Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Rebel Moon

Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2600:8800:8809:1C00:DBE:3B5E:687E:C28B in topic Director's cuts
Learn more about this page

Rebel Moon

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments2 people in discussion

User:InfiniteNexus has changed the title back to Rebel Moon claiming it's not the official title. Rebel Moon is divided into two parts, the first part is titled "A Child of Fire". It's basically like Harry Potter 7 and 8. Even Netflix makes it clear these are actual titles for the parts (https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/rebel-moon-release-date-photos).

Start your hunt into the mysteries of Rebel Moon when Part 1, titled Rebel Moon — Part One: A Child of Fire, lands on Dec. 22. Rebel Moon Part Two: The Scargiver will follow very soon after, streaming on Netflix on April 19, 2024.

Also InfiniteNexus, you did not try to ask for any consensus before changing the title. The title had been there without any issue until you changed it. Please seek a consensus first. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Consensus is not required to do something; however, consensus can reverse an action if editors agree that the action was misguided or inappropriate. I did my research before making the move, and all evidence points to Rebel Moon being the actual title:
  • The film's poster and logo, while missing a billing block, use Rebel Moon
  • The trailer on YouTube uses Rebel Moon in the title
  • The film's socials continue to use Rebel Moon as its display name and in its bio
  • The official press site and Tudum use Rebel Moon
  • The press release you cited above refers to the film releasing in December as Rebel Moon in all instances except once in the final paragraph
  • In virtually every news article covering the trailer, the film is still referred to as Rebel Moon except maybe once at the end, so this remains the WP:COMMONAME.
Until a billing block is released, we have to go with the evidence we currently have. As of now, the overwhelming evidence points to Rebel Moon being the correct title. "Part One" subtitles as a stylization or for marketing purposes are not exactly uncommon. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rebel Moon is the title of the combined film consisting of two parts. It's not that hard to understand. It's your WP:BURDEN to seek a consensus for a controversial change given no one else has had a problem with the title and it's been there for a while. I'm going to seek a RfC on the title. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Btw as for your evidence:
  • The poster is actually from before the titles for both parts were revealed, the poster was released in July 2023.
  • The trailer clearly says "Part 1: A Child of Fire" releases on December 22, 2023 and "Part 2: Scargiver" on April 18, 2024.
  • The film's socials are for both parts and were set up before the title reveals.
  • The official press site and Tudum's Rebel Moon information predates Gamescom.
  • I don't know why you keep ignoring my press release clearly says Rebel Moon is divided into two parts: Start your hunt into the mysteries of Rebel Moon when Part 1, titled Rebel Moon — Part One: A Child of Fire, lands on Dec. 22. Rebel Moon Part Two: The Scargiver will follow very soon after, streaming on Netflix on April 19, 2024.
  • Every news article clearly says Rebel Moon is divided intp two parts. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Whoa, hold your horses! Do NOT start an RfC, that is contrary to the purpose and procedure of an RfC. FYI, you are permitted by WP:BOLDMOVE to revert my move while we discuss here. WP:BURDEN is about added unreferenced content to article, and in any case, I have listed my sources. As for your rebuttals, I am not denying that Part 1 is called A Child of Fire. I am saying even though such title exists in marketing materials, evidence points to the fact that the "official" title of the film is just Rebel Moon. The Twitter bio literally says War Comes to Every World. REBEL MOON. December 22. Only on Netflix. (bolding my own). Nowhere online can I find a logo with a subtitle, and the Tudum page was clearly updated after the trailer was released. And finally, to reiterate, the press release you cited says [...] before Rebel Moon lands on Dec. 22 and [...] Rebel Moon premieres on Dec. 22 before mentioning the subtitles once in the final paragraph. Again, I would like to point out that Dune was also known as Dune: Part One, and F9 was also marketed as F9: The Fast Saga. Neither of those were the official titles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not, especially since it's clear early on only a consensus can resolve this. Besides I think it's important we have the whole community comment on the matter of titles for multi-part films as it doesn't comcern just one. Rebel Moon was used as the title before the first part of the title was revealed, I don't know why you don't understand that.
The final reveal of the trailer is a tantalizing one: the announcement of the two Rebel Moon films’ release dates. Rebel Moon — Part One: A Child of Fire hits Netflix this Dec. 22, but the story doesn’t end there — only four months later (April 19, 2024, to be exact), Rebel Moon Part Two: The Scargiver arrives to close the loop.
This is from Netflix's press release about the Gamescom trailer. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let me begin by reiterating two points: one, you are permitted by WP:BOLDMOVE to revert my move while we discuss; two, you cannot start an RfC until significant discussion has occurred, per WP:RFCBEFORE. Even if no other editors join in this discussion, there are more appropriate dispute resolution methods such as WP:3O and WP:DRN. Now, regarding your point that Rebel Moon was used as the title before the first part of the title was revealed, I don't know why you don't understand that, find me an official logo or poster or banner that says "Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire". A Google Search on my part yielded nothing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Linkin Prankster: Stop re-reverting. You are edit-warring. Discuss here. I have pointed you to WP:RFCBEFORE multiple times. Please follow the rules. Ignoring my pleas and RFCBEFORE is disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have told you multiple times the title of the two parts is different. Also RfCs do not require a long discussion.
RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC.
Basically it's faster to have a thorough discussion, nowhere does it say it's required. Editors are only expected to make a reasonable attempt. I did and it's clear you won't listen. Find me a rule saying the title of the part is required on a poster or a banner. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@InfiniteNexus: Can you please tell me how many times have you reverted? You're edit-warring yourself. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure. Twice. 1 2. Your reverts: 1 2 3. Notice I've stopped reverting as well, because edit-wars are never productive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure you've read Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I won't revert again either, but please do not say as if you did not edit war. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) You are misinterpreting RFCBEFORE. You started the RfC after I made a single comment. It is not possible to come to a conclusion that a discussion is going nowhere after two exchanges. You can't come to the conclusion that [I] won't listen and start an RfC just like that. Reasonable attempt means at least several messages, several days of discussion, and several editors having a chance to weigh in. Your failure to understand this is troublesome. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've been here long enough to know when a person will stonewall. You made a whole long paragraph with several outdated links or misunderstand what they're about. That was enough. What's more troublesome is you trying to close a RfC that's about you too, you ignoring you're edit-warring yourself, you basically repeating the same points. You can't even bother to seek another admin's input on whether I can start a RfC this early or not. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
You don't seem to be assuming good faith, which is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. That is concerning behavior that hinders the consensus-building process. You hastily arrived at the conclusion that I was unwilling to budge after I made a single comment, you don't seem to understand how RfCs operate, and you slapped an edit-warring template on my talk page after I made two reverts (and then stopped). I'm seeing a WP:CIR issue here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not that I'm assuming any bad faith on your part or that you're a disruptive editor. I just don't want to spend time on discussions that I reasonably think will go nowhere, I've done that too many times in past. I'm sick and have digestion problems, I lose energy easily. So I'm sorry I don't have it in me to try to make people see what I do. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
This comment is very concerning. If you are unwilling to engage in discussion once you reasonably think [they] will go nowhere, Wikipedia editing may not be for you — I don't mean this as an insult, WP:COMMUNICATION and patience is required to reach consensus. While I sympathize with your health issues, they are not valid excuses for disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The RfC can reach a consensus on its own, there's no policy on me needing to have a long discussion with you. My health issues are no "excuses", but the reason I can't continue further. Goodbye, I'll let others give their opinion on it. If the RfC is closed, I'll seek a normal consensus and apologise for misunderstanding. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Lindsay. Linkin, please listen to experienced editors' advice next time. Now, to get back to more productive discussion: the deciding factor for me is the fact that all logos, posters, and banners for the film that is coming out in December use "Rebel Moon", without the subtitle; the Twitter bio and the press site are also strong evidence (updated or not, that's on Netflix, not us). To be clear, I am not opposed to moving this page if evidence for it emerges in the future (for example, a logo with the subtitle, or a billing block with the subtitle), but it is too early to tell right now (WP:NORUSH). I see even IMDb, while not a reliable source, has yet to rename their article either. But I'll give a chance for other editors to weigh in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

RfC for title

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed by poster: The RfC was opened in haste, I should have discussed for a while before opening it and sought a normal consensus. I apologise to User:InfiniteNexus for wasting his time on this. Linkin Prankster (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, recently during Gamescom Netflix revealed the title of first two parts of Rebel Moon as "A Child of Fire" and "Scargiver". User InfiniteNexus changed the title back to Rebel Moon from Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire, insisting that it's only a marketing/onscreen title and not an official one. However Rebel Moon is the title of the whole story divided into two parts. It's also being called a film in itself despite being divided into two parts [1].

The recent Netflix release makes this clear: Start your hunt into the mysteries of Rebel Moon when Part 1, titled Rebel Moon — Part One: A Child of Fire, lands on Dec. 22. Rebel Moon Part Two: The Scargiver will follow very soon after, streaming on Netflix on April 19, 2024. [2].

