Jump to content

Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 30 January 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved No clear consensus to make this move at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Adventures of Tintin (film) → The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn – This movie started as as single film but performed well so now a trilogy has been planned. Each title in the trilogy will be The Adventures of Tintin: [subtitle name here], for example, The Adventures of Tintin: Prisoners of the Sun. The producers of the second film in the trilogy have stated that this second film will come out this year. I simply propose this rename of the article of the first film to prepare for this imminent release, as we know now that this article's current name The Adventures of Tintin is not descriptive enough. Besides, the movie title of the first film (in everywhere except the US) actually is the full name; the name of the proposed new article name including subtitle: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn The current existing article would then become a disambiguation page, referring the reader to each of the three articles. So, after I ensured a redirect existed for the proposed new title, and believing the move to be uncontroversial, and after getting some support (see Talk page section immediately above), I used AWB to modify the articles that link to this first film article, changing the first movie's title and its link in those articles to the anticipated new name. After finishing this, a single editor began objecting and reverting these edits, however their reason was strange: They said they wished to preserve what they thought was an American title. As I explained above, American vs. European is not the reason for requesting this title rename. Please express your support for this rename below. Prhartcom (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[I clicked on both links you supplied in the previous two sentences, and both images show The Adventures of Tintin, with 'Tintin' in one word, as created by Hergé.] ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it, but that wasn't the proposal anyway. That was a just a formatting mistake on my part.--JOJ Hutton 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposer has also given no clear indication that the current title does not conform to Wikipedia's policies and Guidelines. Wikipedia uses the most common name used in reliable English Language sources. Nor has the proposer shown that the current title will be a problem when the next sequel film article is created. This just looks like an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist.
  • In addition, I have no idea why the proposer feels the need to preemptively change every single link on every single article. This IS NOT standard Wikipedia practice. Don't put the cart before the horse. Gain a clear consensus before making disruptive and controversial edits. Edits I must point out are currently being discussed at the edit warring notice board.--JOJ Hutton 21:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL since I see no evidence that a sequel will be produced. The start of filming is a threshold that we use to determine stand-alone articles, and that should be used here to show that a sequel is not guaranteed. The latest news is that Jackson said a sequel would be produced "at some point soon", which does not sound very concrete. We should not re-title this article based on the assumption that there will be a trilogy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support: I would have preferred retaining the '(film)' qualifier, in addition to the requested move, in order to differentiate the title of the WP article about the film from the titles of the WP articles about the album [The Secret of the Unicorn] and the video game [The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (video game)]. Although the title of the WP article about the album was not created with the prefix The Adventures of Tintin, it should have been, because this appellation was always printed on the cover of all albums. The reader familiar with the albums would therefore recognize The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn as the title of the album, which has existed for decades, and not as the title of the recent film.
    So, my qualified vote goes for The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (film).
    ツ Pdebee.(talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME, and the article name should match the title it uses in its country of production, which in this case is primarily the US. Country is determined by the production companies, not where the film is set or its source material. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question (from the nominator) I admit to taking preemptive steps to change the title, in other words, action before the filming takes place, and I am happy to follow guidelines if they say that I should instead have waited (I honestly didn't that know I should). The most I feel that I can be accused of here is trying to be organised. I didn't know this was going to be controversial. I haven't taken any forward steps since this controversy began and don't intend to. Would everyone be comfortable putting everything on hold until the filming starts? Thank-you everyone for weighing in above. Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But your preemptive mass changes you made yesterday and then abused your rollback tool to edit war over must be reverted back to their pre-dispute status. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that this would not be controversial. US films use the US title of their films as article names, even when there is an English language title hat differs, we always use the titles that the production companies use. This has been a standard for quite a while now. That also goes for the date formats. You mentioned below that the DMY was 'Long established' in the article, but that is false. MDY has been the format that has been used for several years now. Its not a UK film so there is no reason to use DMY in the article and the date formats should be reverted back per WP:DATERET.--JOJ Hutton 22:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to tell the group that the editor above is busy reverting my original changes, despite the fact that this discussion is ongoing. I would like to ask this editor, once again, to please stop their disruptive reverts. Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am truly in favor of seeking consensus here. I would like to ask for calm. I have admitted that I apparently acted rashly. I understand now what Curly Turkey says below about WP:TIES. It probably means, for example, that the Tintin books each have a tie to Belgium. However, I can see that there are no strong ties here: The movie takes place in Europe and Asia while the production company is predominantly U.S.; this movie probably has no tie to any place, I see that now. What are other's thoughts on this? Prhartcom (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BRD. You made a bold edit. I reverted it. Then you misused your rollback tool as a weapon to edit war. You even taunted me in your edit summery, that you were willing to use your Rollback tool to edit war. Just because you are discussing does not mean that the articles shouldn't be reverted back to their pre-dispute status. That is all that I am doing at this time.--JOJ Hutton 23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prhartcom: IMHO, your intent was clearly positive and motivated by a desire to improve our encyclopaedia. I will continue to support your effort as I qualified it: it's an article about a film based on an album [The Secret of the Unicorn] that is part of a series of albums [The Adventures of Tintin]. The title of the film uses both the name of the series, followed by the title of the album (as a kind of subtitle in a smaller font) and it would make sense therefore that it be fully qualified as such, and with '(film)' to differentiate it from other WP articles with which it could be confused.
      Keep up the good work you're doing here at the wiki.
      With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 23:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some move due to the ambiguous title. This isn't the first Tintin film adaptation by a long shot. It's true that none of the earlier films was titled "The Adventures of Tintin", but that's the common name in English of the comics series, and a casual reader using the search function isn't going to know or care about the details of Wikipedia's title standards where they conflict with natural usage. At the least, it should be The Adventures of Tintin (2011 film). Please note that this comment does not constitute any opinion relating to the open sewer of a so-called discussion of "ties" currently occurring in multiple places on this page. If you're tempted to respond to this comment with some nonsense about "ties", please be further tempted not to do so after all. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we are starting to see consensus that the article title "The Adventures of Tintin (film)" inadequately describes this movie and that a better title must be decided. The suggestion above is reasonable, as is my suggestion and also the suggestion of Pdebee further above. As has been established, we don't have to rename the article right now. Prhartcom (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But its not a British film, its an American film. Every production company that worked on the film calls the film "The Adventures of Tintin". That is the common name for the film. Wikipedia uses the most common name used in the majority of English language sources. There is no reason to make a change based on any alleged confusion with a sequel that may or may not happen. By the looks of it, it looks as if the sequel is in Development hell anyway, so there can't be any confusion with a film that does to exist, at least by Wikipedia standards.
And I will remind everyone that consensus is not a vote. Consensus is based on the arguments. Since there is no film sequel or even an article that this current title would or could be confused with, there is no reason to change the title.--JOJ Hutton 16:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from the nominator) I think we are starting to see consensus that predominantly American-made movies should use the American title. That's fine, but as I said in the nomination, American vs. European is not the reason for requesting this title rename. My apologies for making anyone think that. The reason for the request was just an attempt to be organized and neat, as well as to avoid future confusion, when they come out with the two other Tintin movies in the Adventures of Tintin franchise. When they do, this article is going to have a title that is the name of the entire franchise. Fortunately, as has been explained to me, we don't have to rename anything right now, as it's too early, we leave everything the way it is until we're forced to think about it again. I am finished discussing this at this time. Thanks to everyone for their comments! Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prhartcom: Good move. I sympathize with the subtle challenge we all face here at the English language wiki: the same film was given one title in the USA (a misnomer, as it happens, to those familiar with the works of Hergé) and another (more meaningful) everywhere else in the world. In any case, the prose in our article highlights the different titles across English-speaking countries; so, that's alright. And since the equivalent article at the French wiki has the meaningful title anyway, the francophone readers of Tintin probably couldn't care less about the present debate here at the anglophone wiki. I will continue to support your initiative to have clear article titles when the next films are released; let's just hope the studios' marketing department(s) get it right next time! Thank you once again for caring so much. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Eirk. The proposal would be a reasonable one if other articles existed, in which case I would support it as a sensible solution. At the moment though it is not necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jojhutton's and Erik's sound analysis. Cavarrone 11:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Sequels are planned but we don't even have working titles for them let alone articles. For now they will just be covered at The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Sequels, so in that sense this article includes them in its scope. When we have at least a good stub on at least one of them we can consider a move. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article uses European date formats.

