right now there is a large amount of civil unrest in Hong Kong and she is siding with the Chinese government. Seeing how big of a story Hollywood's censorship of itself related to stories that are negative of CCP China has become, I think it could be interesting and relevant for readers and great if an editor could find a way to include this story in the article once the news around it has finished or died down a little. I don't think there needs to be a whole section on it or anything, but as (mainly) a reader of Wikipedia I think this merits inclusion. However, since I'm not a normal Wikipedia editor and this is a somewhat controversial topic I'd love to hear some input from more experienced Wikipedians. Thank you. 2600:8801:C000:4C3:A827:1C77:2DE5:8E (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless it affects the film (how well it does, casting changes, etc), it probably should be mentioned on the actor's page, not here. BOVINEBOY2008 13:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it became a big enough thing that there are multiple articles written about the incident, the English speaking internet was talking about it constantly, and it started a trending hashtag to boycott the entire film and boycott Disney. It's relevant to the film itself as well as the actress, considering her actions caused such negative publicity for and controversy around the film and Disney. 122.42.52.184 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence this impacted schedule decision-making by Disney. No doubt Liu's comment caused a lot of hot debate on Chinese social media between HK demonstrators and Chinese fans, which does merit discussion on Liu's page, but it does not belong here because there is simply no credible evidence it impacted the release schedule, which was clearly a decision based in COVID-19 impacts. Editors need to review Wikipedia policy and follow it. Therefore, I will edit.Xiao-zi : 小紫 22:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The comments made have created a sizable internet following to boycott the movie, it would make sense to include a controversies section of the article to discuss this, as it is notable and highly relevant. DropBear42 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

New Trailer Upcoming

No news about the new trailer of Mulan (2020)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.17 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

About the new trailer

Nothing yet to be announced a new trailer of Mulan (2020)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:598B:9BC7:FCF8:5413:F1C0:E0E7 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

The New theatrical trailer of Mulan is not coming yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.17 (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

What of Mushu the Dragon?

Will Mushu the Dragon be in this movie? Will Eddie Murphy reprise his role? --DukeyDukeyDoo (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Delayed

They delayed the release date of USA because of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.172 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Change the part where it says that Mulan was delayed to July 24th 2020 because of covid-19, post-screening re-shoots, and Liu's comments to just being delayed to july 24th because of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is because the articles sited for the reshoots and Liu's comments were published over half a year before the film was delayed. The film also had a press screening for critics a week before its release and the response was good, so the comments and reported reshoots had nothing to do with the film being dealayed to july 24th 2020, and the pandemic caused it. Cforthewin (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. To what should it be changed? Also, please cite a reliable source to support your assertions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

In the "Release" section, the words after "due to the" need to say "COVID-19 pandemic". 216.154.40.40 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done ~ Amkgp 💬 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator -- (non-admin closure) —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Mulan (2020 film) → Mulan (2020 American film) – disambiguate against Chinese film of the same name (per WP:PRIMARYFILM) - St3095 ^(?) 05:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As the other film doesn't (yet) have an article on WP. If and when that happens, then the RM should be done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: okay, I withdraw this! St3095 ^(?) 09:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Wait for the other film to get an article. This is too soon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was this film released??

Last night I proposed an Afd because recent news says the film was cancelled. But it got a speedy keep. This morning I moved the page to reflect the fact that it has been cancelled, but somebody reverted me immediately. What's wrong?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: The page was bold moved before you did it again and moved back. Moving it again means the move is controversial so process at WP:RM#CM for controversial moves needs to be followed, not just move it again. A move discussion is mandatory after the first move was undone. Edit history explains why the original move was undone and referenced WP:FILMRELEASE as the reason the original title is correct. I doubt a move discussion would lead to a different title being supported. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is "2020 film" a perfectly okay designation for a film whose release isn't until a year like 2050?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

After studying the history of the article's title, I got the statement that although the theatrical release likely won't be in 2020, the premier was already in 2020, meaning that it's a 2020 film regardless of whether its theatrical release is in 2020 or 2050. Any other film of this kind?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit request on 7 August 2020

Provide source for claim in main article opening "...it would instead be released on September 4, 2020 on Disney+ for a premium fee in countries where the service had launched. It will have a traditional theatrical release..." link to Q3 2020 Earnings Call where announcement was first made: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.218.235.79 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Already sourced in the Release section, there's no need no source it in the lead section as well. El Millo (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Theatrical release

