Talk:Nimona (film)

Should this page exist or should it just be merged into the Nimona#Cancelled film section?

My understanding from the previous discussions about this, on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nimona (film) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Nimona (film) along with a list of past deletions on Draft:Nimona (film) was that the content from the film would stay merged into the Nimona page after the film's cancellation. That was my understanding of the consensus, perhaps falling into WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. However, that has thrown into question because Starzoner who participated in the aformentioned discussion and moved the content to the Nimona page has been suspended as a sockpuppet account since then. And consensus can change, per WP:CCC and WP:CON. So, I'd like some discussion on whether this page should exist or if the content from it should be merged into the Nimona#Cancelled film section, with this page not deleted but turned into a redirect. At the same time, there is some precedent for having pages for cancelled TV series like The Boondocks, Bruce Wayne, Buffy: The Animated Series, Deadpool, and Star Trek: Phase II and the over 45 films listed at Category:Unreleased films, so that is in favor of keeping this page as it is now. The record indicates that Starzoner boldly changed it to a redirect at the time of the film's cancellation, and there wasn't any discussion about it on the Talk:Nimona nor Talk:Nimona (film) pages. There was only a general agreement between editors in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nimona (film) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Nimona (film) discussions.

As such, I'm pinging those who contributed to this either in discussions or edits on the Nimona page about the cancelled film, like @User:Godsy, @User:Zack41Attack, @User:Bovineboy2008, @User:$uperFan32, @User talk:czar, @User:Trivialist, @User:AndreierdnA, @User:Fanoflionking, @User:Captain Assassin!, @User talk:Reach Out to the Truth, @User:Lennart97, @CycloneYoris, and @User:HenryCrun15. And @User:ZX2006XZ, if you wouldn't mind participating as well, since you created this page. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If there's anything worth saving, I'd add it to the main Nimona page and convert this to a redirect. Trivialist (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this just changing into a redirect on the very unlikely chance that this film is revived. I say unlikely because its in some Disney vault somewhere, which no one else has access to. Historyday01 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

My guess is to leave the article as is. I mean, it is notable. ZX2006XZ (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see the merit in the article, but I also could see it just changing into a redirect to the Nimona page, then bringing the page back if the film is revived. Historyday01 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend against having a separate article because there is so little in this article that is not already in [[[Nimona]]. Excessive overlap is one of the main reasons for merging two articles, even if both would be notable on their own. Is an editor proposing to cut down the information on the film in the other article? Also bear in mind that the Nimona article reached Good Article status without the GA review making any suggestion that the film should be spun off. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, I agree. I personally don't want to cut down the information about the film in the Nimona article and would rather this article just become a redirect to the Nimona page. Historyday01 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Animation365 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)It's sad that Blue Sky Studios is closed on April 10, 2021 due to current "economic realities" related to COVID-19. It's up to me, Matthew Davidson to revive the film by writing and sending letters to 20th Century Animation to produce it in-house by using the 75% completed parts of the movie originally produced by Blue Sky Studios (uncredited).

That could work. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Luckily this whole discussion is moot because the film has now been revived!Historyday01 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Studio dispute

As we all know, this film was recently revived. There's currently an edit war going on RN on whether or not to still list 20th Century Animation and Blue Sky Studios as production companies, since, well, the production was started under them. What does everyone think? Should we still list them or not? Voice your comments here. TheVHSArtist (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Until we learn that they won't be credited, they should be listed as most of the work was done under them CreecregofLife (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. A recent edit removed 20th Century Studios, Blue Sky Studios, and Vertigo Entertainment as studios on the series! Its already been pretty well established that Blue Sky was part of the production, but so has 20th Century Studios, and I just found another source showing Vertigo as helping produce it too. So, in sum, I reversed the edit of that user.Historyday01 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Blue Sky is not credited as a studio in the film. The two references you mention are from 2017 and 2015 and are clearly outdated. Barry Wom (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