[edit]

An editor attempted to change the date formats long established in this article to the American format. Every Tintin article on Wikipedia uses European format. This film is not set in America, nor could Tintin's mythology ever be said to be American. I reverted the change. If needed, please discuss the matter here. Prhartcom (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and because the film is a British/NZ production, the usage of DMY seems valid. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has now engaged me in an edit war over this issue. I have made a second revert to their attempt. Will the editor please discuss the matter here rather than revert further. Prhartcom (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If US was the sole producing country, then MDY could have been used. But it's a co-American production, that does not necessarily mean the article must use MDY (I actually hate that format). In fact, two DMY following countries (UK and NZ) have produced the film, so majority wins. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the case for DMY is clear, and if the editor in question proceeds to edit war without discussion then the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The film does not have a UK production company. There are several listed production companies. Most of them are American, only one is from NZ, and that was in a minor role. The 'Long standing' format has been MDY and per WP:DATERET that is how it should stay. JOJ Hutton 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No case can be made for MOS:TIES—if there is any room for arguing what country has "closer ties" to an article, then there are no ties. TIES can only be claimed when those "ties" are more or less absolute (New York in AmEng, Harry Potter in BrEng, etc). The argument that "every Tintin article on Wikipedia uses European format" also holds no weight—the only requirement is internal consistency. A single Tintin article "going against the flow" would not be a violation of anything. The only argument that holds any weight here is WP:DATERET—which means the dates cannot be changed from DMY to MDY without talk page consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Film Articles tend to use the date formats of the country in which the film was produced. 4 of the 5 production companies are American and only WinNut is non American. Yet WingNut was only a minor production company, gaining production credit through its use of its Special Effects department.--JOJ Hutton 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS:TIES calls explicitly for strong ties. A film based on a Belgian comic strip shot in New Zealand cannot make any claim for strong ties to the US. The whole spirit of MOS:TIES is to prevent contentious editors from writing about Winston Churchill in AmEng "because more people speak American English". TIES is entirely inapplicable here and should never be brought up in cases like this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank-you, Curly Turkey, for your wisdom, as hard as it may for me (and probably others) to hear. I mentioned you in the discussion above, perhaps you can weigh in again there. Prhartcom (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dmy format per MOS:TIES. Tintin is a Belgian comic-strip and therefore a Belgian topic, so it is perfectly logical that the dating across Tintin articles adopt the Belgian dating format. Just because an American studio has leased the rights to make a film does not alter the fact that the underlying topic is intrinsically Belgian. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Betty Logan: Belgium is not a coutry where English is an offical language, so MOS:TIES cannot be applied on those grounds. Otherwise we'd end up with articles on Far East topics with the date format YMD (which I'd prefer, but I know it'll never be accepted). Your second point also falls out of the realm of what MOS:TIES applies to—the fact that it's an English-language movie made outside of Belgium trumps the idea that it could have strong ties to Belgium (which is nevertheless irrelevant, as MOS:TIES applies only to English-speaking countries). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I disagree with your interpretation. English is widely spoken in Belgium and the date format is consistent regardless of dialect i.e. English or any of the three official languages. They don't use the American date format. I would not expect Tintin based articles to carry the American date format any more than I would expect Superman articles to carry the British format, despite the fact that the first three Superman films were British productions. Both underlying topics have strong national ties. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I'm not trying to convince you of my interpretation of MOS:TIES, I am informing you that MOS:TIES does not apply to countries n which English is not an official language. The number of second-language speakers is not taken into consideration. Ever. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the film is an American made production, not a Belgium production. The long standing date format in this article has always been MDY. Imagine the chaos across Wikipedia if we decided to change all the date formats on every article based on something as trivial as setting. Given that the main production companies in the film are American, its clear that MDY is the format supported by the guidelines. And I didn't even mention WP:DATERET.--JOJ Hutton 02:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant. Tintin is a Belgian topic, just like Superman is an American topic, but it would be absurd to have some Superman film articles written in British English and some in American English. Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Supergirl (film) which uses DMY? The Superman films in which you are referring to are also American productions according the sources, so MDY is appropriate when applicable on these articles, but DMY is not appropriate here because Belgium is not involved in this film. The comic book is from Belgium, but the film was made through American production companies. Its considered a separate intellectual property.--JOJ Hutton 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I did not write the Supergirl article then its current state obviously does not reflect my views on the form it should take. MOSTIES relates to the topic, not the perceived nationality of the film (which seems a rather spurious claim anyway for what is essentially an intenrational co-production based on a foreign property). The topic is Tintin, and the article is about a US/NZ film which comes under that topic. Anyway, I am done debating this, but my support for the dmy date format stands, and it is for whoever closes this discussion to either take on board or dismiss my argument. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I did not write the Superman articles. Those four articles had at one point used DMY. I did not change those dates either. But you mentioned the articles so I was only referencing them per your original reference.
In addition, by your logic, just about every Disney film from 1937 until today would use DMY because most of the stories they use are from other countries, starting with Snow white which was a German story. But those films, just like this Tintin film are considered separate intellectual properties which are made and produced by non Belgium countries. Thats pretty clear cut.--JOJ Hutton 02:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now de-linked "United States" in the infobox. You know where to send the hate mail. Be warned though, I issue death threats on members of Boko Harram in my spare time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that was necessary but, okay. JOJ Hutton 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure.

[edit]
Not forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



When Red Rackham enters the hold there appears to be much more than the four hundredweight stated by Haddock, could it be that Spielberg, as an American, was unfamiliar with the Imperial system of weights and measures?PC 5002 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information under Production

[edit]

I am not sure why this wrong piece of info has been present on this article for as long as it has been, but it is time it is corrected. Under Production, Filming and Visual Effects, it is stated that "Spielberg finished six weeks of additional motion-capture filming in mid-July 2009." This is wrong. The original shoot took six weeks from late January 2009 to March 2009. It is highly unlikely that they would shoot that much weeks of additional filming. The source, which is a piece from The Hollywood Reporter, is referring to the original six week shoot, not "six weeks of additional motion-capture filming."

There were a week of reshoots that took place in June 2009, "so that any holes in Spielberg's original material might be patched." This is what should be mentioned instead. I hope someone makes the appropriate corrections in the article.

Source: https://www.slashfilm.com/503428/empire-spill-tintin-beans-galore-second-film-coming-really-soon/ Greatopinionator (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Adventures_of_Tintin_(film)&oldid=1204553345"