Talk:Turning Red/Archive 1

Archive 1

Between 2002 and 2003

That phrases is nonsense. Nothing is between 2002 and 2003. If the phrase were "between 2002 and 2004" then 2003 would fit it, but there are no years between 2002 and 2003. Georgia guy (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Predicting a Day-and-Date Release

Okay, since I just heard that Marry Me is going to be released in theaters and on Peacock in February 2022, I noticed a few day and date releases are coming back next year. Could it be possible for Turning Red to be released in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access the same day? I'm currently predicting it. Despite the fact Disney ACTUALLY did go back to theatrical releases only for the rest of 2021. AVeganKid (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Source?

Why is there no source to officially confirm the additional casting? Austin012599 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New poster

This article has a promotional poster that resembles the theatrical release poster for the film, so I was wondering if you could use it for the article: https://bleedingcool.com/movies/new-poster-and-images-from-pixars-turning-red/ Red4Smash (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Limited US Theatrical Released

Good News! The film will be released in selected US Theaters. --Happiness is Simple (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Already noted.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Lee Family women

Hello! After having just watched this movie, I noticed an inaccuracy in the plot section. Towards the end of the plot it says this, "However, the women of the Lee family come along in their red panda forms to hold her back." The issue is, the Lee family women don't actually use their red panda forms to hold Ming back (with the exception of Mei). They use their red panda forms to pull Ming back into the giant chalk circle after Mei knocks her out. Could this please be corrected? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Partnership with Mozilla

I want to add text about their partnership with mozilla, but I don't know where to add it. https://truecolors.firefox.com/. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/disney-and-pixars-turning-red-movie-browser-mobile-wallpapers/. https://www.cnet.com/news/pixars-turning-red-teams-up-with-firefox-to-celebrate-kids-and-their-big-feelings/ QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe add a "Marketing" section. But is there really enough info to constitute one? - Jasonbres (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonbres: There's info with a lot less sources here, and just plain speculation... Well, it doesn't justify adding other poorly sourced text. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, Jasonbres A "Promotion" section would be possible considering they've also teamed up with Air Canada to apply some stickers related to the movie on an aircraft. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I just tacked it on to the end of the development section as the marketing came out before the film's release. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

CinemaBlend in reception

In the "Reception" section, 78 words were written to summarize the aggregate scores for the film. 179 words were written about the CinemaBlend review and the backlash. Zero words were written sampling any individual positive reviews of the film. I find the focus on CinemaBlend to violate WP:UNDUE and removed the paragraph about that. The "Reception" section should sample a set of reviews. For example, Metacritic shows 46 positive, 3 mixed, and 0 negative, so the sampling would not even reflect any negative reviews. I don't think the CinemaBlend coverage should be reincluded in this section; there could be an "Analysis" section that discusses Asian and/or female representation in this film, and the CinemaBlend matter seems like it could be part of that section instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

At some point, it would be expected to have more reviews about the film, but the issue around the pulled CB review itself has garnered more coverage on its own, so it is absolutely appropriate to include, just that yes, there still needs to be other reviews to be added. Removing it though until those other reviews are in place isn't appropriate though. --Masem (t) 13:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, the content is straight-up undue weight in the context of the "Reception" section. It's a WP:COATRACK-style paragraph. I disagree that the unduly-weighted content should stay. What if nobody expands the "Reception" section? The burden should be on editors to only re-include such content in fuller context with surrounding mainstream content. I ask you to consider removing it for now. The reason I brought it up here is that I think it could be restored when we have proper content all around. Until then, it shouldn't have a presence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a standard piece of typical film "reception" as it wouldn't likely be worked into a standard reception prose text flow. But it is a widely covered bit of a pulled review tied to the film. To not cover it at all would be a failure of UNDUE. And keep in mind all of WP are articles under development with no DEADLINE. As a Pixar film (particularly one that strikes at several minority topics) I fully expect a good expansion on reception in a few weeks once editors have a chance to see it, and once that's built out, figuring out where to place the pulled CB interview may be more obvious, but for now, it is something related to the film's reception. --Masem (t) 14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Release dates

According to Rosalie on [[1]], the film had three premieres – not counting the March 11. London, Los Angeles (world premiere) and Toronto. Which of these premieres should be noted in the infobox? Espantalho de Oz (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Link:https://www.instagram.com/p/Ca6ZKW6O6nR/ Espantalho de Oz (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Idea for reception section

It is probably worthwhile as part of the reception to talk about some of the complaints from parents about the aspects of puberty in the film and how critics are saying this is a good thing to help broach the topic. Eg article from nytimes [2] and I've seen others. --Masem (t) 16:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Source to confirm this??

The Up link doesn’t appear to confirm this: “second to feature an Asian lead character after Up” 173.63.133.183 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Box office amount error?

I'm not sure where you got the $17.7 box-office figure here. This page on financial site Bloomberg.com says:

The film ended up taking in $249 million in worldwide box-office receipts, which the studios share roughly 50-50 with cinemas.

