Jump to content

Talk:Wreck-It Ralph/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Tweaks to the plot summary

In an effort to curb excessive detail and describe critical plot points more succintly, I draw attention to these problematic lines:

  • At a support group for video game antagonists, Ralph reveals his desire to stop being the bad guy. Back at home, Ralph finds the other characters celebrating their game's 30th anniversary without inviting him. Felix reluctantly invites Ralph to join them, but the others ostracize him, saying he would have to earn a medal, just as Felix does in their game. We don't need to say he goes to a support group, or that he was snubbed at the party. We just need to say that Ralph wants to be respected like a hero, but he cannot escape his role because his game's programming provides no such opportunity.
  • Ralph enters the game and encounters Sergeant Calhoun, its no-nonsense leader. We should introduce Calhoun when she teams up with Felix and explains what's at stake. This is when her character becomes genuinely important to the story.
  • Back in Hero's Duty, Felix meets Calhoun, who warns that the Cy-Bugs are capable of taking over any game they enter. We should give a more accurate description of how the Cy-Bug is a threat: it will procreate out of control and consume everything because there is no beacon outside Hero's Duty to control them.
  • King Candy and the other racers refuse to let Vanellope participate, claiming that she is not really part of the game King Candy doesn't explain this until much later.
  • As the pair searches for Ralph and the Cy-Bug in Sugar Rush, they separate when Felix, enamored with Calhoun, inadvertently reminds her of her previous romantic relationship, which ended tragically, albeit by design. Calhoun finds hundreds of Cy-Bug eggs underground, and Felix becomes imprisoned in King Candy's castle. This is a little superfluous. It should be trimmed, if not eliminated.
  • When Vanellope catches up to King Candy, he reveals that he is actually Turbo—a character from an old game who is notorious for having sabotaged a newer game, causing both to be unplugged, and has since taken control of Sugar Rush. This comes out of nowhere and is really jarring. Turbo's story should be mentioned earlier, and we can do this without increasing the word count.
  • Felix marries Calhoun Totally superfluous.

Other points:

  • Vanellope's glitch should be given a short description. Does she randomly freeze? Does she go mute? Does she have clipping problems? Skeleton animation issues?
  • Turbo's ability to hack the game code must be mentioned, as well as how he used it to sabotage Vanellope, and how letting her race would undo his alterations.

Kurzon (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're coming at this from the video gamer's point of view, as some of the details you dismiss as unnecessary are core to a story that's based on characterization (namely the interest between Felix and Calhoun) and you want more focus on the mechanics of these video game worlds. We really should be more aimed at the story and characters and not the fundamentals of the games, and hence most of what you are looking to change as to include details elsewhere really isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The mechanics of the games in Litwak's Arcade are hugely important to the plot and the characters. The characters motivations and actions are defined and constrained by their programming. These are not ordinary human beings who live by the rules of the real world. These are game characters who are trapped in their roles, and who transcend them by gaming the rules of their code. Why are the Cy-Bugs such a threat to the other games outside Hero's Duty, motivating Calhoun to leave her game and go on the hunt? Because those game worlds are not equipped to deal with them (no beacons). Why is Vanellope glitchy? Because her code was hacked by Turbo. Why doesn't Turbo want her to race? Because the game code will reset. How is Turbo unmasked? Vanellope's glitch scrambles his disguise. The support group teaches villains to accept their roles rather than help them overcome them because they know their program won't allow it.Kurzon (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Not really. It's important to say characters can mingle and visit other games at night. We can't say that the characters' motivations are defined by their programming as that's exactly contrary to what the plot is based on, characters breaking away from that. They do live in a world that is defined by video game rules but they themselves aren't fully defined that way .
The part on Turbo's backstory is not really needed. We don't need to say how King Candy is revealed as Turbo, nor exactly how he manipulated the game to put him in charge, just that he did so. The only key motivation is that should Vanellope win, then through a number of machinations, her glitchy character would reset the game, ruining King's plans. The machinations aren't important, it's the endpoints that are. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better. Clearly, for example, the climactic scene of two supporting characters' relationship is critically important and not totally (or even mildly) superfluous. And the specifics of the glitching don't matter — what matters is that some disability or other exists that the other characters make fun of her and shun her for. Similarly, "taking over any game they enter" is the pertinent point. The specific mechanics of how don't really matter. I think the stable plot reads perfectly well as is. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
They exclude her because her glitch is highly visible to the player and disruptive, and will thus get their machine unplugged if they let her race. It's not quite the same as humans shunning lepers or mental retards. We should thus give at least a very brief explanation of what her glitch is like so that the reader will understand her situation better (and how she uses it to save Ralph, if we include that point).Kurzon (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, plot points don't have to be given in strict chronological order, per WP:FILMPLOT. They can be folded into wherever makes most sense for plot flow.
I know that. Putting Turbo's backstory earlier makes for better flow.Kurzon (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I do agree the phrase "albeit by design" should go. I'm not sure that has any effect on the plot. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tenebrae and reworded that section as "her former fiancee, who was killed ... in a pre-programmed incident". It's essentially the same thing, but more neatly invokes a line by one of the soldiers that she was "programmed to have the worst back-story ever". It's important to her character, but that's about all that needs to be said about it. (If others feel the "pre-programmed" part doesn't add anything, I'd be fine with just leaving it at "her fiancee was killed", but to reduce it further would reduce understanding of her character.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Masem and Tenebrae on this, to a point. To me, the Felix/Calhoun subplot is just that. It's not really integral to the story. Nothing happens because of it. Calhoun fights the Cy-Bugs in Sugar Rush because she's basically programmed to do so and knows what they can do, not out of a love/admiration for Felix. But, I have no problem yielding to consensus on this. To the other points, I'll take them in order.