They should still be mentioned because they DID work on the film (and they WERE mentioned in the credits). Your recent edits don't help. The film was produced in two parts, one part before Disney cancelled it, and a second part AFTER it was revived, each by different studios. That should be easy to understand.Historyday01 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edit supports a hidden comment which never received any consensus. Please stop with your unnecessary edits. Just leave the production companies listed, without any changes, for now, until we can come to a consensus here. Any bold edits will help no one. Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Since I don't want an edit war with Barry Wom, and do not wish to reverse their edits once again, @TheVHSArtist, @SlySabre, @NinjaRobotPirate, @User:HenryCrun15, @User:Trivialist, and @ZX2006XZ, your comments here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! I've already notified a few WikiProjects about this discussion as well.Historyday01 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am but the observer here. I didn't wish to get into any edit wars, I was simply pointing it out that it was revived. Also, one of the accounts you tagged is blocked indefinitely for constantly disruptive edits. TheVHSArtist (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks for letting me know. I'll remove them. Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. In your recent edit, really didn't listen to my comment on here. Please reverse your edit. You are just adding to the noise on here, and it isn't helping. Historyday01 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was that Blue Sky should be included in the infobox until the film was released. Well, the film has now been released and the only studio credited is Annapurna. Blue Sky staff are indeed listed in the closing credits, but so are DNEG and we're not treating them as a production company either.

The previous involvement of Blue Sky, Fox and Vertigo in the production is detailed in the Development section. Barry Wom (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I still am not sure, as they (Blue Sky, Fox and Vertigo) did work on the film, as production companies, so...it would make sense to keep them, I would think. A compromise could be to include a note stating that all three of these companies DID production work on the film before cancellation, but weren't credited in the final film. Here's a note I came up with:

20th Century Studios, Blue Sky Studios, and Vertigo Entertainment worked on the film before its cancellation by Disney, but were not credited in the final film, which listed Annapurna Pictures as the production company.

I would be satisfied with that compromise. I don't mind the hidden text of "Do not change to Annapurna Animation. We are going by poster billing here", but the other hidden text should be replaced with new (and simpler) hidden text saying "Please don't add 20th Century Studios, Blue Sky Studios, Vertigo Entertainment, or DNEG Animation to the infobox."Historyday01 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to point out that those companies were not credited in the released film despite their previous involvement, it should be done as an expansion to the Development section, not inserted into the infobox. Barry Wom (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the development section being expanded, but I think a note would be helpful and could help avoid any future edit wars (or discussions) on this subject. Historyday01 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I believe that they should be listed. ZX2006XZ (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cree, unless the film comes out and their shown uncredited, then they should be removed. But until then, they should remain listed. SlySabre (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they should be included unless the film comes out and they aren't credited. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This review from The Hollywood Reporter clearly says the production company is Annapurna Animation. What's the source for Annapurna Pictures? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You are right. It should be changed to Annapurna Animation. Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a big foggy because Business Insider, Cartoon Brew, and Deadline said it was "Annapurna Pictures" while The Hollywood Reporter says "Annapurna" and another article in the same publication says "Annapurna Animation". For now, it should stay as Annapurna Pictures.Historyday01 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

List only the credited companies in the infobox, and mention the others in a footnote. That's what's usually done when there is discrepancy between on-screen credits and actualities as reported by reliable sources. Nardog (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, that's why I proposed a note above, in one of my earlier comments.Historyday01 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

loved Jesus what's going on in this talk? This looks like a giant war! LeronJomes (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a lot of back-and-forths for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

My two cents are that if we have a sources, we can put it on the infobox. Generally the infobox shouldn't be the only thing we go by. Plenty of film articles put production companies that weren't listed in the infobox but have sources for. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Historyday01 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Negative reviews

It's extraordinarily easy to find negative reviews/feedback/etc, in regards to this film. Both at the time of release, and in the time sense. No, I'm not talking about complaints from people who are anti-LBGT, but simply reviews about the poor world building, poor scripting, changes from original story, etc.

So...why is the critical response area only positive reviews? Yes, as a whole, it received acclaim, but to exclude criticism seems unbalanced. 2601:19E:8000:7250:197C:D7CE:8F54:423D (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless negative reviews are reliable sources, they should NOT be added. It is as simple as that. Historyday01 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)