The Gamescom trailer on YouTube clearly says "Part 1: A Child of Fire" releases on December 22, 2023 and "Part 2: Scargiver" on April 18, 2024.

Virtually every evidence InfiniteNexus has used to claim the official title is Rebel Moon is either before Gamescom or he's misunderstanding that it's using Rebel Moon for the film divided into two parts. But we even if we don't create articles for separate parts of the same film story, we never use the title of the whole story of multiple parts for a single part. You wouldn't call Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 1 as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

So I suggest this article either be only for the first part and the title Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire be restored, or this article represent both the parts and not just the first one (at least until the second part can be considered notable enough to get its own article). Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment My attempts to speedily close this discussion have been repeatedly and disruptively reverted by the RfC's initiator, who opened this RfC after three comments in the discussion above — the original post by them, my reply, and their response to my reply. This is in clear violation of WP:RFCBEFORE. My requests to ask the editor to continue discussing in the thread above before considering an RfC have been rejected, with the editor insisting that only an uninvolved editor can speedy close this. So, I am asking just that from whoever comes along first. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I considered his comment and I do not think he will listen. He made a whole long paragraph with several outdated links or misunderstand what they're about. I even tried after the RfC to explain about the film title and he still won't listen. WP:RFCBEFORE only demands a reasonable attempt at solving the issue. Also User:InfiniteNexus has violated WP:RFCEND three times. It clearly says who can close a RfC, Any uninvolved editor can post a closing summary of the discussion; if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion. The editor removes the {{rfc}} tag while closing the discussion. Not an involved one. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I really don't want to drag this on any further, but I have noted elsewhere that it has become clear this is a WP:CIR situation. Also, as I have clearly explained to the editor, it is permissible for involved editors to make procedural closes — in this case, to comply with RFCBEFORE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    RFCBEFORE only requires a reasonable attempt, not a long discussion. And you've violated WP:RFCEND three times. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • (Summoned by bot) Close this RfC; there has not been prior discussion, there is no evidence that other editors (the two of you are literally the only ones currently "discussing" the question) cannot help arrive at a conclusion without the necessity for a formal RfC. I have no opinion on the matter ~ i don't even know what it's about ~ but it is clear that you, Linkin Prankster, do not seem to be approaching the question with an open mind and good faith assumptions. My suggestion is to close this and both wait for others to chime in ~ as i read it it is still under five hours since the dispute first arose; plenty of time.... Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 09:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @LindsayH: I'm not assuming bad faith, but I didn't want to spend time and energy if it became a long discussion. I'll close the RfC and try to seek a consensus normally. Linkin Prankster (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.

Requested move 30 August 2023

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments8 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rebel Moon → Rebel Moon – Part One: A Child of Fire – Actual name of the film. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, since I had to close my RfC attempt on this issue as it was premature and the discussion with InfiniteNexus seems to be going nowhere even when I tried, I have opened a move ddiscussion since it's allowed and is merely a way to seek more eyeballs for consensus as no one seems to be responding to the issue on the talk page.

Recently during Gamescom Netflix revealed the title of first two parts of Rebel Moon as "A Child of Fire" and "Scargiver". User InfiniteNexus changed the title back to Rebel Moon from Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire, insisting that it's only a marketing/onscreen title and not an official one. However Rebel Moon is the title of the whole story divided into two parts. It's also being called a film in itself despite being divided into two parts [3].

The recent Netflix release makes this clear: Start your hunt into the mysteries of Rebel Moon when Part 1, titled Rebel Moon — Part One: A Child of Fire, lands on Dec. 22. Rebel Moon Part Two: The Scargiver will follow very soon after, streaming on Netflix on April 19, 2024. [4].

The Gamescom trailer on YouTube clearly says "Part 1: A Child of Fire" releases on December 22, 2023 and "Part 2: Scargiver" on April 18, 2024.