1. The support group. It actually is a pivotal scene and establishes the core of the plot, that Ralph doesn't like his lot in life and wants to change it.

2. Calhoun's first mention. This is when it occurs, no more and no less.

3. The Cy-Bugs. You're saying exactly the same thing, but from a gamer's point of view. The key is how dangerous the Cy-Bugs are, not the exact mechanics of said danger.

4. How the racers treat Vanellope. This could be tweaked, but again, the point is to mention what's going on (she's told she doesn't belong).

5. Felix and Calhoun separate. I agree with trimming out the romance subplot, but their respective fates (meaning what happens to them) is still key.

6. The Turbo reveal. I agree with Kurzon on this and like the way the story read before it was undone in good faith by another editor.

7. Marriage. Please refer to my previous points about this subplot.

8. Defining the glitch. Again, you're looking at this as a gamer. Let's assume the reader is not a gamer; the average reader does know what a glitch generally is (a problem, error, etc.), but they won't understand the mechanics of it, and attempting to define the glitch ourselves would be WP:OR without question. Let them make that decision for themselves.

9. King Candy and modifying the game code. I agree it should be explained how King Candy got the medal, but as to the motivations, that's again something that we should leave to the viewers.

--McDoobAU93 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
1. We can reduce it to the simple message of the scene: "Ralph wants to be respect like a good guy but can't escape his villain role." This is much shorter. It will keep us under the word limit.
2. We can mention her first when she teams up with Calhoun. This goes back to Tenebrae's point about plot flow (WP:FILMPLOT).
3. Well, I guess the current version is passable.
4. We can say "Vanellope has a glitch that causes her to flicker." This is very short and completes an important plot point.
5. OK. I wanted to use this anyway, so I'm all for including it now.
6. Thank you.
7. Your reply to Luminum's post suggests you agree the marriage is superfluous. If the romance is superfluous, then so is the conclusion of that subplot.
8. See 4
9. We should write the exposition that the characters explicitly state in dialogue. Felix recounts Turbo's hunger for adulation and his jealous nature. Sour Bill explains why King Candy can't allow Vanellope to race. As for deeper interpretations (is Turbo a narcissist? mommy issues?), I didn't add anything that wasn't clearly laid out in the dialogue.
Kurzon (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
On the Turbo reveal, the one thing that could be said that gives us Felix's motive is this: "Felix worries that Ralph will become like Turbo, a jealous character from a racing game that tried to take over a more modern one, causing both games to be removed from the arcade and stranding their characters at GameCentral." You introduce who Turbo is, why being unplugged is bad (which is already said), and thus why Felix cares. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And everyone accuses me of adding interpretations. Calhoun simply wanted to know what the expression "going Turbo" meant, given that her game was new to the arcade, and Felix obliged.Kurzon (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Remember we don't have to give the plot in exact order if it clears up and simplifies things. Clearly, Felix knows what "going Turbo" is from the start, but only explains it to Calhoun when she asks as her game is new. That reveal in the movie is made for dramatic purposes - as a first time viewer, you yourself would be wondering what "going Turbo" is, knowing that it is bad. But from an out-of-universe, encyclopedic summary, Felix is clearly aware of the Turbo situation and knows that his game may be gone if he can't return Ralph, even though that is not spelled out by that point in the movie when Felix sets off to look for him. There is nothing interpreative there. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"Going Turbo" is mentioned within the first 5 or so minutes of the film when Bison asks Ralph if he's "going Turbo". Now, when I first saw the clip, I honestly thought it was a reference to Super Street Fighter II Turbo, but of course it was clarified later when Felix explains to Calhoun what it means. I think Kurzon's edit does make this make sense a bit better, but again, I'll go with whatever consensus decides. --McDoobAU93 22:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I completely agree that we can talk about who Turbo was and what impact he had as the motive for Felix going after Ralph early in the plot summary. It's late reveal in the movie is for dramatics, but we're not writing for that, and it makes it much clearer earlier. But we don't need to spend a lot of time word-wise on it, just enough to establish his jealous costed the arcade two games and left characters homeless, hence why Felix is going after him. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
That's what I wanted to do all along.Kurzon (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to address McD's and K's points. First, though, I'd like to say that "mental retard" is a really, really offensive thing to say. I may not have relatives suffering from disabilities, but whether someone is blind, paralyzed or developmentally disabled, I truly would not want someone calling them a "gimp" or a "retard" or anything like that.

