Talk:Dragonball Evolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Headlines

Comics2Film is a decent resource that accumulates headlines about the film, so check there often to incorporate new information into the article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a guy who blogs all the news he finds over on IGN: McKlydes Dragonball Live Action Movie Blog. He seems to get the info a little faster.--Funkamatic (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot details

First off, big thanks to whoever created this article. Now, I heard some stuff about the plot of this movie, but I'm not sure if it's just rumours. Goku is in high school apparently and gets bullied, until he discovers his true powers and defeats Piccolo. I will research this and see if it's actually true, then put it on the article, citing my sources. Also, I have seen one or two screenshots from on-set. Would I be able to place these onto the article as they display Justin Chatwin dressed as and in character as Goku? 87.102.14.58 (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait for an official photo of Chatwin in character, and I'd only include it in this article (not the character's, which is acceptable) until there is information focusing on the modernization of the costumes. Please be aware of rumours too, which are by nature often started by random bloggers. Thus far, the reliable trades have only detailed Piccolo and Bulma's roles. Alientraveller (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Citations of information you've heard would be welcome, but I have a feeling that they probably will not have come from reliable sources at this point. As for images, non-free images need to comply with the criteria found at WP:NFC, and the particular criteria that we frequently encounter with film articles is significance. The image itself has to be significant or show something in it that is significant. When I say significant, I mean that it needs to be independently verifiable. Anyone can say that a picture of Justin Chatwin is significant, and anyone can respond that it isn't. Thus, with independent verifiability, the significance is incontrovertible. It's generally unlikely for articles on upcoming films to easily have such non-free images due to the limit of information available. You may want to take a look at The Dark Knight (film) to see how non-free images have been used so far in the article body, or Fight Club (film) for an older example of how non-free images are significantly used. By the way, do you have a registered account? If you don't, it might be beneficial -- click to see why. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather wait then and see if an official image from the movie itself emerges rather than just post a picture from on-se then. Defunct Lies (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Piccolo...Wouldn't the "evil" Piccolo actually be "Demon King Piccolo"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.60.27 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how they're condensing his story for the purpose of the film. Every report thus far just calls him Piccolo, and so shall we. Alientraveller (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if they do not subject the plot of piccolo to him being the demon king, we cannot assume. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing is confusing me. Is this DB or DBZ. The plot seems to be DB Demon King Picollo, when Goku was a kid but the plot Synopsis on IMDB says that Goku knows he's an alien, and decides not to purge humanity but to protect it, which sounds like the beginning of DBZ, when Goku was grown up with a kid. Also, why no mention of Krillen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.111.208 (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan reaction