Virtually every evidence InfiniteNexus has used to claim the official title is Rebel Moon is either before Gamescom or he's misunderstanding that it's using Rebel Moon for the film divided into two parts. But we even if we don't create articles for separate parts of the same film story, we never use the title of the whole story of multiple parts for a single part. You wouldn't call Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 1 as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

So I suggest this article either be only for the first part and the title Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire be restored, or this article represent both the parts and not just the first one (at least until the second part can be considered notable enough to get its own article). Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment: Why not just wait until the second film has its own article before worrying about the title of this one? The first one should be at this title presently per WP:CONCISE, there's no need to disambiguate for something that doesn't exist yet. Even then it will probably end up at Rebel Moon (2023 film) anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I think that's a good choice too but the current article only uses Rebel Moon for the first film when it's the title for both parts. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Huh? Why would it need a year disambiguation? Neocorelight (Talk) 02:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I don't know that there is a rush to rename this just yet. Even in RS, it seems like outlets are hesitant to use some form of full name. Variety[1] and THR[2] both only use the subtitle without including the "Part One/Two:". Deadline[3] uses the full title and subtitle without "Part One/Two" (i.e. Rebel Moon: A Child of Fire and Rebel Moon: The Scargiver). And even that Netflix posting is inconsistent when it includes a hyphen for "Part One" but omits one for "Part Two" (i.e. Rebel Moon – Part One: A Child of Fire and Rebel Moon Part Two: The Scargiver). This kind of tells me nobody has truly committed to a full title just yet. Perhaps wait until it is more fully fleshed out? -2pou (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Zee, Michaela (August 22, 2023). "Rebel Moon Trailer: Zack Snyder's Sci-Fi Epic Wages Massive War in Space, Sequel Gets Release Date". Variety.
  2. ^ Couch, Aaron (August 22, 2023). "Rebel Moon Trailer Brings Zack Snyder's Space Opera Into Focus". The Hollywood Reporter.
  3. ^ Grobar, Matt (August 22, 2023). "Rebel Moon Trailer Debuts Titles For Zack Snyder Space Epic's Two Chapters; Part Two Premiere Date Set". Deadline Hollywood.
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.

Adding Part One to title now?

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago18 comments6 people in discussion

So the new poster has debuted an updated logo that shows the subtitle. The Netflix site has also updated the logo. I was wondering if this was enough to change the article title. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would still say to wait. If you're asking about the article title, for now Rebel Moon remains the most WP:COMMON(name) and WP:CONCISE name for the film, so it will likely stay at its current title per the outcome of the previous RM. If you're asking about the lead, I think it would be safer to wait for a billing block to be released, or for Netflix to register the film at the U.S. copyright office. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
InfiniteNexus We don't have to wait for anything. I agree with IAmNMFlores. We can discuss this and if you still disagree seek a consensus. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:NORUSH. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The film has already been released and Netflix uses the full title. Netflix not using the title for marketing was a major reason given by you earlier. This is no longer rushing anything. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Huh? The film has not been released. It will be released in theaters on the 15th and then on Netflix on the 22nd. I should note that until strong evidence emerges that the official title as copyrighted by the studio includes the subtitle (which is not always the case — for example, F9 was marketed as F9: The Fast Saga, but the actual title does not include the subtitle), the outcome of the previous RM stands. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I meant it is about to be released. The evidence that Netflix uses it is right there in the poster used here. Everyone knows Rebel Moon is a two parter, not a single movie. F9 is a single film so your reasoning makes no sense. Please don't oppose the move. It makes no sense to only include the first part's title alongside Rebel Moon. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The film has been officially released. Redjedi23 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI Netflix uses the full title on the watch screen after the release [5], not Rebel Moon. It's clear "Part One - A Child of Fire" isn't just being used in marketing. Has anyone watched the film yet though? Which title does it use in the title screen and credits? Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

What should we do now that the film has been released? Redjedi23 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Go by the title Netflix is using. People call Star Wars Ep 4 as Star Wars Episode IV. We use Star Wars though, so I don't think common name policy should apply here. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth on the end credits, after it says "A film by Zack Snyder", it just displays "Rebel Moon". Mike Allen 14:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I see. I watched a bit of the film and the title in beginning uses Part One. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@InfiniteNexus should we move the page in your opinion? Redjedi23 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am still unable to find a version of the poster with a billing block online, but someone managed to snap a pic of one at the New York screening. The official title is Rebel Moon – Part One: A Child of Fire. But, if a second RM is opened, I would still lean toward keeping it at Rebel Moon per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Common name is not a hard and fast rule InfiniteNexus. The official name or an older name can be used. Star Wars Episode IV (the common name) for example is called Star Wars. Linkin Prankster (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
See WP:OFFICIALNAME. Rebel Moon continues to be the most common and WP:CONCISE name for the film. Star Wars (film) is so named because there is longstanding consensus not to use retroactive names. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per Tudum by Netflix site it is titled as Rebel Moon – Part One: A Child of Fire. I also added it as official website on the article's external links section. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Based on a story Snyder conceived"