Moving on....

1. "The support group. It actually is a pivotal scene and establishes the core of the plot, that Ralph doesn't like his lot in life and wants to change it." (McD) / "We can reduce it to the simple message of the scene: 'Ralph wants to be respect like a good guy but can't escape his villain role.' This is much shorter. It will keep us under the word limit." (K)

As currently written, it is 18 words :"At a support group for video game antagonists, Ralph reveals his desire to stop being the bad guy." The alternative, which doesn't mention a key setting that established Ralph is serious and this is not a passing fancy, is 15 words. I don't it's worth removing the locale to save three words.

2. I believe it makes the most sense to introduce Calhoun when the protagonist first meets her, especially since we already need to mention the locale that both are in.

3. McD and K are in agreement on 3, as am I. The mechanics are tangential.

4. "How the racers treat Vanellope. This could be tweaked, but again, the point is to mention what's going on (she's told she doesn't belong)." (McD) / "We can say 'Vanellope has a glitch that causes her to flicker.' This is very short and completes an important plot point."

Again, this seems like mechanics. Whether she flickers, changes into other things, teleports, etc., is beside the point. The glitch could be anything and it doesn't matter to the plot. The pertinent point is that she has some error / problem / disability and that she's shunned for it.

5. "Felix and Calhoun separate. I agree with trimming out the romance subplot, but their respective fates (meaning what happens to them) is still key" (McD) / " OK. I wanted to use this anyway, so I'm all for including it now." (K)

I'm not sure what K is saying here.

6. "The Turbo reveal. I agree with Kurzon on this and like the way the story read before it was undone in good faith by another editor." (McD) / "Thank you." (K).

It currently reads, "When Vanellope catches up to King Candy, he reveals that he is actually Turbo—a character from an old game who is notorious for having sabotaged a newer game, causing both to be unplugged, and has since taken control of Sugar Rush." I don't see how this doesn't say everything we need to know. McD: Could you link to the previous version that you were referring to so that we can compare them?

7. "Marriage. Please refer to my previous points about this subplot [which is] Felix and Calhoun separate. I agree with trimming out the romance subplot, but their respective fates (meaning what happens to them) is still key." (McD) / "Your reply to Luminum's post suggests you agree the marriage is superfluous. If the romance is superfluous, then so is the conclusion of that subplot."

One doesn't follow the other, since we do establish that Felix and Calhoun meet, and since they're important characters in the story we need to give their arc's resolution. Here's a trim that may work:

EXTANT: "Back in Hero's Duty, Felix meets Calhoun, who warns that the Cy-Bugs are capable of taking over any game they enter. As the pair searches for Ralph and the Cy-Bug in Sugar Rush, they separate when Felix, enamored with Calhoun, inadvertently reminds her of her previous romantic relationship, which ended tragically, albeit by design."

PROPOSED: "Back in Hero's Duty, Felix meets Calhoun, who warns that the Cy-Bugs are capable of taking over any game they enter. The pair searches for Ralph and the Cy-Bug in Sugar Rush."

Saves a ton of words, since the separation isn't pertinent to the plot — only that they search for Ralph, which is what puts them altogether for the climax. We've saved more than enough words to fit the three "Felix marries Calhoun."

8. essentially restates 4.

