Talk:The Angry Birds Movie

Lego Packs

I think we have to wait until there is more... citable information, but there are leaks of images for the Lego sets on Reddit. The articles cited for this in the article don't actually mention Lego Dimensions. This is mostly side information for people looking at the article and maybe a suggestion to think about changing the phrasing in that section. Daeldra (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Protect The Page

Can anybody please protect the page immediately? They keep messing around and inserting false information with the Cast section that aren't confirmed and unsourced, I feel more annoyed with this. Thank you. 76.174.21.219 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting pretty disruptive. I'll file a request at WP:RFPP and see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've heard tobygames is going the be perry not sure if it's real or not Xxx baymax 420 xxx (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Claims of racism from a movie about birds and pigs.

Okay guys, quit kidding around. If this is not a joke then some people have been drinking alot of bleach.

This was the webpage used as a source said part of the article http://fusion.net/story/261690/alt-right-angry-birds-movie-theory-8chan-4chan/

Please, guys, its a kids movie. Dont make this political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.255.49.47 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how being a kids' movie absolves it of any political messages. But let's refrain from discussing it until notable sources have first. TangoFett (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

The angry birds movie is based on angry birds 2600:1004:B141:A759:C0C:FF4:1A36:A8A4 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The article already states that. RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

I need to edit one word from the following sentence from the section Soundtrack: "The album will be release on May 6, 2016". It should be "released" not "release". 95.129.0.39 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2016

Add the American currency equivalent next to the €100 on the Production page, and change the name of Zootropolis to Zootopia (Zootropolis is used in European territories only). 130.126.255.172 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done The source itself is stated in euros, so I'm reluctant to change that part. The calculation depends on the year and how accurate the 100m euro value actually is. I did rename Zootropolis to Zootopia. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

The movie has been released today in Finland and the UK. 88.109.91.135 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have proof. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985949/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt 85.210.144.139 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC) |answered = My IP is dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.144.139 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

There's a typo in the 'Production' section. Gad at first defclined to star in 2001:569:7857:4900:F176:9E44:21FA:3DBF (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Rickroll

They used the song "Never Gonna Give You Up" in the movie, does that mean they effectively Rickrolled their entire audience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.60.224 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits

I did some copy editing and removed dead Wikilinks. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2016

Apkalogris (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Blank request. GAB^gab 22:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The movie premiered in Iraq

The Angry Birds Movie premiered in Erbil (Iraqi Kurdistan) on May 10 according to local press http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/100520166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.3.111 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016

Could you please take Noah Schnapp, Owen Wilder Vaccaro, Chris Miller, and Mike Mitchell off the voice cast list? They are not listed in the credits for this movie.

71.243.236.155 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please provide source as well to support the change. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Rovio is planning the Angry Birds Movie sequel

I heard that Rovio is planning the sequel to The Angry Birds Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.24.143 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

u right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.255.172 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Unverifiable info removed

I have removed the following claim:

* [[Noah Schnapp]], [[Pierce Gagnon]], and [[Owen Vaccaro|Owen Wilder Vaccaro]] as The Blues {{efn|name=ab}}

because IMDB does not confirm that any of those three actors has ever appeared in anything in the Angry Birds franchise. Also, at [1] Noah Schnapp firmly denies having been in The Angry Birds Movie. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

Carlie24050 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

According to Noah Schnapp he wasn't the voice of Jay from Angry Birds. It was actually JoJo Siwa

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed"

So, NinjaRobotPirate is very insistent that the 43% on Rotten Tomatoes is "negative" instead of "mixed", but 43% is the exact same percentage as its Metacritic score, which is explicitly identified as "mixed". Yes, I know that the way the two sites measure scores is different, but these are the exact same percentages, one of which defines it as mixed instead of negative. and even the Rotten Tomatoes consensus is not particularly scathing (calling it "substantially more entertaining than it has any right to be", which, even if it is leaning closer towards "bad", is not scathing enough to call it "negative". NinjaRobotPirate left a message on my talk page accusing me of original research with this link in an attempt to explain, but honestly this link just explains how the Rotten Tomatoes system works, but does not explain at what specific percents the scores are considered "negative" or "mixed".

