Talk:The Huntsman: Winter's War

Poster

I was wondering if one of the two new teaser posters released by Universal could be used in the infobox in the article, rather than one of the four character posters. This is not a priority, just a suggestion. -- Draco9904 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sequel

This is being described as a spin-off/prequel but the plot summary sounds more like a sequel. If the queen is dead and sister hears of it and comes and resurrects her then isn't that following AFTER the events of the first movie?

It sounds like whatever prequel aspect which may exist would be a brief flashback explaining the younger sister's banishment before the first film at which point they fast forward to after the first film.

If Snow White (Kristen Stewart) killed the queen have they explained where she is afterward? Shouldn't she take over as the new queen? Does she just take off? Die of the flu? 174.92.135.167 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the sources, even though some called it a prequel, later sources are still calling it a sequel, so I have altered the language to describe it as BOTH. Removed the bit about "revealed to be a prequel, not a sequel" because the source used only said it was a prequel, it did not say anything about it not being a sequel, that appears to be OR.

If any reliable sources out there support it NOT being a sequel (calling it a prequel is not enough, movies can do both) please supply them before inserting this kind of language or removing language about it being a sequel. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing plot analysis

Hi Folks, can we get some sourcing on the analysis for the plot summary? There's some good info; it would be great to have that content cited. Adding some tags for that purpose. Thanks, Curdigirl (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this movie changed to dark fantasy

This film is set entirely in a fantasy world and not any world like ours. This movie does not have any connection to a world like ours. Per definition this should go in high fantasy. I don't know why it keeps getting changed to dark fantasy. Lord of the Rings has dark features in it as well, how come nobody calls it dark fantasy. By definition this is a high fantasy film and should be left there.--Taeyebar 20:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The primary genre, per WP:FILMLEAD, is fantasy film. Most sources do not use the term high fantasy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. And as it was explained to you wp:specificlink requires it.--Taeyebar 00:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a term most sources use for this film. You've been told repeatedly WP:SPECIFICLINK is not about genres. WP:FILMLEAD applies here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. it was you who was told that WP:SPECIFICLINK supports it and not even by me.--Taeyebar 22:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What explicitly applies here is WP:FILMLEAD, which says Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. Most sources call this film a fantasy, not a "high fantasy". You've been told this many times before. Claiming authority from another guideline that has nothing to do with films or genres does not entitle you to ignore the clear intent of WP:FILMLEAD. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyebar, where in the article does it say "dark fantasy"? The lead has been changed to say "fantasy", which is the primary genre in which it is classified by reliable sources. Here are just a few examples:

The first two are some of the biggest influences among reliable sources when it comes to film classification. I realize those two are links to the first movie and not the sequel, but that's because the sequel has not been entered yet. However, there is no reason to believe the sequel won't receive the same genre classification. I've also provided two others that are referencing the sequel. If anything, we can remove "adventure" from the lead, unless other editors wanting to retain it provide a list of sources that specify that genre. I don't believe that genre is necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with saying "fantasy" based on the reliable sources. This does not mean there can be no discussion in the article body about the film's connection to high fantasy or dark fantasy. It just does not warrant being in the opening sentence since it is not well-known as either of these. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: the film previously was introduced as "dark fantasy" so I posted a discussion here. After a months of no response, I changed to high fantasy. User:Gothicfilm followed me here as he/she has been for a number of years and incited the most recent edit war. The sources using fantasy do not imply that it is not high-fantasy. it is common for sources to go by primary genres, but does not deny the existence of the subgenre. But right now is the stalking by gothicfilm, which i am going to deal with in the coming days. it has been going on for years and I have posted numerous warnings to this user to stop, or else I'd take action.--Taeyebar 00:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1]--Taeyebar 00:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may not deny the existence of the sub-genre, but they do not support it either. Do you have any sources that do? One of the biggest reasons WP:FILMLEAD states "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified" is to help us avoid edit-warring and simply look to the sources for a solution. It also helps avoid creating a WP:SEAOFBLUE in the opening line, which can be distracting. If the number or quality of sources supporting the sub-genre pale in comparison with the ones supporting the main genre, then the main genre should be stated instead. Like Erik stated above, that doesn't mean we can't still discuss the sub-genre down in the body of the article. As for Gothicfilm's behavior, I think any claim you have about it would be best addressed at an admin noticeboard instead of this talk page. That's not to say you don't have cause, but here we should focus on the article and forming a consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60:, agreed with your last statement. We will discuss it onwards here when I have more time.--Taeyebar 23:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]