Talk:Super (2010 American film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page name

Since the movie is being released in 2011 shouldn't the page name be changed from 2010 US film to 2011 film?173.88.129.35 (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "released". It's already been shown at a film festival. Also IMDB lists it as "Super (2010)". Barsoomian (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced and "corporate spin"

1. I advise anyone to look up the sources before saying that the edits are unsourced. That the movie was being written in 2002 but was put on hold, that John C. Reilly was considered for the role, etc. This is all there in the sources at the end of the section. If you're too lazy to do look at the available links, that's not my problem.

No sources on or around 2002 verify this. This info is ALL from info in recent interviews by James Gunn who is not the most reliable source (see "Slither" controversy over his remake of "Night Of the Creeps". I am not going to delete this but it needs to be better written. For instance, just because alot of people are saying that Obama is a muslim doesn't mean we can put this on fact on a page. These are "allegations". Simply quoting a director as "truth" when the director himself is NOT the press is simply not verifiable.

2. A lot of people have accused this of ripping off Kick-Ass. The Wikipedia article even gives voice to one of those reviewers. That the creator of Kick-Ass would come to the film's defense and say that it's bullshit is notable. And how is this corporate spin when Mark Millar has nothing to do with this film? And how a cited interview counts as original research is baffling.

This is sourced so I will leave this in.

3. Having BoxOfficeMojo as the source and stating the box office in a neutral manner without any subjective commentary is hardly vandalism.--

Many, many wikipedia pages discuss the box office success/failures of various film projects. Film is a business and form of commerce and there is nothing "subjective" when a more does "disappointing" business. Remember I am NOT suggesting anything negative by this contribution and I'm carefully quoting the info so that it wouldn't come off as subjective or biased.75.174.142.133 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

75.147.63.249 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. This is all subjective on your part. Mark Millar even confirmed that when he was working on Kick-Ass Gunn e-mailed him about the project, so there goes that conspiracy theory. And even if he didn't, who are to you to put doubt on the article? It's not your place to decide whether or not something is false. This and the abusive message you left on my talk page spells out pretty well your agenda on this.

2. The B.O. can stand on itself. One site said it was disappointing. Another tomorrow might say it did great for an unrated film that was released in eleven theaters. Those other Wikipedia articles you mention are probably when the B.O. results reach a significant amount of coverage for good or for bad. You have one link saying it was disappointing. Doesn't exactly hold up.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(A) Well, when the other site 'tomorrow' says this film is doing great then include that sourced info into the site. Right now the press felt comfortable enough to report that this movie had a lousy opening weekend. Plus this is a red-herring, the quote is ONLY about the opening weekend. There is nothing to suggest in the very accurate and thoughtful quote that suggests this movie is a flop. Show me someplace that says when writing wikipedia articles on movies that the box office can stand on itself.

(B) And I don't care about the other stuff. I left it in albeit some minor tweaking that respects your concerns. The truth is that you simply don't want anything negative sounding in this article about this film, period. The quote/source I currently have in place is objective and neutral and doesn't say ANYTHING about the film being good, bad, a failure. It just says the movie did disappointing business in the opening weekend. Take it up with the reporter if you don't like what he says. In the meanwhile, your true colors are showing. When or if a source comes out saying that this movie is doing stellar business then I will be the first to put it in.75.174.142.133 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I advise you to look at the article for Sucker Punch (film) or Let Me In (film). Both this films had poor B.O. that were much more discussed in the trades than Super's was, and both of those articles just state how much money it made without any further commentary. As for "true colors", again, the message you left on my talk page (which is still readily accessible for anyone who cares to look) and the fact that you A.) repeatedly removed information about the film's history and then B.) cast doubt on it by adding "alleges" pretty much shows where you stand. --CyberGhostface (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I compromised where I should and you know it. You just want an edit war and you are unwilling to work with other editors. Even after 'another' editor reverted your edits you still are declaring a POV edit war on anyone who doesn't agree with you. That is a page ownership violation. Get a life75.174.142.133 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't compromise at all. You only stopped removing cited information after you were warned for vandalism four times. Now you're attempting to misrepresent cited information with weasel words. You also conveniently ignored two other Wikipedia articles that used the same exact way of reporting box office results.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For a guy who is violating the 3RR rule against edit warring (you) you are in no place to lecture people about what constitutes vandalism. Can't have it both ways, fanboy...lol..And I'm done discussing this with you until you can be more mature.75.174.142.133 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Plot was virtually a word for word copy of the press release plot for the film. Since I clearly don't know how to do the proper copyvio report, I've removed it. I found the text on so many websites I wouldn't know which to link to. Millahnna (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception

There is no reason to delete/censor the reception section unless you don't like it, which is absurd. If you want to include other contributions in that section that say that this movie is doing good business then please do so and cite the info where appropriate. But censoring my contribution, especially when ONE editor admits he's a huge fan of this film, is a violation of NPOV. Plenty of movies on wiki include contributions that say that a movie "disappoints" and even "bombs" and this mild contribution doesn't even say that, it just says the movie had a disappointing opening, which is true and veriafiable in the press. Wanna talk it out here before declaring an edit war again? Please.75.174.142.133 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll bring it up to WP:FILM and ask what the policy is. Does that sound fair?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the "disappointing" bit until I hear otherwise from the WikiProject. Can you leave the rest of the cited material in the article alone for now? I've even clarified that "Gunn has said this in interviews" as opposed to reporting what he said as objective fact.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. And please source the rest so it doesn't appear like WK:OR.75.174.142.133 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just made a message. If there is no policy, I'll just leave it with your edit. Anyways, I'm sorry for fighting with you before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Appreciate your compromise and the apology. This article looks great btw. Keep up the good work. And, if you're curious, I do like this film (it's like "Taxi Driver" meets "The Greatest American Hero") it's just that I like wikipedia (and it's rules more). Happy editing!75.174.142.133 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Eventually there will be numbers showing VOD and how the movie played in wider screeners + DVD sales, etc. IF the movie is a hit among any of those then I'm certain that there will be press for it. Right now I think that IFC is waiting to see if it is worth it to keep pushing this film on a wider market. If not they will pull the plug and go straight to DVD. So in a month or two you will have more sources that will continue to clarify this, etc. Hope this helps.Chrisgorefilmthreat (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC) BTW, I used to tour the festival circuit years back and wrote about this sorta thing for a living. The buzz among industry types is Super is a chance for Gunn to jump back into the game after the financial failure of his prior film Slither. However this movie is barely registering on the radar, mostly because of Kick-Ass's lackluster performance co-opting this.75.174.142.133 (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just got an answer, and I was told to "start with the facts, then analysis", so how's this:

"Super made $46,549 on opening weekend with eleven theaters, averaging $4,232 per theater, which was considered by analysts to be "a disappointing start" for the film."--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't 'policy' per say, just the opinion of an editor. However it really doesn't matter to me 'what order' this information is presented, as long as the information is allowed. So I am fine with this.75.174.142.133 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"God" link?

I'm new at this, but "God" seems a pretty household name to provide a link to. I think it's unnecessary. Sylvaticus Styxx (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion

How do we know that Frank's visions are all in his head, and not god showing himself to Frank?

We don't. --Ben Culture (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1