9. "King Candy and modifying the game code. I agree it should be explained how King Candy got the medal, but as to the motivations, that's again something that we should leave to the viewers." (McD) / "We should write the exposition that the characters explicitly state in dialogue. Felix recounts Turbo's hunger for adulation and his jealous nature. Sour Bill explains why King Candy can't allow Vanellope to race. As for deeper interpretations (is Turbo a narcissist? mommy issues?), I didn't add anything that wasn't clearly laid out in the dialogue." (K)

I'd have to agree with McD on this one. It doesn't matter why Turbo is jealous. There can be a million reasons why a movie character is jealous of another, but unless the reason for the jealousy has some concrete effect on the plot, as opposed to the jealousy itself, then the reason is superfluous. And the "deeper interpretations" are beside the point and seem like OR extrapolation.

Despite Kurzon's abrupt change to his preferred version today, this matter is still under discussion, and there is clearly no consensus for some of the changes Kurzon summarily added before discussion has been completed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Time

Fandango lists the 2D version as seven minutes shorter than the 3D version. Are there any details about what's missing or why? Kinston eagle (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Likely an error, as I doubt anything was cut from the 3D type to the 2D type. 75.111.46.7 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The 3D version has a animated short entitled "Paperman" That's why it's longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.17.252 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Paperman plays in both 2D and 3D versions, actually, so that's not it. --McDoobAU93 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Voice cast: Alan Tudyk as King Candy; Remove major Spoiler

Remove Alan Tudyk as Turbo from Voice Cast. This is a major spoiler for people who just want to check the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F14:37B:0:0:0:2 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP does not hide spoilers. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
That's absolutely true — we do not hide spoilers. And, indeed, he's revealed as Turbo in the plot synopsis here. But since he's not credited as Turbo in the end-credits, I think we should leave the credits as the filmmakers gave them.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pacman kill screen

At the end of the credits the studio logo is distorted by the infamous pacman kill screen, i didnt see it mentioned anywhere in the article but i think it warrants a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.122.225 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's borderline WP:TRIVIA, actually. We've been trying to keep to things that are found in reliable sources. If you can find a film review that mentions that, then please be bold and add it to the article. --McDoobAU93 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This is one of those things where I'd wonder if, even if it's mentioned in a reliable source, it's worth including in the article. The article is not (or at least shouldn't be) an exhaustive listing of every video game and pop-culture reference in the movie. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, someone earlier added a ref with an RS link that included several more references, including specifically the kill screen, which I did add. I would normally agree with Kiefer here for most films where the intent of being a pop culture reference may be in question, but given this movie was specifically made to include video game cultural references, I don't see a problem adding them as long as we have sourced information for this. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Purple prose

The stable plot reads, "...he is actually Turbo, a character from an old game who sabotaged a newer game...." One editor made it much more florid without adding any new pertinent information by writing, "...he is actually Turbo, a character from an old game who went rogue by notoriously sabotaging a newer game...." When I restored the original wording, he began engaging in an edit-war by reverting most of it to "...he is actually Turbo, a character from an old game who went rogue by sabotaging a newer game...." In this context "going rogue" is vague and ill-defined, and "went rogue by sabotaging" doesn't add any new or different information to "and sabotaged." It's standard bad writing to use a wordy phrase when one apt word will do. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Character cameos

This section has been fraught with any number of additions, some cited and some not, of video game characters that may make a cameo appearance in the film. Most recently, an article in Disney twenty-three featured concept art showing Bowser, Zangief and Dr. Eggman. In the text of the article, there was a segment discussing how someone was doing fill-in vocals for Zangief until the actual voice actor was selected and hired.

However, this may be where we run into a problem. Not because of copyright issues, as User:Georgia guy has suggested (believe me, Disney would certainly have approvals from Nintendo, Capcom and Sega, and/or from whoever else), but because of that infamous place called "the cutting-room floor". There is a distinct possibility that this scene could be edited out of the film prior to release ... of course, it could also be the most talked-about scene in the entire movie, along the lines of the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast and the lantern scene in Tangled.

I'm wondering what the editors here think should be included. Do we include Bowser and Eggman, since they appear in concept art and are rather distinguishable to a reasonable reader (i.e., not really an issue with original thought or interpretation)? Do we leave Zangief in, because he may have some dialogue? What about the rest of the characters mentioned so far that fall into basically the same situation ... they've appeared in concept art, but may or may not be in the final product?