Is it possible, that no one added something like "Fan objection" or, "most of fans consider this as "ruining DB"", I mean, I don't want to add those titles litterally, but I think this is almost DB parody...it is so bad to me, it is so bad to most of the fans...so at least it would be fair to add just a little negativism in this whole article...Of course, in some polite and appropriate way. What you say?--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was soon before someone asked this. This movie has barely been covered in the media (as its existence was a major surprise), so there's been no time for reliable sources to discuss Goku's hair or the lack of Krillin, let alone for the filmmakers to acknowledge these deviations. When they arrive, we'll add them. Alientraveller (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict again!) We would need to verify such perspectives through reliable sources. I imagine at this point, there may be complaints on DB forums and so forth, but we can't cite these directly. (Anyone can write in forums and blogs, and it's a poor rule of thumb to determine the mindset of a fan base.) A reliable source making that independent perspective, such as The New York Times reporting that on the Internet DB fans are upset at the interpretation of the live-action film adaptation, would be appropriate. I think it's too early at this stage for such reliable sources to be available. If you can provide some, great, but it's unlikely so early in production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. But I really wonder, why no one reported that yet...I never liked statistics, nor I believe in objective opinion, but I think this is far too obvious...--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry. We'll get some articles eventually: I think only one newspaper ever covered the mixed fan reaction to Transformers before it came out, which was ages before the DVD covered the fans' dislike of Optimus' flames and Megatron's face. Alientraveller (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- grr, Alien) In my experience, future films don't get much coverage until it's closer to the release date. Considering that this will likely be a pretty big film, there will be more than enough coverage about the film's relation to the DB universe. Wikipedia's rule of thumb is to verify with reliable sources as anyone can say anything about any topic and surely we can't report all that. That's how the scope is narrowed. If the dissent by the fan base is large enough, then I'm sure it'll be reported. We have over a year to go, so we just have to play the waiting game in the meantime. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Dragonball fan and have been for several years, yet I don't see this as a parody as of yet. There is basically no way to determine what the outcome of this movie will be like until the movie is released. That's like saying Resident Evil should have a fan objection section, or maybe even Hitman, I was a fan of both of these games, yet I felt the movies seemed like parodies. I personally think it would be best to just wait until the movie is released and add this "fan objection" into a Reaction or Reception section. Agreed? Defunct Lies (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that I am as big a dragon ball fan as anyone, and I am really looking forward to this. I think it has great potential. What does this have to do with this discussion? I don't understand why -what the fanbase thinks of the film- would have any relevance before they even know what it was going to be like. I say no "fanbase reaction section" until the film has had full release and a proper and statistically correct study has been done and reported to cite. There is no point in telling people coming here trying to find out what the film is about that the fans think it may suck. I guess it boils down to if and when someone reports on it (like already stated).--Funkamatic (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because SOME people may not accept the idea of the movie doesn't mean every single person looking forward to it does. Just like any other movie, we have to wait until it comes out. Saying "Fans think it sucks because this character wasn't in" or "they look nothing like their anime counter-part" means nothing, because others will not care and will accept the movie for what it DOES show. Remember Transformers? People that was going to be utter fail, and look at how many fans enjoyed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goten X (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The pint is fan reaction on DBZ live action movie idea by it self, and I know so many fans who don't like that idea, despites of castlist or producer. I am personally against DBZ live action almost in every possible way, but now that I saw that horrible castlist and story, anything is better than Hollywood's ruining...

I know we don't have even one evidence like "The New York Times" mentioned up there, but if we get it we should definitely post that.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, by now, the entire internet is aware of your ingrained hatred of the very concept of a live action Dragonball movie. And you may very well know a lot of fans who are against the entire idea. I do as well. But I also know a lot of fans that are quite looking forward to the movie, myself included. So thre's nothing really to add for fan reaction other than the normal "Some people think it'll be good, others think it'll suck" line.Xyex (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ok, but I'm still giving my best and I won't give up till the end, and I don't regret any of my acts, cuz everything is worth of trying.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I think fan reaction should be saved until it has been released, talking about peoples opinions based on rumors and conjecture is pointless. Even so there many fans who think It will work. I mean the first x men and transformers films worked because the took the good and extracted the crap that would not work cinematically, and a lot of fans seem to think that is the only to make a dragonball film work, heck akira korusawa said something to that point a few years back in an interview. 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Honestly, the film will be terrible. No doubt of that. It'll be exactly right on par with other viciously hated films in it's "licensed movie" genre that turned out to be horrid films, such as Mortal Kombat Annihilation, and Super Mario Bros.

At first, I wanted to see this movie work. Then when the pictures and details started leaking out, the film has already proven to betray all of the Dragonball elements that would work. It's already degenerated into a horrid mixture of cheesy Power Rangers, mixed with the look, feel, and story of some terrible CW teen drama like Dawson's Creek or Smallville. Absolutely wretched. It's nothing like Dragonball should ever be.

That having been said, I don't think that there even NEEDS to be a "fan reaction" part of this article either. YET. It's also not needed. It's a forgone conclusion that the movie will be asbotuely, unforgivably terrible, and earn panned reviews from fans and critics alike all across the board. That may be more of a predecition than anything else, but due to just how mangled and disheartening all of these awful details and pictures have been, this "prediction", i'm sure will prove to be the truth upon release. I'm willing to bet my life on it.