Mulan is still going to be released in select North American theaters that re-opened simultaneously with Disney+, therefore not really making it a "Disney+ original film". So, it's shouldn't be considered a Disney+ original film in the external links. Let's remove that! (Source: https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/disney-mulan-decision-movie-theaters-explainer) -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 9:57PM - August 10, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the thing, this source you brought does indeed contain what you claim, HOWEVER it is one of the scarce few sources that states that some US theaters will play Mulan, outside of Twitter or other easily editable sources. This claim that "some US theaters will play Mulan" is just not strongly supported by many noteworthy sources. Honestly, I would be more on your side if this bit of info is elaborated on more, or at least mentioned in high level news sources like The Hollywood Reporter or Variety. Complex.com is not what I, or Wikipedia, can truly consider a high level, trustworthy source. I am sorry, but for now on, we can not include the idea of "some US theaters will play Mulan" because few sources barely mention it, nor can it be viewed as a theatrical release, due to the lack of substantial trustworthy sources. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

New theatrical poster

I found the new theatrical poster for the film courtesy of Fandango Media since the film is still coming to re-opened theaters simultaneously with Disney+. So, how do I add the poster onto the article? Also, where did the Disney+ poster come from? Wikipedia's article on how to add images onto articles is not really helping me. -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 10:20PM - August 10, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The poster from Fandango Media is not a free image, meaning Wikipedia can not use the image without a potential lawsuit. The Disney+ poster came from source(s) that allow free distribution of its images and content. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cardei012597: None of the poster images are free-use. Either could be used in an article if the required non-free-use rationale is attached to the image descriptions justifying use of a copyrighted image in an article, which is normal procedure for poster art. Disney+ is not any more or any less restrictive than an other source of poster art for that requirement and any source that distributes Disney copyrighted material can't remove Disney's copyright restrictions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: So, is the poster from Fandango allowed? -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 7:37PM - August 11, 2020

@Cody Fearless-Lee: As long it is an official poster ultimately from Disney, not fan art or a non-Disney creation, and a proper non-free-use rationale is provided. Also subject to consensus in article as to what poster is preferred. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: The new theatrical poster from Fandango looks like an official poster. It simply says "Coming Soon To Theatres" on the bottom. -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 8:08PM - August 11, 2020

@Cody Fearless-Lee: It looks like the one before but with the date replaced with coming soon. It is likely OK to use but the current one is also good, so don't see much benefit to changing it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Well, if Trolls World Tour and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run can have their theatrical posters front and center on their articles despite showing in a limited amount of theatres, then why not Mulan? -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 1:26PM - August 12, 2020

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those posters either haven't been updated or a VOD poster hasn't been released, and the current poster used here is the most accurate one. El Millo (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

The BBC has published an article summarising the main feedback from a number of British publications such as The Times, The Guardian, Evening Standard, which can be used to source critic feedback from UK sources. The key findings centre around the release in the UK on Disney+ rather than in cinemas, and how the viewing experience suffers as a result as the director Niki Caro filmed scenes with the intention they be seen in IMAX cinemas, whilst the lead actress Lui Yifei is praised by several critics for her portrayal of Mulan. 146.66.63.86 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Replacing "Premise" with "Plot"

At what point is it appropriate to replace the section currently titled "Premise" with the full plot of the film? --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

When someone who has actually seen the film writes a plot summary for the film. When a plot summary is in the section instead of a premise statement, it is appropriate to replace the header with "Plot". Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The witch's name

The credits and official merchandise list her as Xianniang, not Xian Lang. Other names listed may not match the credits as well, not sure. 173.235.73.176 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST we should be using what the credits say for both cast and character names. If what is in the article doesn't match the credits, the article should be changed to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Link to Douban review: https://movie.douban.com/subject/26357307/ Ndougherty (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be WP:USERGENERATED – Thjarkur (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Add controversies to the lead section?

The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole... seeing this is the case I feel we should include mention of the controversies in the lead. We can't just ignore the impact they have had on the film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn’t oppose it. Even a single line similar to Straight Outta Compton's page like “Over the course of production the film was the subject of several controversies, including changes to the source material and filming in Xinjiang." TropicAces (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Change Chinese Communist Party to Communist Party of China

The name of the ruling party that runs China should be changed. Calling it the "Chinese Communist Party" the far-right and Qanon more ammunition and also gives emphasis to the racial and ethnic nature of the name, and stresses the "otherness" of the party. It's a deliberate racial dog whistling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1016:1c2:4c73:afa4:b114:9e2e (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party is the common name in English, thus the name of the article about them on Wikipedia. No emphasis is given to anything other than using the most common English language translation of Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng. Also from an English language perspective "Chinese" as an adjective means of or pertaining to China so "Chinese" is just a different but equivalent way of saying "of China", so they mean the exact same thing. Neither is the official name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yahoo

Yahoo got the PVOD sales numbers wrong.[1] "Yahoo had misinterpreted numbers from an analytics firm that estimated Mulan’s viewership, and the firm’s co-founder clarified that grosses were more likely $60 million to $90 million" (Brian Lichtenberger, explains more.[2])