--McDoobAU93 23:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Sega character was Dr. Robotnik, not `Eggman` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.59.138 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

AKB48 and marketing of movie in Japan

The movie was marketed very differently in Japan, although I don't see anything about it mentioned here. Disney emphasized the cute, sweet, "candy" aspects of the movie in Japan, while the action and video game characters were more of a focus in other countries. The Japanese wiki's page is "シュガー・ラッシュ" (Shugā rasshu) for "Sugar Rush" as Disney even renamed the title due to AKB48's involvement with the soundtrack. Everything from the trailers to theatrical posters, down to the title logo artwork were changed for Japan. Even the official Disney Japan site is named "Sugar Rush" http://www.disney.co.jp/sugar-rush/ — ThreeDee912(talk/contribs) 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wreck-It Ralph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LuizM (talk · contribs) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    No problems.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Ok.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Ok.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Ok.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The Lord of the Rings reference

When Ralph falls down toward that Mentos platform, it resembles Gandalf's fall scene from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. It even has the same music, kinda. Myotis (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Without a reliable source saying this, it is original research and cannot be added. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disney Infinity

Disney Infinity is out now, so change the sentence saying "will be". And their figures are out now too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.8.144 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I really only have the Disney Store to go on for their figure releases, but the individual figures are out now there, so I will change this. (If anyone has a better source, please make it better.) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

!

Today it's almost impossible to edit something here, but I'd like to say that it's an error to say King Candy falsely claimed that "letting Vanellope race would be disastrous for both her and the game", because until Ralph discovers all Candy's secret plan by interrogating Sour Bill, Ralph and the audience have no choice but realizing that he (Candy) is telling the truth. Besides, while getting back Ralph's medal, Candy doesn't say anything like "lie to Ralph", he is not shown making evil laughs out of Ralphs sight (after he leaves) and shows no evidence of his true intentions.Brazilian Man (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because nobody knows you're lying, it doesn't mean you're not lying. I believe the current way it is written is best. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I think plot summaries are more accurate, in general, when they lean toward describing the plot as it unfolds to the viewer. Either way, though, the word "claiming" already carries with it a hint of uncertainty, so I don't see the problem with removing the "falsely" if some editors don't like it. The rest of the summary makes it clear that he was lying. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... I think "current is best" could have been better phrased as "I don't take issue with it". I'll go look into removing it right now. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

2011

Based on clues from the film itself and the main menu, I have concluded that the movie is set in 2011. This should belong in Category:2011 in fiction. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your personal analysis of the film cannot be the basis of an edit to the article. If a reliable source publishes its analysis and makes the determination of the year in which the film takes place, then this would be a good basis to add that information. Another good basis would be a particular scene where a calendar is shown, with the current month/year being visible. --McDoobAU93 21:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
To be completely honest, a 30th anniversary of a 1982 video game would be in 2012. Nonetheless, this is still technically OR, so at this point, I'm not even totally sure why I've responded here... - Purplewowies (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request done through different process

{{improve|reason="Ralph is searching for a medal in Tappers Lost and found, finding first the "Exclamation point" (with the corresponding sound effect from the game), and then a Super Mushroom from Super Mario Bros." - that's wrong, so fix it.}} - 93.196.231.215

Could you be more specific? I sense you're talking about the order of the elements, and I could crack out my DVD and check/fix that, but for the time being, not done. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The things come out of the box in the following order: cockroach, mushroom, exclamation mark, Zangief's briefs. I've fixed the sentence. 93.196.231.215, when you make an edit request, please see WP:ERQ, and specify the exact wording of the change you're proposing. On a different note, unless you are adressing Fix-It Felix Jr., please make a request, not a demand to fix it. done Digital Brains (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Markowski: Trivia facts

One of story writers (and "story watchdog") has name Markowski. I guess there is inside joke going there; In Polish version Markowski's voice is dubbed by Grzegorz Markowski. 150.254.130.180 (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not uncommon - the Deutschendorf babies in Ghostbusters 2 spring to mind for a similar in-joke there. However, I think it's a trivial mention, and not worthy of inclusion - unless you can find a reliable source that makes comment on this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, lists of random facts are disallowed without encyclopedic discussion of reliable sources surrounding them. And if you didn't intend to have it be added to the article, the talk page is not a forum. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Good faith is assumed - the fact that they actually got an actor also having the name "Markowski" does place this higher than many inside jokes, however a Google search doesn't bring back any results of a reliable nature. "Grzegorz Markowski Wreck it ralph" brings back more results, but they're all in Polish so can't be easily verified either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I know pages about movies and series in wikipedia which had "Trivia facts" sections; If this page would have such a section, I would include that information without hesitation. Since "trivia" section was absent, I decided to put this in talk page so other could estimate whether it is worth of inclusion, or not. 2001:808:201:101:213:D4FF:FEB0:A92F (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
My opinion remains as stated above: Unless the factoid is commented upon by relable sources, we shouldn't be adding it in. Trivia sections are not disallowed, but need external sources to show that they're accepted and significant pieces of trivia. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists as a counter argument to say "Well, film xxxxxxxxx has a trivia section - why not this one as well?" Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chaheel on this. Pop culture articles attract inexperienced editors unfamiliar with our sourcing policies. Films especially seem to draw edits of the "How about that part where... that was exactly like that other movie where..." variety. The best way to prevent this is to avoid having a trivia section (well-sourced, relevant material will fit in somewhere else) and stringently apply WP:V. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Particularly for this article: the reason we have a video game reference section is because other sources noted those elements so we, properly, can document that without introducing OR or a bias. We absolutely would need a third-party source that affirms the character name was based on a production team member's name to include. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Chaheel's statement, and the one above, were what I meant in my first statement: It really needs reliable sourcing for proof and relevance. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Villain

