Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title change... again

It appears that this film title has been reverted back to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, as stated here. Sarujo (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast list

We don't need an entire section dedicated to a cast list, mainly because we already have an prose subsection in the production section devoted to it in more detail. Where it belongs. Sarujo (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually a cast list is NOT redundant and conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, specifically WP:FILMCAST:

The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of :development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and :their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable :articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and a English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.)

Virtually every film article in Wikipedia has such a cast list, so please do not remove it in the future.Richiekim (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

All you've done is present all the reason why such a list is redundant. MOS only states what do if need be applied. It doesn't state that it's mandatory. If you'll read number one it states, "If there are numerous cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose".

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Not every film article has a list of it's cast members and had done pretty well, becoming GA. This article is far from a stub, with an actual casting section that is doing a better job of stating who's who. Sarujo (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There are also Good and Featured Articles with cast lists. WP:FILMCAST is written to suggest different possibilities for a given film article. In this case, a cast list is invaluable here because we have blue links for both actors and the characters they play. Per WP:LISTPURP, a list would give readers the ability to navigate the names with ease. They cannot do that as easily when the names are collapsed into prose. I support either restoring the "Cast" section or having a table in the "Casting" subsection. For the latter, see Fight Club#Casting as an example. There is nothing wrong with redundancy here; there can be casting prose as part of the production narrative, and there can also be a cast list for easy lookup. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

All of my film GAs have cast lists (including TMNT). --Niemti (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If a film article has an extensive cast in a list, with majors listed in a separate prose section, that's one thing, but this was a sharply circumscribed list of nine actors (incidentally poorly sourced), with the same set of actors listed in the prose, as well as in the infobox. The infobox serves quite adequately for the concern above of providing "blue links for both actors and the characters they play...navigate[d] ... with ease ... [where] the names are collapsed into prose." Having a dedicated list of actors, the same list in the prose in another dedicated section, and the same group in the infobox (plus seven of the nine actors in a single list in a sentence in the lead), makes me wince and I don't think it serves our readers well. As for WP:FILMCAST, while it was originally quoted for the opposite, it appears to support my position, but in any event policy and guideline should always be looked at with fresh eyes and not treated as statutes so lets put that aside. I've just looked at the first twenty film FAs and I can't find one that has a dedicated list and the same list in the prose, much less one also duplicated in the infobox. Those that have a list of the cast and a prose section on casting (and that's only a few – most have one or the other but not both), are all where the list serves to provide the full list and the casting section is highlights of the major actors and detail about their casting. See also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tender Mercies/archive1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Starring" field in the infobox really should be shortened; same for the serial sentence in the lead section. However, neither provide links to the actors' respective characters. Can you elaborate what you mean, though, about WP:FILMCAST supporting your position? I participated in the discussion to draft these guidelines, and it certainly was not written to sweep cast lists under the rug. It is a film like The Dark Knight (film) where there are a lot of blue-linked actors, so these secondary roles tend to be grouped in prose (in contrast to the main cast, which is actually listed in some form). What about the Fight Club example I referenced above? We could list the main cast (April, the Turtles, Splinter) and keep Fichtner and Elliott only in prose (especially since we don't know their roles or their significance). Erik (talk | contribs) 00:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has sought to sweep cast lists under the rug. I was referring to the language "If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose". That's in the disjunctive. Anyway, the section really doesn't address the issue we are talking about directly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that that section of the guidelines, specifically "names may be grouped in prose", was justifying the lack of an actual cast list. What do you think of adding a list provided that we make the proper trims to the infobox or lead section? Sarujo, do you have any thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I made my thoughts on the matter rather clear. All I'm trying to do is avoid redundancy as much a possible. Still, I'd have to see what you're proposing here. Sarujo (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a table to "Casting" as seen here. I think it helps readers look up the main actors and roles with ease. For what it's worth, cast lists were denigrated historically because they create a lot of empty space to the right of the list. I think multiple-column coding is more common nowadays, and tabling is acceptable if the article is well-maintained. (For an example of the latter, I did it at Public Access.) What do you think? Would the table work? It's also possible that the content will change when the film comes out to warrant a "Cast" section with details about each character. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you work was in vain as it was removed by somebody who appears to have not taken the time to go to the talk page and find out why such a change was made. Now after six months, I feel we've come full circle on the matter without any resolve. Sarujo (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinging Koala15. See Fight Club as an example. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's only one film, every other single film on Wikipedia has a traditional cast list i don't see anything in the manual of style that says we should use a small box. Besides the full cast hasn't even been announced yet. And in this discussion barely anyone even agreed with having the cast box. I think we should vote and if the cast box wins we can keep it. Koala15 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Sarujo (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for that obvious piece of info. Koala15 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel as though there NEEDS to be a cast section, it doesn't matter what the pre-production or "casting" section says about who is who, a little background information on who the actor is portraying (I.E. the turtles), and who they are, what they can do, ect should be explained. Every single film on Wikipedia HAS a Cast section, so why should this one be any different? I'll wait this out until someone can give me further detail on why there should not be a cast section for a feature length film that is produced by a hollywood company, who is backing and financing this. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Koala15 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Megan Fox

I do not not want to edit it, rather have someone to notice it as well, but it says that Megan Fox had to personally apologize to producer Michael Bay, and they provided a link, well that link says nothing about that, not does it say it anywhere on the internet! can someone change/remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.104.70 (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a coding error, as the person who inserted the reference used the same name for the reference as the previous one, causing it to duplicate the same info. I fixed it, but am still not convinced its sufficient, as a) it's a tabloid rumor site and b) the anon here says he could find no corroborating source. oknazevad (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

William Fichtner cast as Shredder after all Japanese actors refuse

An article from The A.V. Club written by its editor Sean O'Neal claim that:

Having apparently determined that no Japanese actors would dare be a part of the Jonathan Liebesman-directed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, presumably given the original text’s importance to the Shinto religion, producer Michael Bay has been forced to make a decision regarding the reboot of a nostalgia property that will potentially upset people, just this one time. The previously announced William Fichtner has confirmed he’ll be playing Shredder—a villain whose real name, Oroku Saki, and back-story mark him as decidedly Japanese (when he’s not being played by Kevin Nash or Uncle Phil from The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air), yet who is now, decidedly, not.

And yet, such are the sacrifices one must make when Japanese actors fear being reborn as wrathful spirits for profaning the sacred, even if it garners more accusations of racism toward Bay for whitewashing both of the Ninja Turtles' most recognizably Asian roles. Though of course, this film already became a total minstrel show the second they cast a bunch of white guys in turtle-face, like it’s the 19th century or something.

My edits has reverted by Ryulong who left messages on my talk page and escalated to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please be advised. Thank you. — Hasdi Bravo • 08:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I raised this for discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. You did not need to start yet another discussion here. You should instead contribute to the discussion at the other page because this is more important than this one article. This still looks like a stupid joke rather than anything else because it is saying that the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic is sacred in the Shinto religion. This has nothing to do with the characterization of Oroku Saki.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oroku Saki as 'The Shredder', played by Mark Dacascos

hmm.. source 71.188.30.244 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

seems to be released in norway on august 8

commercials aired in norway lists it as the release date.2A02:FE0:C100:1:1531:B302:E6D7:BB73 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)