So yes, my vote is to give it some time. There's no doubt in my mind that the film will be looked back upon as a dismal failure, because history always shows that these types of movies fail and fail hard. Just wait for it. Add it after it happens and once the "prophecy is fulfilled", so to speak. While I agree with VEGETA DTX, generally... It's all just a matter of time. When this garbage is released, everyone will have their turn at legitimately ripping it down. 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mai

Is there any confirmation that Eriko Tamura ("Mai"'s actress) will be playing the character from the manga/anime, or a new character altogether (with the same name)? I read an article that said Mai was a shape-shifting woman that would change into Chi-Chi to trick Goku (about what wasn't shown). If I can find that article, I'll link it right away, but I just want to know if Eriko is really going to play Mai from Dragon Ball. If not, or if no confirmation is shown I think it would be better to not have her name linking to the summary for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goten X (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I say keep, as there will always be major changes in the transistion to film. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: they added the shape shifting as kind of a tribute or sudo-inclusion of puar/oolong. Eriko Tamura probably looks more like Mai than any other character in the manga.--Funkamatic (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

... Tribute? Unless you can cite that, that's just some silly guess. Goten X (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look dude, unless you can cite that every character announced for this film is specifically based on their manga counterparts you don't make any sense. While it's ridiculous that Mai in the movie is not based on Mai from the manga, if you can find a citation saying she's not, change away. Is it your point that because she can shape-shift she's not the same character? that doesn't make sense either. Under that logic you would have to say that because the film starts in high school, that's different so it can't be Dragon Ball, or because the anime isn't drawn by Akira Toriyama, it isn't really Dragon Ball.--Funkamatic (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? All I said was the same name does not exactly mean it's the same person. You have no proof to prove that it is Mai from Dragon Ball, so why link it to her bio when it's possibly not her? It was a suggestion, and it has been a month since I brought the subject up, and since no one found any proof. Also, your analogy is horrible and makes no sense. But since you all don't want to listen, I took the time to find my source, here. Happy? Goten X (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Your source does not state that she is an original character.--189.47.241.14 (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[...] she's a martial arts expert and Lord Piccolo's chief enforcer. Crafty and quick thinking, Mai uses her ability to shapeshift near the climax of the movie and takes on the form of Chi Chi, a young martial arts expert who's romantically involved with Goku and later saves Piccolo from Master Roshi's curse [...] <-- What? That's Emperor Pilaf's Mai? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goten X (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, it doesn't matter if she actually is a new character or not, your citation has to specifically state that she is a new character. Eriko herself claims to be honored to play a character that Akira Toriyama created.--Funkamatic (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Bios

This article gives information written by the director for several characters from October. It doesn't have any information about Teto, unfortunately but it is an interesting read and I was wondering if anyone was up to sliding some of the information to the article. Goten X (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, where does it say that this info was written by James Wong?--Funkamatic (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't a bio, but there's no Kuririn (Krillin) ? As much as I hated him as a fighter, he was kind of essential to the plot, and a great comedic relief. I'm kind of gonna miss the little guy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.244.42 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Teaser Trailer / Trailer?

Some kid on YouTube said it was going to be shown before Jumper. When asked, he said it was confirmed on FOX's site. I never found it, but it would make sense to show a trailer during Jumper, a big movie coming out this month which is also done by FOX. So does anyone really know, or will I just have to wait the 4 days? 'Cause if it shows, it should be added to the article that the teaser premiered before Jumper + add a link to the trailer. Ladder4321 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some kid on YouTube" probably isn't the best person to ask. If anything, only time will tell it a teaser does show up before Jumper. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up some more and found out that it's also being reported on some Spanish site. Some people in forums say that the first teaser will appear also. I think it seems likely. We'll just have to wait for Jumper to premiere. Ladder4321 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My Mother-In-Law owns a movie theater and she'll know for sure when and where it comes out (unless she doesn't get the film the trailer premiers on). I'll ask her to call when she gets the trailer in (they come separate from the film and are attached when building it) and I'll report back here.--Funkamatic (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all trailers come separate. Certain trailers (take Cloverfield on Transformers) come attached and cannot be taken off that movie. Trailers that come separate can be attached to any film. The trailer will most likely be available online before they are received at the theater.