It's kind of unusual to name a film's title after a villain rather than the protagonist. Does the word villain have a new definition here?? Normally a Disney villain is defined as a character who is against the protagonist; a synonym is antagonist. Can anyone clear this up?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly (although this is close to a forum-like post) ... Wreck-It Ralph may be the "villain" of the video game in which he appears, but as the overall story goes, he is the focus of the story, thus the protagonist. Protagonists aren't necessarily truly good characters; look at James Bond for example. While he certainly is the hero in the books and films, he can be particularly ruthless and cruel (especially in the books) in his methods and treatment of others. --McDoobAU93 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, the term protagonist means main character and has nothing to do with good or evil (though the villain is usually not the main character so they are often the antagonist). In the case of Disney works the villain is rarely if ever the primary character so they are almost always the antagonist in the works of fiction in which they appear however that is not the case for Ralph.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ralph is not the antagonist in the movie. He's the antagonist in his game. The movie's antagonist is Turbo. The point of the movie (IMHO) is that Ralph's game falls apart without him; that he's necessary there. You could, by extension, say that about Turbo's place in the movie while you're at it. - Denimadept (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Markowski

I don't feel that Markowski should be referred to as the "drunk soldier" considering this is a kid's movie for one, and for two he seems more like he's having a nervous break down/panic attack then being inebriated. I believe something such as "Wussy new recruit of Heroes' Duty whom Ralph poses as when he enters the game" or something along those lines would work just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.13.224 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those are particularly encyclopedic in tone, but "drunk" is speculation, and therefore, I've changed it to "a soldier Ralph meets in Tapper". I'm not sure what I could come up with that conveys his nervousness and fits from a stylistic standpoint. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

question

should the lead paragraph mention the film being, in a sense, a tribute to over 30 years of the gaming industry? Also, it should mention the classic numbering differences between the US and UK, since Winnie the Pooh doesn't count as a "main" film over here in the UK, making this one the 51st of the main films. Visokor (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"No" for both. The numbering issue is addressed at Frozen talk page; the "tribute" probably cannot be sourced.Forbidden User (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Turbo's revenge

Before he can finish, Turbo, merged with the Cy-Bug that had consumed him, decides to get revenge by carrying Ralph into the sky. Ralph breaks free and dives toward the mountain, intending to sacrifice himself to start the eruption on impact. Vanellope uses her glitching to save Ralph, and the eruption draws Turbo and the Cy-Bugs to their destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.64.135.84 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:177.64.135.84 ...Do you have a question or comment about the article? - Purplewowies (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The text posted above is different from what's in the article - I'm assuming it's an edit request. I disagree with making the change, though. Adding "decides to get revenge" is interpretation - the plot summary should describe what happens on the screen, not read into characters' motivations. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh... I missed the changed part (I looked at this shortly after waking up), and I just assumed it had been straight-copied from the article. And indeed, I wouldn't include the addition, either. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Turbo, the former star racer of TurboTime and a revenge seeker for the arcade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.188.199 (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Turbo has his revenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.189.158 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Turbo has his revenge to take over the arcade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.173.119 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd just remove this whole section here. - Denimadept (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Change plot of Wreck-It-Ralph I want to change the plot of this article on Wreck-It-Ralph. I feel like it needs a little more details in it. My sources are: The Movie Lenahp1234 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Plots for films are to be kept short - between 400 and 700 words, and this is just at the higher end of that. So it is unlikely we can add more details without going past that. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/66547/20150106/wreck-it-ralph-2-release-date-all-set-on-november-2016-mario-joins-cast.htm

82.19.12.85 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That link is all rumor and guessing. "If new updates are true ... could be the sequel", "hinted at the possibility", etc. None of this is definite enough to be ready to include in the article. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternate Ending

