Talk:Race to Witch Mountain

	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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

contradiction

Is it a remake or not? First paragraph says it's not, but later the article says the directory says it's not. Which is it? 67.169.145.35 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a remake, based on the director's quote "Not remake,” Fickman corrected. “We didn’t want to come in and just simply do a remake of a movie that we all really liked growing-up. It’s a new chapter within the world of Witch Mountain." from [[1]] Meginsanity (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes one wonder about the definition of remake then. 'Cause this contradicts so much of the rest of the world, you'd think it would have to be. --Megspayne (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand the original series of movies and their history, you will understand this is essentially another movie in the same universe. So, from a continuity standpoint, it is a sequel no matter what the general media reported on it as. Bytemaster (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Citations to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer

Has the offical trailer alreadly come out? --gdaly7 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, visit the official site to find the trailer. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remake vs. Reimagining

An editor added the {{contradict}} tag about whether or not the film was a remake or a "modern reimagining", as the director called it. Since there was no discussion initiated about it, I've removed it and will explain. The director himself labels the film as a "modern reimagining", but the media has essentially called it a remake. This is why the director's opinion was quoted in the article body. This is an approach of intentional fallacy. If anyone has any thoughts about this, feel free to weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say: "direct and co-write with Matt Lopez[3][4]and Matt Lopez.[5]" Matt Lopez twice? This was under Production. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.200.223 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Siphon

The article does not mention the name of the actor who played the Siphon. It should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.67.130 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]