Rather than having the incorrect statement from Yahoo and Indiewire only saying it was "unlikely" it should be removed entirely because it was incorrect and misleading. Yahoo seems to have changed the article, which now includes the note "Editor’s note: This article has been updated to show that 7Park’s data on “Mulan” reflected the percentage of active Disney+ users that had accessed the app over that time period." -- 109.79.177.141 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This article has since been updated to make note of the criticism and the corrections Yahoo made to their article. It is an improvement, but since it is clear that the information was wrong, I think the weak statement from IndieWire that the figures were "unlikely" (rather than just plain wrong) is redundant and should be removed. -- 109.78.207.89 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the speculation from IndieWire that maybe Yahoo got it wrong,[3] since there was no need for speculation when the other sources made it absolutely clear that Yahoo did get it wrong. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Audience response

Audience response from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is not normally allowed because it is WP:USERGENERATED and not a reliable source.[4] However it is sometimes allowed when other sources give it a lot of coverage such as when there is a a big disparity, and that deleted section did include a reference to an article from CBR which was doing just that. It would be better if there was more than one source indicating there was a significant disparity between audiences and critics, maybe then there would be enough reason to make an exception and include more information about audience response.

Similarly the Chinese user voted ratings on Douban are not notable by themselves. They can only be included because they were reported in the South China Morning Post which makes them notable.
(Also could someone please remove the word "currently" which is a big fat WP:RELTIME fail.) -- 109.79.177.141 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the SCMP article the score at the time was "4.7 out of 10 on the rating site Douban". (We should use the score according to the source, not the live score on the site that keeps changing, same as we would do if it was a score from IMDB reported by the New York Times.)

Please change the sentence

X: "The film currently scores 4.9 out of 10 on the rating site Douban." to

Y: "The film scored 4.7 out of 10 on the rating site Douban."

I would also suggest adding a warning comment in the wikisource reminding editors that they should not update the Douban score, but I leave that up to you. -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Douban, where I asked for confirmation that Douban was like IMDB and should be treated with the same kind of caution. -- 109.79.166.89 (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@109.79.166.89  Done I was surprised to see that your request was not completed yet, despite you explained everything with accuracy. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Takes time and that's fine, but I do appreciate the fix.

Although I wish it wasn't necessary so often, and it would be better if more editors understood how to write for an encyclopedia without violating a simple rule like WP:RELTIME. -- 109.76.155.152 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor made a good faith edit and updated the Douban score.[5] I reverted to the score to 4.7, the number that was reported by the South China Morning Post (see above) and added a warning that the number should not be updated. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

An editor @Supermann: has updated the article to include the score as it stands as of December 2020. This was a good faith edit but I don't think it strictly follows the requirements of WP:USERGENERATED. I think we still need another secondary source to explain in what the increased score might or might not mean.

At the very least it needs be edited to properly follow the rules about WP:RELTIME and instead of saying "now" it should only say specify when. The article is not locked so I'm going to fix the WP:RELTIME issues myself. Please comment if you think information about the Douban score having increased to 5.0 is notable and if it is adequately sourced. Again there's not reason to consider Douban any more reliable than an IMDB user score. -- 109.79.66.241 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect to Elaine Yao, the "senior" reporter at SCMP who doesn't have a journalism degree, I would say at the time of her reporting on the "cumulative" 4.7 score she didn't include the fact that how many people in total had viewed the movie. The archived URL from Wayback Machine showed 75,688 people. The 12/31/2020 5.0 score as indicated by the more live URL, which was already included in the paragraph at the time of my editing, is based on the accumulated reviews of 244,821 people. The number of people will only grow over time. It is for the reason I had already given plus this that I think warrant an update. Not many readers actually clicked the underlying link to check this and might leave the page with outdated impression. On a side note, 94,935 IMDB users reviewed the movie and a combined score of 5.6 was derived. Objectively speaking, no news media would probably report on this increment due to budget cuts and the fake news accusation environment thanks to Trump. All I am trying to say is we shouldn't give too much credence to one single reporter's work if it's already outdated three months later. We either don't have to report on the score which is user generated or we should provide an update when the size underlying the score has increased by three folds. That being said, I am sure you can find some other guideline out there saying I mis-edited. Assuming you are from Ireland based on your IP address, I want to add another context which is the fact that Wikipedia is blocked in China. So many Chinese internet users can't participate here to discuss. I just want you to understand that whatever we write here matters. If we are not trying to make Wikipedia better with more pertinent facts, why do we even bother? Why do I even bother with my unpaid time? Whatever. You do what you have to do. Supermann (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand my point. User voted web polls are garbage, whether they are from IMDB or Douban. The consensus has been to not include the user voted web polls (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, or otherwise). Rare exceptions are allowed only when mainstream media reports on them first. Be it the SCMP or the New York Post, the quality of the mainstream media is not the point (there's no need to attack the journalist), we are not supposed to reference sites like Douban directly, we are only supposed to reference reliable sources, and Wikipedia says SCMP is a reliable source. (There are not many but there are a few sources that will take a look back at a how a film fare at the box office, editorials at Box Office Mojo, Scott Mendelsohn at Forbes.) There is so much other film analysis from reliable sources we should be using that, not user voted web polls.