This is the different ending when Ralph going to the Sugar Rush Castle to restore Vanellope's code, but he began to punch the King Candy's code. Turbo stops Ralph to destroy the King Candy's code, Turbo is turned into a Cy-Bug, mixing the King Candy's persona and Turbo's persona. Turbo confesses to Ralph that Turbo is the most powerful virus in the arcade, he tries to take over other games in the arcade as revenge of his plans being foiled. Ralph battle Candy/Turbo on the code, Vanellope comes and Turbo/Candy got her with his claws, Turbo/Candy tries to force Ralph to let Vanellope died, Ralph tries to force Turbo to let Vanellope go and force him to give back her code and Turbo/Candy says "never" and released her dropping it, Ralph tries to rescue her, Fix-It Felix and Calhoun rescues them with a rope. would be easier to defeat Turbo/Candy and the Cy-Bugs, Turbo/Candy began his evil laugh, Calhoun destroys the King Candy's code with her gun, Turbo/Candy gets horrified screaming saying "no", and the King Candy's code is destroyed and Turbo/Candy is being glitched and electrified by his death and the Cy-Bugs too. The Cy-Bugs and Turbo/Candy are get destroyed by the explosion, and Ralph and everybody are saved the game. Felix reprograms the Finish line, Vanellope cross her restoring her code, the Sugar Rush is restored and everyone memories are being restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.194.137.172 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking be changed. Alternate endings are best experienced via DVD/Blu-ray extras. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
...What's up with people coming from the Wreck-It Ralph wikia to inject fancruft? Link to this passage word-for-word on a discussion forum on the aforementioned wiki. In other words, this isn't a real thing.) - Purplewowies (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible vs. just sequel

I see a lot of flip-flopping throughout the page's history on the sequel section header. Should there be a discussion here about it? Or a hidden note on the best wording for the header? - Purplewowies (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Wreck-It Ralph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Disney Store links weren't dead, exactly (and I'm not sure their archive links count as working), but I've checked. magicaldefinition might not count, either, as I suspect the actual source is in the (non-archived) mp3 of the podcast. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tapper's

Tappers was originally made as a beer serving game. Later, it was changed to root beer, but relatively few machines were converted. Why do some editors here insist on the root beer version? There's nothing in the movie that I've noticed which specifies either way. To my mind, that means it's best not to specify either way. - Denimadept (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the same editor each time (it always seems to be an IP, almost always editing the exact same parts of the article). The cabinet in the movie is actually somewhat interesting, as it's mostly pulled from (beer) Tapper (the player character's appearance, the cabinet, etc.), though the back of the room when the camera cuts to the real-world perspective is emblazoned with the "root beer" icon. (This can be most clearly seen on this image at the Wreck-It Ralph Wiki on Wikia.) I personally think the reasons for "root beer" to be included were to expunge what would have been Budweiser references on a standard Tapper cabinet, since that's the only way they're included and the rest is fairly faithful to (beer) Tapper. But to include it one way or the other without clear in-movie evidence or a reliable source stating which it is would be OR, so best to keep it to what the movie does state. (That is, they call it Tapper... but that's really about all they do.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of just leaving it as "Tapper's". I don't see any reason for any extra wording here - "Tapper's root beer game" would be unnecessarily verbose, and a little clunky, even if it were perfectly accurate. The link to the Tapper's article is perfectly sufficient. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Wreck-It Ralph 2