Nothing. My brother saw it and told me nothing showed for Dragonball. Dang, I really wanted to see a trailer. *sigh*...*waits* Ladder4321 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true, big release trailers come with certain films, I don't know if this one will, but my Mother-in-law will know when she gets it. Also the rumors of it releasing with doomsday are probably not true, the trailer will probably release with a FOX movie.--Funkamatic (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation on an intended Dragonball Z trilogy if Dragonball succeeds?

Is there any speculation or report that the studios or director would be interested in a DBZ film (trilogy most likely) if Dragonabll makes a substantial amount in the box office? Or actors willing to reprise their rolls?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's highly likely, but no official reports have been made yet. This movie is so damn secretive. Alientraveller (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Why do you think they started with Dragon Ball? When you make a movie about one of the most popular things ever, you think about money. 5 movies: DB, Vegeta, Frieza, Cell, Buu. And to answer the question, yes, if you read some the the website reporting the movie, there are some extras and stunt doubles talking about their contracts for multiple films.--Funkamatic (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me those who said they've signed on for sequels? Alientraveller (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found one great argument for prosecute mwahahaha! In the same time it will answer why they started with DB: FOX "acquired rights for DBZ"(in which I also strongly doubt!) NOT FOR DB!!! remember? and yet they're making DB, and probably planing to do even GT...ooooooh nooo they wont....--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt we'll get a GT movie, but you never know (I certainly hope not).--Funkamatic (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would you hope not to have a GT movie? Just because the series didnt go as well as Z dosent mean a movie version wouldnt be good. In GT, Goku reaches the peak of his strength, and it wouldnt seem right to just end it at SSJ3. The fans would likely want to see some version of SSJ4 before the movies were done with.Raikakage (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but you may want to have this discussion elsewhere. Per the talk page guidelines, discussions here need to focus on improving the article. Unfortunately, we're not accomplishing anything in speculating about future films here. It'd be better if we used another forum, like IMDb, to carry on this topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I won't be callous and delete the comments. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

2009???

Last time I was on wikipedia about november you editers said that the dbz movie would be realeased in summer 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.58.54 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't set the release dates ourselves. See Dragonball (film)#Release -- a reliable source had originally reported the date for summer 2008, but it was changed due to competition. We're not at fault for other sources' updates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So we're criticised for stating the facts: that the studio knew there was no way this movie could get finished by August. Alientraveller (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not use <ref> </ref> instead of the dull comment? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism!!!

Some idiot wrote on the cast section the Goku is goin to be Gay and he would not be same as the animee character, and when a click on the resources it redirects me to the red v.s news page , and the page of SSBB can someone please change the info!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solidsonic Solidsonic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidsonic (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Had some trouble removing it because of a sleeper, but it's gone now. SpeedBurner (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlock this article so the vandalism can be removed.

Either that or remove the vandalism and KEEP it locked.