I would also like to bring up the consensus on Velma (TV series), which has a consensus on its talk page from many editors that its critic score is mixed, despite it having a lower critic score than this move, with Velma being at 40%. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this shows that there is a consensus, on its talk page from very many editors that anything in the 40% range on Rotten Tomatoes should be considered to be mixed. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with "mixed". A quick glance at the website shows that the 43% comes from a wide spread of ratings, high and low, which is where the average is gained. By definition, that's a mixed review. Also taking into account - as you say - Otherstuffexists, but that seems like a reasonable argument to me. Although I'm normally against using otherstuff as an argument, this seems to be a case where an attempt at consistency between articles trumps otherstuff. To be honest - it's a fair argument - why is 40% in article "A" mixed, but 43% in article "B" negative? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the OP is incorrect that on Talk:Velma (TV series), SOME proposed changing the description of the Rotten Tomatoes score to "mixed-to-negative" but the current text does not say whether the percentage is positive or negative. The same is the case on the Q-Force page as I noted below. Historyday01 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Some proposed to change the prose to "negative" instead of "mixed", and those were shut down, because according to the consensus, 40% was not low enough to be negative. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Rotten Tomatoes says it received negative reviews. Please see this article from a reliable source that describes how Rotten Tomatoes works. A "rotten" rating is not "mixed", and calling it so is pure original research based on your own personal opinions. You can't just decide that "40% is mixed" based on nothing but your own opinions. Rotten Tomatoes has already told us exactly what it means: negative. Rotten Tomatoes only has positive ("fresh") and negative ("rotten"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you reducing this to just "my opinion" or a false original research accusation. At all. This is based off of consensus from other pages whose subjects have similar ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Not just an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but these pages have had legitimate discussion surrounding whether to call it mixed, negative, or positive. That source you keep parroting is worthless in trying to say what counts as mixed or negative, and if what you're saying is that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't do mixed, you have a long standing consensus on a ton of pages to argue about, as most pages whose Rotten Tomatoes score is around the 40-60% range says that reviews are "mixed". Even if the other pages' consensuses were based off of both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, it is vastly more helpful to say that it got "overall mixed" or "overall negative" reviews than to specifically say that the two websites have (wrongfully, as they have the exact same percent) different opinions, to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight in the lede. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

On the Velma page, it says "Velma has received mixed reviews from critics". That is referring to ALL critics cited in that section, not specifically Rotten Tomatoes. The only two lines about Rotten Tomatoes do NOT say that critics score is mixed:

"The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 40% approval rating with an average rating of 5.9/10 based on 35 critics. The website's critics consensus reads, "Jinkies! This radical reworking of the beloved Mystery Team has plenty of attitude and style, but it doesn't have the first clue for how to turn its clever subversion into engaging fun"

The word "mixed" is ONLY used in a reception section, from my experience based a summary on ALL reviews of a series within a section, not just Rotten Tomatoes. The same is the case on pages like Q-Force which say "Q-Force received mixed to negative reviews from critics", which is referring to ALL reviews of that series within a section, NOT Rotten Tomatoes on its own.

I would say, like NinjaRobotPirate, that a "rotten" rating is negative, and a "fresh" rating is positive. Historyday01 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we cannot summarize reviews we hand-selected in the Reception section. That's a form of synthesis, which is also discouraged at MOS:FILMLEAD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't review films, it's a review aggregator, and while "rotten" is negative and "fresh" is positive, a 58% on Rotten Tomatoes can't be called "negative reviews" and a 61% can't be called "positive reviews". With a 40% and an average rating of 4.9, however, I would be more inclined to consider it negative than mixed, but the section has too few reviews to get an idea of what they actually say. —El Millo (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes scoring is simplistic and inappropriate for informing prose about how a film was received (aside from the critics' consensus write-up which can be useful). It's fine to report the score that it provides, but it lacks the space to indicate "mixed" anywhere. (They should add a moldy-tomato in-between, but that's just me...) It's better to use reliable sources writing about the critical reception as a whole to quote or paraphrase the prose language (mixed, lukewarm, middling, etc). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In situations like this where there is uncertainty raised by multiple editors, a term like "unfavorable" has been used in the past as a compromise, since it encapsulates both "mixed" and "negative" without a preference for either one; it simply means "not positive". The other options are to tie overall reception to another source (or sources), highly reputable ones other than RT and MC, or to abandon the verbiage altogether and just summarize RT's summary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I echo these sentiments. Both Unnamed anon and NinjaRobotPirate are making valid points in this debate. In the real world there are many films that have mixed receptions, but Rotten Tomatoes does not align with this reality. At 43%, that means nearly half the reviews aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes are positive; that is basically a mixed reception that is skewing negative. Consider this: both The Super Mario Movie and Fast X scored 58% and 57% respectively and were graded "rotten" because they didn't pass the 60% threshold. Consider the logic here: in both those cases there were more positive reviews than negative (in fact they are touching on 3 out of 5 reviews as positive), so I ask how is that not a mixed reception? The problem is that the Rotten Tomatoes grading system does not capture this nuance i.e. a mixed reception must be categorized as either positive or negative.

