Talk:Kraven the Hunter (film)

Filming Commencement

Multiple sources have reported on filming beginning [1] [2]. We should be good to move this to the mainspace soon. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter feed of "Kraven The Hunter News" would not be what I would call a reliable source. - Richiekim (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Cast

I have re-added the official castings of Fred Hechinger as Dmitri Smerdyakov / Chameleon, and Ariana DeBose as Calypso Ezili; with additional reliable sources stating that these actors are indeed cast in these roles. The ones that are not yet "confirmed" I have moved back to the 'additionally' section below the bulleted list. As these edits keep getting reverting, I am now bringing this here to state why I have re-added these cast additions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are the reliable sources for Chameleon, followed by reliable sources for Calypso. These keep getting reverted with a particular editor stating I am edit warring. This is not the case. I have added the additional reliable sources that are confirming what Deadline first "reported". These sources do NOT state "according to Deadline" as a 'secondary source' would.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from on this. The original sources reporting on Hechinger and DeBose both state Although it’s unconfirmed, sources say Hechinger would play Chameleon, the brother of Kraven, in the movie. and Although it’s unconfirmed, sources say DeBose would play Calypso in the movie. They do not state it as a concrete fact, and the other sources you are citing are only reporting on the same thing the sources are saying. Myself and User:Adamstom.97 have reverted prior editors on this before, as the wording of the sources matter. I am also not saying you are edit warring, but cautioning you not to persist in your additions without a formal discussion as it is a bold change, and if you persist, it could veer towards edit warring. Also, your additions of Chameleon's name, Calypyso's surname, and the Forenigner's name are not confirmed for this movie's interpretation of them, per the main sources. I am in no way discrediting the other sources you are suggesting we add, but I am questioning them as they do not note all of Deadline's report, which does question the confirmation of them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You can still be edit-warring while adding reliable sources, if the validity of them is contested and you keep adding them. —El Millo (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Can anyone add the new trailer that dropped on August

It should be part of the marketing 205.172.121.203 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Production Budget

The Template:Infobox film documentation is clear, do not cherry pick budget figures. People keep vandalizing the budget range in the Infobox removing the higher $130 million figure. Variety disputes the higher figure of $130 but by doing so acknowledges that the budget was "below a previously reported number of $130 million".[3]

More importantly WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." The article body is first supposed to discuss and explain the figures and only then is the Infobox supposed to summarize it.

The film was greenlit at $90 million (arguably the Infobox could list that as the lowest end of the range) but costs increased because of the strikes and were reportedly as high as $130 million. Variety says the film cost "upward of $110 million"[4] it is misleading to put only $110 million in the Infobox when they are saying it was more than that (and in that very same article Variety claims Madame Web cost only $80 million, which shows they are disregarded the full production cost and only count the net cost after tax rebates). Variety might dispute the $130 figure for Kraven but they don't explain with enough detail why they dispute it (and an educated guess can infer they are allowing for tax rebates) and they again they say upwards of $110 million so it would be misleading encyclopedia readers for the Infobox to simply claim the budget was $110 million.

TL:DR Again excluding the higher reported budget figure of $130 million figure ignores the documentation Template:Infobox film which says do not cherry pick budget figures-- 109.78.196.89 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"Final" claims in lead section

It aint over until the fat lady sings. It is never final in Hollywood if the money is right. People keep claiming this is the "final" film from Sony's Spider-Man Universe but even the sources that support that claim make it clear that they are speculating[5] (Final ... for now). We don't know what Sony will do next and this encyclopedia article should not include speculation in the lead section as if it was fact, and even the Future section in article body should be very careful about how it explains the speculation. Calling it "final" is misleading and unhelpful to readers, and WP:UNDUE in the lead section. Sony are inevitably going to keep making something or another to ensure the valuable Spider-Man film rights never revert back to Disney Marvel. -- 109.78.196.89 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sony's_Spider-Man_Universe#Is_the_Sonyverse_ending,_or_not?. -- 109.78.196.89 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source Variety says Sony isn't done yet (obvoiusly). Claims of "final" are premature. -- 109.78.194.250 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I just add in both the theatrical and home media sections?

Whoever is removing it, plz stop 69.159.140.126 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear what you mean. From your edit history I only see this edit (diff) which adds an unnecessary subheading to the Release section. You need to read WP:OVERSECTION and not add subheadings until they are actually needed. -- 109.78.194.250 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

overwhelmingly negative?

Business Insider looked at the 14% Rotten Tomatoes score and called it "overwhelmingly negative"[6] (but still better than Madame web) but on Metacritic 38 reviews gave it a score of 35%[7] which ranks it as "Generally Unfavorable" rather than the the lower tier of "Overwhelming dislike" 0(–19%). Are editors sure they are being fair and properly neutral about this? Are they sure they want to ignore the fact that Metacritic did not label it "Overwhelming dislike" and put all that emphasis on the interpretation of Business Insider? -- 109.78.194.250 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Again "universally negative"(diff) seems like an overstatement and not WP:NPOV neutral, but the emphasis could be adjusted based on new sources or further discussion. -- 109.78.199.177 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ACCLAIMED panned?(diff) The sources currently included in the article do not seem to support such strong claims, at least not yet anyway. More sources would be needed before the lead section can claim this film was panned. -- 109.78.192.252 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Please note WP:OVERLINK "words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked."

Anon editors keep linking simple terms in the plot summary[8] (and these edits too). Most if not all of these links are unnecessary and have already been removed by me and other editors before and will need to be reverted again. -- 109.78.194.250 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Normal people don't need wiki links to understand the meaning of words like Africa or buffalo. -- 109.78.199.177 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks (diff) to the other editors who have attempted to cleanup this mess. -- 109.78.197.162 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)