Talk:The NeverEnding Story III

Fair use rationale for Image:Tnes3.jpg

Image:Tnes3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute - "Criticism" section.

This section is clearly not a neutral, unbiased description of the criticism given this movie. Consider these lines:

"This film is generally regarded as the biggest failure and weakest installment by fans of the original novel and the 1984 film of the same name."
"While supposed to represent childlike innocence with a strong heart, here she was portrayed as a young woman in her 20's with a shopping addiction." Supposed to? by whom?
"Critics of the film regard it as the biggest failure of fantasy in film history."
"Most of these projects have been critically panned as having dumbed down the source material in order to appeal to children." - this offers general criticism about the work of a particular person, which isn't relevant to the reception of this particular film.

In addition, all these statements, as well as the entire section, are unsourced.

I'm gonna spend a little time rewriting this, at least to smooth out the most flagrant biases. Brad Gibbons (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just rewrote the section to tone it down as much as I could without spending a lot of time on it. However, some statements are still clearly biased, and the fact that there are no alternate viewpoints given time at all still comes across as non-neutral. It still needs further work. Brad Gibbons (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those statements definitely need sources, I have requested citations and if they are not found soon I will simply remove this biased information. Freikorp (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Critic

It seems that many editors have used the Nostalgia Critic as a legitimate reviewer on this page. I would like to clarify that the Nostalgia Critic is not real. He is one of the many characters played by Doug Walker, an actor, not a critic. He may have opinions, but Walker's profession is as an entertainer, not a critic.

Therefore, please do not use The Nostalgia Critic's opinion as a reference when it comes to film/TV/video game criticism on this page, or any page on Wikipedia from now on. Even if he destroys a DVD with a crowbar. That is all. Freshh (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Parker

I removed the link from actress Nicole Parker because the actress who appeared in this movie is actually a different Nicole Parker who unfortunately does not have an article as of yet. Elnauron (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koreander not Coreander

I just finished watching part 2. It is definitely spelled “Koreander” on the door of the bookstore, not “Coreander”. Did the spelling change in part 3 or did someone just make a mistake here? 208.102.32.88 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]