– AndyFielding (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Bomb

Although a decent film and very well received by critics, unfortunately there's still no denying that it was a box office bomb. I feel like this should be at least mentioned in the article. $20.1 million from a $175 million budget is by definition a bomb. D2theW (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't call it a bomb, but recognize that it appears to have lost money from being primarily streamed. I will note this film is included on the list of box office bombs but with the "streaming" asterisk Masem (t) 12:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It made $20 million on a $175 million budget plus marketing plus taxes, what sources do you want? A Sesame Street puppet teaching you how numbers work? (joke) If this is an issue for you, I can provide you some sources. Being the biggest money loser in Hollywood history and not including it in the lede screams very one sided and biased to me. You’d think it should be included, but it is not. It ranks first in terms of money lost on a single film. That is very notable and should be included. Regardless of what critics say about the film, you cannot leave out a historical fact. Sources: https://www.statista.com/statistics/655679/biggest-movie-flops-all-time/ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/10/13/these-are-the-10-biggest-box-office-bombs-in-hollywood-history.html https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/the-10-biggest-box-office-flops-of-all-time.htm#pt16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Box office section talks to this. What is in the lead should reflect and summarize what is sourced in the article. Just state the facts, it made $20.1 million in theatrical release and cost $175 million to make. Not stated is value received in streaming release. Don't make evaluations or conclusions that are not directly stated in sources. Readers can conclude what they need from the facts presented, we don't need to interpret for them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Mulan has it in its lede. It performed similarly, in terms of money lost. So it makes absolutely no sense to not include a historical fact. I enjoyed the film, but it is notable for the lede. Mulan states the box office was off too because of Disney+ streaming, so that can be included too. The sources directly state it is the biggest money loser in Hollywood history, not a box office bomb. They are two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing reliable sources talking about this film in retrospect, I see the following:

• Variety: "Like Pixar's 'Soul' and 'Luca' before it, 'Turning Red' was initially slated for a theatrical release, but wound up going straight to Disney+ as the business inched back toward normality after COVID lockdowns."
• TheWrap: "...its critically acclaimed 'Turning Red' skipped theaters entirely for a streaming release, where it also drew big numbers from Disney+ subscribers."
• CNN: " The studio’s last three films — 'Soul,' 'Luca' and 'Turning Red' — all went directly to Disney+."

I do not see reason to call it a box-office bomb if there was not a full-fledged theatrical release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I meant to say or what the original creator of this section intended. It is the biggest money loser, not box-office bomb, in Hollywood history. That should be included in the lede because it ranks first, which is historical, and for a Disney film, it seems to not be expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

However we know that to Disney some portion of the D+ subscriber fees would be considered part of the film's profit, but no one knows how much that is. We can't call it a bomb, just that its box office take didn't surpasses its budget. Masem (t) 16:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The original creator of this section most definitely wanted to call it a box office bomb. I agree with Masem. This film is no more a "money loser" than any film that was made only for streaming because it had a $X production budget and grossed $0 from theaters. The point is that there was never a full-fledged theatrical release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

As to Biggest Hollywood Box-Office Bomb Ever in the history of Hollywood, it doesn't take long to think of other examples, but for some help I suggest reading 70 Biggest Movie Flops, or similar. Towards the bottom of the page, e.g., The Postman, released by Warner Bros. a few decades ago, is a competitor... ELSchissel (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It ranks as the biggest money loser for a Hollywood film. This is a fact. I do not know why it is so controversial to mention it. Mulan was released during the COVID-19 pandemic and mostly did well in China and Disney+ streaming (it is mentioned on the article). Encanto was released during the pandemic too and found success on Disney+ and in the theatres (mentioned on its article). For parity, the status of it being the biggest money loser in Hollywood history should be included. This does not mean the film was bad, as most critics enjoyed the film: this section already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 18:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Then we should probably be comparing films made before films could be taken directly to tape/streaming with each other, and films made after that point with each other; while WP doesn't have an WP:APPLESORANGES rule that I'm aware of, but :) ELSchissel (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I was sure it released in theatres for a short time, but there are conflicting sources online about whether or not it went straight to Disney+. In fact, the article states that it did release in limited theatres, quote "[Turning Red] was released theatrically in most countries without Disney+".