WITHDRAWN
I still think that the information would be better presented in the context of the original article at this time, but I recognize that is not the consensus here. Mz7 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is still too soon to have a standalone article for the sequel at this time. The relevant guideline here is WP:NFF, which states that In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. In this case, we don't have evidence that the film is in this stage of the production. If anything, recently released sources (unsure of their reliability) seem to indicate that the cast of the film is still being finalized: [1][2][3]. This will almost certainly be notable in the future, but for now, it is better to present the information that we do have right now as a section in the original film's article. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Definitely will probably be notable in the future, but it's definitely too soon even though there's a release date out. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You mean, its release date might be delayed to a year like 2024?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
They could move the release date, yes (it's not unheard of, though 2024 is a bit far out), but I was saying that the release date (presuming it doesn't move) is one of only a few concrete, specific things we know about the movie. There's no evidence of where it is in production, very little concrete plot information, little about casting, etc. It's WP:TOOSOON. There's not enough coverage at this point in time to merit the article being separate yet. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: No it's not to soon for an article of its own. There is sufficient information to warrant an article. I see no reason to believe it would be better to keep the informatin stuck in the Wreck-It Ralp (1) article. --Maxl (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: It'll need its own article one day, but for now, I don't think there's sufficient content that requires its own article. Everything there could be easily merged into the existing article without loss for readers. MidnightObservation (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Weak Support: I suppose per the guideline, it's premature, and I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere, but otherwise, it seems like unnecessary work to merge it just to have to separate it again in a week/month/whatever. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: The film warrants it's own article, considering that the film comes out in just over a year, meaning most of the voice acting is done and animation is being completed. If this was done four months prior, I could understand the warrant, but not now. If it were something like Frozen 2, which is similar in terms of amount of knowledge but farther off, than I could understand. but this film has more information and a closer release date. --Zorbo678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
But we don't have reliable sources confirming that it's out of that production phase. Assuming so is WP:OR. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Zorbo678: I'm not sure about that. From what I can tell by the sources I listed above, it seems that they are still figuring out what the cast is going to consist of. Are there any reliable sources that confirm that "most of the voice acting is done and animation is being completed"? Extrapolating this based on how far away the release date is would be, as Purplewowies notes, original research. We really don't have that much information at all about the film beyond what is already listed in the "Sequel" section of the first film's article. Mz7 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose the article has already been written, has plenty of valid sources, as far as we know it will be released in a year. Really overthinking this one. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This seems good enough as a standalone article, considering where it's at right now. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC))
Oppose: The article clearly meets WP:GNG, is well-sourced, and will receive ongoing attention in the near future.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Weak Oppose: Since this article has already been created, and we know it'll be needed at a point in the future, I think there's not too much harm in keeping it there. I don't think we should preemptively create sequel articles for every movie that has the slightest hint of a sequel coming, but since this one has already been created, it may as well stay. JaykeBird (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - The film has enough sources to meet the general notability standard, which trumps a special standard like WP:NFF. While NFF has value to avoid proliferating articles on speculative movie projects, this film has an official release date about a year from now so is beyond the speculative stage. And if at this point the project gets cancelled, the project would still be notable at this point. Rlendog (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Wreck-It Ralph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wreck-It Ralph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Fake history

Please -- someone with far better editing skills than me: please add something to address this:

http://www.ageekdaddy.com/2013/03/there-really-is-fix-it-felix-jr-video.html

http://wreckitralph.wikia.com/wiki/Fix-It_Felix,_Jr._(game)

supporting reference thingie: Disney is Rewriting Your Childhood With Nostalgia For a Game That Didn't Exist

a video where the guy talks about how it's not from actual 1982: Fix It Felix Jr arcade cabinet at home

It would just be nice for Wikipedia to, with neutral voice, clarify that even though there is apparently a Fix It Felix actual arcade cabinet in the wild, with a (C) 1982 in the game, the game did not actually exist in 1982.

In fact, this whole history re-write thing feels creepy-- like something from the book 1984.

PragmaticallyWyrd (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I emphasized the fictional aspect by inserting the word fictional in three more places. It already appeared in one, to describe the fake Disney game cabinet. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out as someone who has edited Wreck-It Ralph Wiki that that page is written from an in-universe perspective--sometimes far more than it should be. That, of course, has little to do with this wiki's information, I just felt like pointing it out. (Particularly since that article's not only rather in-universe but also seems like it could be conflating the real-life promotional game that came out in 2012 with the in-movie fictional game from 1982.) In terms of re-writes being creepy, though, I'd say the Garlan Hulse mockumentary they made for the movie is far creepier because of the sheer lengths it goes to. :P Kind of strange the fictional nature of the game wasn't yet clarified enough yet... - Purplewowies (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Late question ho! Does this section imply a consensus to call the game fictional? An anonymous editor removed it from the voice cast section (but not elsewhere if other instances are in the article) today, I reverted the edit, and then a different IP reverted me. Rather than get in an edit war, I figured I'd ask here first. (Thought about discussing it with the IPs that removed it but figured I should gather what editors to the article think about it first.) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: It's been re-reverted to include "fictional" again by someone else (i.e. someone reverted the IP who reverted me). My question still stands, but that's the current state. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd consider this discussion reflects logic and consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think i have seen an old fix it felix game in a youtube video... 146.255.180.195 (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we revisit the consensus this section laid out or should someone (me?) attempt to request page protection? There's multiple IPs that AFAIK aren't in the same range (but probably only one or two people) repeatedly removing the word, and other methods (directly talking (probably not helped by the changing IP), adding a hidden comment, etc.) aren't doing anything. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(...Hmm, it might be more like 2-4 people, unless someone's looping back onto the same IP, if that's a thing (the last editor's only edits to the page are recent but not "contiguous" (there are other IPs doing the same thing in between in the history)).) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wreck-It_Ralph/Archive_2&oldid=1137332764"