Who the hell decides when things can be locked or not? What a crappy system. Looks like it's pretty easily abused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeoncowboy (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Luis Arrieta's character name

there is a bit of a problem, on one of the citations it says that his character name is Teto, but on the side of the page it's listed as Weaver. Maybe it's Teto Weaver? I don't know what to do with this.--Funkamatic (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeaaah, I'll say remove it. It'd be speculation to assume the name. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Weaver isn't mentioned much, so I say we stick with Teto.--Funkamatic (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good choice. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the name back to Weaver. I don't know exactly but isn't there a rule about the same person reverting the same other persons edits too much? not like this is a very big deal though.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a policy? Like WP:SOCK or WP:3RR? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR is the one, guess I'm safe. thanks again Lord Sesshomaru--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, his name is Weaver. "Teto" is just Mexican slang for nerd-something-or-other . . . which is what Weaver is. -- Raidenia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.181.82 (talk • contribs)

You will have to provide a WP:SOURCE for your claim. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of finally.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Green alien costumes?

SPOILERs

You've seen the leaked pics. Based on the green alien costumes covered with shoulder spikes, will Freiza, Cell, or one or more of their species going to appear? 63.64.127.15 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. But there's no way to tell based on those pics. Onikage725 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We got leaked images of the concept designs for those creatures before we ever saw photos of people actually wearing the costumes . . . and back in the concept designs, they were called "Fulum warriors," some of King Piccolo's henchmen. (Think of Tambourine and the manga-version King Piccolo's other minions, etc.) They didn't look green to me, though. o_O ---- Raidenia

Bulma's Hair

Shouldn't the line in the article about Rossum wearing a wig for Bulma be removed? Because, from three leaked set pictures so far, her hair isn't blue at all. It's light brown (her natural color), with a blue streak in it. Perhaps there's extensions involved (since her hair seemed longer in the pics than it actually is, currently), but no wigs, methinks, and especially no blue wigs. --- Raidenia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.181.82 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, our original citations state that they are wearing wigs. Just because it appears that Roosum isn't wearing one, doesn't mean that's the case.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Official Poster

The official poster has been released over in Japan. There are two fan taken photos available of the English and Japanese versions with the English version having the better quality of the two. I have not yet uploaded them in order to hear your thoughts. The photos can be found at slashfilm.com Anyone else willing to upload them is free to do so. Cheers. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we would be jumping the gun on this one, It may be real but it still looks really fake.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Took it down, it's officially fake:[1]

Google Translation:[2]

Christina Inman from fox says it's fake. looked fake to me but with the Japanese one, it kind of authenticated it, oh well.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? [3], Scroll down on this link [4], [5], [6], [7]... Photoshoped? Highly unlikely. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

alright, I think your citations suck and I would bet money that it's fake, but I'll go with it. I think we need someone who knows a bit more about the subject.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut instinct says the last two diffs are very real. Where were they taken? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

alright, I guess we should keep it then. Let's at least get a better cropping of it.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced yet. Where were they taken? Looks like Japan, but not 100% sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Posters look real to me. It would be hard (and stupid) to fake the pictures in the movie theaters. What would be the point of faking this? It's probally real...But Fox didn't really "release" the poster yet did they?. - Prede (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that FOX has stated that they're fake.[8].

Also, I just uploaded a better cropping.

So what is the policy here? Fox says it's fake, it looks really real, and I don't think it looks half bad (even though it still looks fake); it wouldn't hurt anything if we kept it, whould it?

How about if we make a section on the page stating that the authenticity is questionable.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe uploading the image first was a bad idea. I'd rather we begin a "Controversy" section before adding an image. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm now I am really confused. It does seem that Fox said the posters are fake, but the pictures in the movie threaters look too good to be faked. Perhaps Fox was talking about another movie poster, not the one we have on this site. There are lots of DB movie posters floating around,(for example [9] ,[10],[11],) and they have not stated "which" poster is a fake, so their statements could have been before they released the real poster? Or does that make no sense? Ah I really don't care if the poster stays up or not...but as of now I still think it's probally real, or a good fake. - Prede (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Hoycinema said that FOX said that those specifically were fake.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if Fox says that THAT poster is fake, that it should be removed. Of course I never saw that part. All I saw was the part saying a poster was faked. If it's fake then remove it, and possibly make a section about the faked poster(s) like Sesshomaru said. BTW if those are fakes, they are pretty good. - Prede (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So let's take 'em down.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. AND if that is the real poster we'll find out soon. FOX will release the poster and then this will probally make more sense. Once they do that, we can put the poster (whether it be a different one, or if this fake one turns out to be real) up there. Until more is released however this is fine. - Prede (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thinking about posters , here's one that was "leaked", although It doesn't belong on the article, it be interesting if this is the real poster. Thought you all would like to at least see it. http://www.liveactionanime.org/Images/goku3.jpg - Prede (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoke to James today