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Zack Snyder was born 12 years after Kurosswa's Seven Samurai, and six years after Magnificent Seven. Saying that he conceived of a story of a threatened farming community recruiting warriors to preserve it is disingenuous at best. Yes? 2600:1700:4761:8A00:7181:8870:A2FA:E431 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rebel Moon was conceived by Snyder, inspired by other films you talk about. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
No more disingenuous than claiming such stories did not exist prior to the advent of film. It’s just a comment on screenplay crediting system used in the industry. It does seem overly strongly worded, but that’s a perfect thing for you to try and wordsmith. -2pou (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The story didn't exist before Snyder conceived it. Inspiration is a different thing. I have no problem in the article saying what it's inspired by or based upon. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry. Everybody who is anybody already knew this entire thing was a joke, and will be quickly forgotten for the very reasons it was originally not accepted. It is LAUGHABLY derivative. That's the main thing. The rest is simply that it is very poorly written. People getting into fights over this is not worth the effort frankly. 121.98.228.243 (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jimmy

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"After a mechanical soldier named Jimmy is mocked by Marcus, a cruel soldier" That shoud be ...a mechanical soldier (derogatively) called a Jimmy by... - it isn't his name and he isn't called that or anything else in the show as far as I can recall, the term seems to be soldier slang to refer to that type of robot not just that individual who used to fight but refuses to since their ruler was murdered and now only serve as laborers. 178.115.75.233 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Part Two article

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There's no draft or article for Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver, are we just gonna put the details into this page or something else? IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course not. WP:BEBOLD and start a draft article for Draft:Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
There, the draft is started. -- ZooBlazer 20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Zoo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you please help in turning the draft into an actual page. 41.116.68.206 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  moved per NFF. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grammar

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Some parts of this article has dreadful grammar, for example: "Greg Kriek as Marcus, a Motherworld soldier who enjoy to be cruel with the others." *enjoys being cruel toward others 2A02:8309:2183:7800:7C17:A817:ED7C:C09 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hit that edit button and change the text. Your input is welcome! -2pou (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:SOFIXIT. There is no need to bring such trivial matters to the talk page if you can easily correct the (minor) error yourself. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Performance

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"After premiering December 22 on Netflix, the film garnered 23.9M views in a matter of days, making it the #1 most viewed English-language film on the service from December 18 to 24. The film stayed in first place in its first full week of availability, following its debut weekend, earning 34M views for a running total of 63M. The week after that, the film slipped to second place with 11.1M views for a cumulative total of approximately 75M. The next week after the first three, it had went down to eighth place while earning 3.9M views, for a earning total of views over 78M."

There's an error in the math from the linked article from Deadline. The first had 23.9M in the December 18th-24th week. Then 34M views in the 25nd-31st week. That's 57.9M views, but the Deadline article cited puts 29M by mistake, making it 63M total for that week. The following week the Deadline article from the same author carries the error when adding the 11.1M views from that week, making it 75M, instead of the correct 69M. Also the last sentence added by an editor has the total views at 78M by adding the 3.9M views from last week, to the 75M, when the correct number is 72.9M, but the 78M number is not mentioned in the Deadline article for the Jan 8th-14th week.

Articles:

Week of December 18th to 24th

Week of December 25th to 31st

Week of January 1st to 7th

Week of January 8th to 14th

Neftlix Official Top Ten page.

Week of December 18th to 24th

Week of December 25th to 31st

Week of January 1st to 7th

Week of January 8th to 14th Rov124 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Budget

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The infobox has "the budget at 166 million (shared with Part 2)". It uses an article from Vanity Fair, that article source the cost to a Variety article.

"The streamer got $16.6 million for “Rebel Moon: Part 2,” just a year after getting $18.5 million in California tax credits to make the first “Rebel Moon,” a space epic from Zack Snyder. The two “Rebel Moon” films are projected to cost $83 million apiece just in “qualified” in-state spending, which excludes “above the line” costs like actor and director salaries." According to the article the $166 million do not include salaries. Should this info be included in the infobox? Rov124 (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Critical response

edit
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know if it's just me but a find it targeting and mocking to use the name "Gunnar"who actually tells on the entire village "snitches" just like the alleged telling on Young thug by "Gunna" the rapper 196.207.172.138 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Director's cuts

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone add the differences between the PG-13 and R cuts in the films' pages? 2600:8800:8809:1C00:DBE:3B5E:687E:C28B (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebel_Moon&oldid=1246594364"