I haven't got some personal hate towards the film by wanting to call it box office bomb, in fact the film looked really good and funny, like any Pixar film should. But, if it was released in theatres then surely it is a fact that it was a bomb? D2theW (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This says, "Pixar's animated film 'Turning Red' is going straight to Disney Plus in the U.S. on March 11, but does have a theatrical release in countries where the streaming service is not available." That would mean countries that do not have Disney+. You can see that here. For comparison, Toy Story 4 in 2019 had these countries. The point is that Turning Red became available via streaming in the biggest box office territories (aside from China, which I assume did not happen due to COVID-19 restrictions and/or pivoting to Chinese productions). So that being the case, streaming metrics are much more appropriate than box-office metrics, though unfortunately streaming metrics are not so public and are also diffused against streaming subscriptions (e.g., how many people started subscribing because they wanted to see Turning Red). In essence, calling Turning Red a box office bomb is not a meaningful label. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to call it a box-office bomb when extenuating circumstances meant that it basically didn't receive a significant box-office release in the first place. And most of the sources covering it directly (as opposed to passing mentions in lists that provide no context) seem to back this up - they talk about the impact of COVID, don't call it a bomb, and treat it as an aspect of COVID and the movie's unusual streaming-focused release rather than as an aspect of the movie's reception. --Aquillion (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Disney has not issued direct-to-Disney+ (-in-the-US?) movies on DVD, whereas DVD is where I saw Turning Red. Whether there is a hole in this reasoning, I couldn't tell you... ELSchissel (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PUFFERY

Metacritic's automated review system tagged the film with "universal acclaim" based on their criteria. They are the only outlet that so tagged it and they are an aggregator, not a reviewer, and it is their automated opinion. The "universal acclaim" tag Metacritic uses is also somewhat refuted by the fact that it actually wasn't univerally acclaimed based on the reviews in Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and others listed in this article. Based on the other review data described in the section, and lack of any other support, calling it acclaimed in the lead is not supported, unnecessary, and does go against MOS:PUFFERY. We can support that it got generally positive reviews as that is a reasonable summary of what is actually in the review section of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It says "the film received critical acclaim", it doesn't state something like "this film is a highly acclaimed piece of cinema", and it is not solely based on Metacritic or its criteria. It is just the fact that MOS:PUFFERY has actually nothing to do with a film receiving acclaim/praise from critics. "Other review data" you supposedly base your wording from doesn't support or cite the term "generally positive", and therefore isn't an adequate/accurate summary. "Generally positive" may also indicate that there are more mixed or negative reviews from professional critics than there really is. Do not revert to your edit as the original wording was "critical acclaim", not "generally positive" per WP:STATUSQUO. ภץאคгöร 20:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The film didn't receive critical acclaim, that is just one review aggregators tags, nobody else stated that so it isn't an accurate summary of the reviews. It is excessive, unnecessary and incorrect to state that based on what is in the article. Acclaim means praised enthusiastically and publicly - it wasn't and isn't an accurate summary of the reviews. Leave it out if you don't think generally positive isn't a more accurate summary of the reviews. MOS:PUFFERY still applies to effusive unnecessary claims. As for status quo see [3] for original wording before it was changed. I changed wording a bit to reflect what is in reception section per Rotten Tomatoes 94% positive. I explained above the value of Metacritic's opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Mei has cousins???

I don't remember Mei having cousins, as she only had four aunts and a grandma, in the movie. THERE ARE NO COUSINS Dangervest69 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed.Naraht (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you Dangervest69 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Say what?

Producer Lindsay Collins said that her child was a fan of Eilish's music, which inspired her to approach Ellish and Connell right from the production and had pitched a scrapbook featuring scenes from the film and cutouts of the duo.

That can't be right, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean, so I can't make a suggestion. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It needed a sentence break and few extra words. --Masem (t) 14:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

9/11 Controversy?

Should we add the 9/11 controversy about Turning Red from Mr. Enter? Dangervest69 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I see only one or two RSes that mention it, most of it is your typical internet drama that doesn't last long and we shouldn't cover. Masem (t) 19:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

what's an RS? 140.146.204.184 (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Source, see WP:V and WP:RS. Masem (t) 01:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it should at least be considered noteworthy enough to garner a mention. The 9/11 controversy is one of the most widely memed parts of the movie. ~[thehappyspaceman] • talk • stalk • block 19:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because it may be popular doesn't mean we will cover it. Sources are required. Masem (t) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Another vandalism incoming

Looks vandalism strikes again. LancedSoul (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I don't see any mentions of the controversy regarding the inclusion of the metaphor of menstruation in this article, it's a pretty big talking point of the film and should be mentioned somewhere. Also, it is the biggest financial failure in Disney history... that's pretty notable. 76.180.51.179 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Box office bomb

All other box office bombs have that mentioned in this first few paragraphs. Why is it not mentioned here? It’s one of the biggest bombs of all time. 2600:8801:2A80:3720:946A:AAD5:8B0D:9C48 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It was barely in theatres due to it being on Disney +. That should probably provide some mitigating circumstances. $chnauzer 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Turning Red/Archive 1#Box Office Bomb where this was discussed and considered. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

I would like the end of the lead section to clarify that the film lost BOTH awards to Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio, not just the Golden Globe. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

Change the preposition in "Shi, who previously directed the short film Bao (2018), developed the film as her experiences growing up in Toronto." to ""Shi, who previously directed the short film Bao (2018), developed the film on her experiences growing up in Toronto." 63.92.67.34 (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)