He was signing autographs. He was saying how the Piccolo he plays "will be old, not young", and he fought for that to stay true to the orginal manga (although I didn't understand how). He also said he's really happy with the progress so far and they've started adding all the special effects now and it's cutting together really well. And it's "gonna be awesome". So there you go, my uncitable and unreliable report when I met James today in Milton Keynes.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the info was cool.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Then i hope there will be more Dragon Ball movies. If the first film is good. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, SkyWalker?--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If this helps, the full version of that story, as it was told to me (second hand, mind you, so it isn't anything I'd edit to or out of the article), was that the producers supposedly thought old Piccolo Daimao would be hard to market for. They wanted to keep James young, more akin to Piccolo Ma Junior. James supposedly lied to the makeup guy to get him to apply the older version of the makeup, and when he took they set they just ran with it (meaning, start with him old but have him become young later like in the manga) rather than blow a day of shooting trying to re-apply his costume. Onikage725 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, sounds plausable. Thanks for informing us ^.^ . Of course it's just a rumur, and won't go on the main page, but interesting none the less. - Prede (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcrs for the plot

I don't see a single source for the plot, can anyone verify this? The movie may be released in a year or so, so I can't understand how such a detailed plot can, exist. Yes we all know the comic and anime, but I doubt the film will be exactly the same.JackorKnave (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted it. Can't have fan fiction stinking up the place... Alientraveller (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the image?

Can't we ever get a regular one? The copyright holder, User:Shaggmire, didn't even provide a source or rationale for it. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Better? Although I would rather wait on the poster, because I'm not 100% sure it's real. More like 75%. The other is 100% real, and I got all the copyright info for both, along with a new picture for the movie poster (so it's not cut off). Hope it looks good. - Prede (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We now know what the real poster will look like: [12]. Go three pics down. That's going to be the official poster, not the one with Goku in it. Take down the one that's up there.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I can't get that "[[Image:‎|200px|]]" off of the top of the movie box.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DB & DBZ Confusion

I think there shouldn't be any confusion about the movie telling the story in DB or DBZ. The original work was always the manga and the manga was only titled Dragonball for the whole series. The extra naming was only done in the anime. Just like Naruto and Naruto Shippudden. 60.52.99.31 (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

yeha its all one big story and shouldn't be divided by american fanboys who think they nknow everything, when they still lable a vague change in the main storyline with a single letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.213.105 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just need to comment on this (directly) above comment, and say that that's a really judgemental and biggoted way to think, especially since it is the ANIME that had a name change, in both Japanese and English, not just the English. Anyways, I think that it is, however, significant to say that the plot of the movie does seem to primarily follow the first part of the series (which the Anime just calls Dragonball) and not the second part (Dragonball Z in the anime). 97.101.32.93 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kamehameha is in the movie

[13] The top bubble in that image says Goku uses the kamehameha User: Kazaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazaan (talk • contribs) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's criticism?