What point are you making by showing that the score has increased from 4.7 to 5.0? By adding it you are saying something.

I know Wikipedia is blocked in China, but I don't see how that is relevant. Users with VPN's can still ignore, read, edit, or vandalize the Wikipedia article for Mulan.

At the moment this article claims that the middling Douban score was somehow significant to the box office performance of this film in China. Was it though?

This article also claims that protests in Hong Kong affected the films box office there. I have tried but I cannot find the article I read that said the boycott was unlikely to gain traction, it is a family film and people were going to see it, and the call for a boycott was unlikely to affect that core audience.[If I can find that article I will add it here]

I think the reasons the film failed are much simpler than that, it wasn't that good ... and Coronavirus.[6][7] -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere on New York Post is it described as a mainstream media. It is a "conservative-leaning daily tabloid newspaper." 5.0 is a psychological threshold for a lot of people. Not many people in China use VPN. Many have given up. I merely gave a fair and balance updated view of the score, so that we are keeping the single journalist honest. It's more likely because of the pandemic that tanked the box office. I have very stubborn friends who refused to go to movie theaters, despite the capacity limit is at 40%. By claiming it isn't that good, you are not being objective. Happy new year! Supermann (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Critical Response

Any suggestions on cleaning up the critical response section? It seems very one sided toward the negative reviews, despite prominent positive reviews from critics. There should be indifference in showing both sides. Articmonkeys (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. It is not about "showing both sides" it is about not giving WP:UNDUE weight, to fringe opions. Even reviews that are positive overall may have some criticism of certain aspects of the film. There are plenty of positive reviews, some mixed reviews, and only one wholly negative review from Vox, that seems about right for a film with 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and 66% on Metacritic. -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So, I heard they filmed near a concentration camp...

<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54064654> <https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/disney-under-fire-for-filming-mulan-in-chinas-xinjiang-province-4056383/> <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/disney-thanked-groups-linked-to-china-detention-camps-in-mulan-credits.html> Yeah...I think this should be put in here. 165.73.227.130 (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's already in there under Filming in Xinjiang, in case you don't already know. Supermann (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Damn, I'm sorry, I didn't see it, my bad, but still, how soulless do you have to be to film there. 165.73.226.87 (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Director considered creator of the film"?

The credits of the film say near the very end "the producers of the film wish to acknowledge the animated screenplay by Rita Hsiao, Christopher Sanders, Philip LaZebnik, Raymond Singer, & Eugenia Bostwick-Singer, and the story by Robert D. San Souci. The original film's directors aren’t even mentioned in the credits. And if look at the both the credits and the articles of Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), Aladdin (2019 film), and The Lion King (2019 film), they consider the original films' screenwriters to be the real creators, not the original films' directors (even though original 1992 Aladdin film's co-writers, Ron Clements and John Musker, were also the directors). And when making a feature film, the directors usually come in after the script is written and submitted. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally for films the director is considered the overall creative force that brings all the efforts of the others together under his creative vision. See film director. The original writers weren't the creators of the original film. The article says the 2020 film is adapted from the whole 1998 film, not just the screenplay of it. The credits acknowledge the writers of the original, but don't give a separate based-on credit to them. The closest to an actual based-on credit is "suggested by the narrative poem The Ballad of Mulan" in the end credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

But the movie is still based on the story of the original movie rather than the movie itself. And while it may be credited differently, the credits acknowledge the screenwriters (the ones who make or remake the story) but not the directors (the ones who lead the cast and crew to making the story appear on screen), pretty much like the aforementioned live-action adaptations I've listed. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying they acknowledge the writers is not the same as saying the film is based on what they wrote - it is more than that. That article as it is currently written and in the lead and in the development section says the live-action film is an adaptation of the animated film. The development section talks to many inputs to the current film including rewriting the original script, thus the mention of the original writers, and incorporation of other inputs in the creation of the new film. If you object to adding the directors as the formal author of the finished film as per normal practice, then just mention the source works leaving out the authors. Or leave out the based on part of the infobox completely as it wasn't really based on any of them per what the credits says, just inspired by, and the article gives a much more complete description that can't be accurately summarized in one line in the infobox.

If there is a based on credit listing the original writers, it should be clear in the article and in the based on attribute it is the screenplay of the original film that it is based on, not the original film itself. The writers gets the creator credit for the screenplay only, the directors get the creator credit for the entire finished product. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film/doc based on attribute supports your original interpretation. I withdraw my objection. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)