I think NinjaRobotPirate is correct that it is wrong to mischaracterise the RT score as a mixed reception because we are imposing our own interpretation on Rotten Tomatoes' binary grading system. At the same time I do have a problem with playing along with Rotten Tomatoes and presenting its conclusion that a film that gets 58% has had a "negative" reception. It hasn't. I would like to take a moment to invoke WP:AGG: "Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus". I think that advice is particularly relevant here; Rotten Tomatoes' finding that a film has had a negative reception where almost 3-in-5 reviews are positive (by its own count) does not constitute a critical consensus. It might be a negative reception using RT's own grading system, but not in the real world.

I would suggest that we avoid presenting aggregator conclusions in the lead, and perhaps look to other sources to characterise the reception. Basically anything that is falling into the 40–60% range on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes almost certainly means that there is a substantial number of positive and negative reviews (or a lot of of mediocre ones) and we should look to sources that reflect this reality. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"It might be a negative reception using RT's own grading system, but not in the real world....40-60%...means that there is a substantial number of positive and negative reviews (or a lot of of mediocre ones) and we should look to sources that reflect this reality" – Well said, could not have stated this any better. Find a source analyzing all this in detail, looking at reviews from reputable critics in addition to RT and MC scores (RT at least), and use that source's findings. Able to find multiple sources doing in-depth analysis? Great! The more the merrier. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with how Rotten Tomatoes works. Consensus is that Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source. It can't be tossed aside because you dislike their rating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would highly appreciate it if you stopped grossly oversimplifying everybody's arguments as "opinions", because it is extremely unhelpful to the discussion. There is a legitimately discussed consensus on other pages with similar rotten tomatoes ratings that this percentage range should be listed as "mixed" instead of "negative", and everybody else on this talk page (with only one other exception) says that simply saying a rotten rating counts as "negative reviews" is a gross oversimplification when roughly half of the reviews that created that rating are positive. It is also generally unhelpful to the reader to say in the lede that one aggregate site says that the movie got negative reviews while another aggregate site says it got mixed reviews, for three reasons: 1. The two sites give this movie the exact same percent score, meaning it will be confusing, especially to the average reader who has no idea how rotten tomatoes works, to call these identical scores different consensuses, 2. It's undue weight to mention specific review aggregators by name in the lede, and 3. If you're going to say that one site gave the movie mixed reviews, then you might as well cut the fat and just say mixed, because by definition mixed reviews include negative (and positive) ones. This is why I suggested to have the lede say "overall mixed reviews" omitting all mentions of both Metacritic and RT in the lede, while keeping their mentions in the reception section, as the lede had been written for seven years since this movie came out. Nobody here is suggesting to toss out Rotten Tomatoes, and I have no clue where you even got that idea; we're (or at least I am) suggesting not to put so much emphasis on a specific site in the lede. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that the lead section included RT and MC in the lead section. That's definitely WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and the opposite of what the Film WikiProject generally thinks about review aggregators, which we already give more than enough weight. That lead was also inaccurate in its descriptions, as films don't receive bad or good reviews on any of these. The reviews are published by whatever trade publishes it, and the aggregators collect them. —El Millo (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Completely wrong. On every page, Metacritic categorizes the reviews as "mixed", "negative", or "favorable". Rotten Tomatoes is similar but uses their own idiosyncratic wording, "rotten" or "fresh". Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." This is exactly what review aggregators do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In any case, it would be "according to" the review aggregators, not "on". That was the misrepresentation, because it makes it seem as if the reviews weren't collected but part of the sites themselves. —El Millo (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. You're technically correct because of a preposition, which could only be considered inappropriate if you intentionally misinterpret the sentence to think that Metacritic is reviewing every film in its database instead of... you know... being a review aggregator. I think it would probably be best for me to take this page off my watchlist. I don't think any of my admittedly irritable posts here have crossed a line, but if you keep pushing me like this (saying that I've misrepresented a source because of a preposition?!), I'm don't know how much longer that will last. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said and I don't think you were intentionally misrepresenting anything, nor am I trying to push you. It's just that I haven't seen review aggregators used in the lead in that way. I've seen Metacritic's qualifier used in the lead, without it being specifically attributed to Metacritic there, but never Rotten Tomatoes, likely due to how binary and unnuanced the Tomatometer percentage is. Generally, what's used to summarize critical reception in lead sections is articles that do the summarizing themselves (this USA Today article on The Angry Birds Movie 2 is an example of what I'm talking about). Anyway, it's no longer present in the article, so there's no reason to keep arguing about it. —El Millo (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)