Well? 70.59.1.134 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You know the film is out in April right? No one's seen it. Alientraveller (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means negative fan reaction from early production. However, none of this is really worthy of a whole section. All the criticism right now is a bunch of fans on forums complaining at the cast list, and a one paragraph, early, plot summary.75.68.165.212 (talk)

You don't need to shoot yourself in the face to know that it's not a good idea to do it. Making this movie as it is is a a very BAD idea in a long history of very bad ideas (Holocaust, John McCain, Gigli, etc.) -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.116 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to provide commentary, positive or negative, about a film. We don't just "assume" a certain perspective. There have been bad films that do very well and good films that don't do well. If there is true criticism about the adaptation of this franchise into a live-action film, then reliable sources covering it will eventually surface. We as editors pass along published information; we are by no means the producer of information, especially that of the opinionated sort. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Although Erik is correct, I also believe that this movie will be a failure. Maybe Anime Network will have something... Moocowsrule (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

This movie will get enought criticism when it comes out. We can wait.12.37.71.178 (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New Pics

Cast in Costumewe should use some of these pics. plz user: Kazaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.130.215 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The link comes back with a 404 error. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, just click the first option in popular posts. User: Kazaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.143.60 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...most of those are of too low quality to use. If someone had the original magazine and could do a clean scan, then maybe. As they are now, they wouldn't be allowed due to sourcing issues, and the lack of context would mean no ability to add a good caption to justify its use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Release date

The poster says March 13 2009 as the release date of the film. However, the 'Release' section says stuff about the release dates being April 2009 but with ref. Currently the only reference to support the release date of March 13 is the poster.. well there is still some chance of the release date being changed later on. Does anyone have a reference for March 13 being the release date besides the poster?

Just read the full article, particularly everything under the section called "Release." As it says (with a source), "Japan gets the film March 13, 2009." So, yeah, Japan gets it a bit earlier than the rest of the world. U.S. release is April 10, 2009 (just check Fox's website). -- Raidenia

There are apparently two US release dates given on the page: April 9, 2009 and April 10 2009. Which is correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

April 8th is the only one actually sourced, so I'm inclined to go with that unless someone can find a source for it being changed to the 10th. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, meant to say "8th" not "9th". Can you make the change though? I doubt there is a reliable source for "10th" (methinks it would've been cited by now). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AnmaFinotera. BTW have you seen my recent comments at Talk:Sailor Moon? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, replying now...got to spend an hour locked out of my house earlier, weee! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's coming out on April 10th, 2009 in the U.S. Why the dispute? 20th Century Fox's official website (http://www.foxmovies.com/) only has one release date listed for Dragonball. On the left hand side, under "COMING SOON," is Dragonball. Click it, and a pop-up window will tell you it's the 10th, as it's been for months now. O_O;; -- Raidenia

Considering its the only thing in that box, and the rest is undefined, not very usable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And the only source given for the April 8th release IS usable? I'd say it isn't, seeing as how it links to Fox-Japan's website, which does not mention a U.S. release at all; it only mentions the March 2009 Japanese release. Anyway, why wouldn't the American Fox website serve as a reliable source, if you consider the Japanese Fox website cite-able? The April 10th, 2009 date is not only confirmed on Fox's official site, but it was also on all their DB stuff that they showed at the New York Licensing Expo: http://i36.tinypic.com/idrknd.jpg -- Raidenia

A picture is not a reliable source per WP:RS. If the release date was really changed to April 10th, why has not a single reliable source discussed it? Every other release date change seems to have been talked about, so why not this one. And the Japanese fox site is already tagged as a possibly bad source, since its no different from the one being used for the April 10th. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not sure why Fox's own site isn't good enough (since they're the source of anything that could trickle down to ANN, etc.), and I also don't really know why websites haven't commented on the date change whatsoever . . . BUT I understand that you have to just use the latest published article regarding the date, as per Wiki rules (of which, I admit, I'm not so knowledgeable about, haha). ;) For what it's worth, I know that a couple months back, during the release date changing fiasco, Movieland contacted Fox Mexico (namely, Christina Inman), whom said that they checked with Fox in the U.S., whom in turn said that the 10th of April is the final date (and consequentially, the various blogs published the email on their sites). Not sure if the Fox Mexico statement is credible? Anyway, I guess we'll just have to wait until Fox puts out posters with the date, etc., for it to be a closed case. They're pretty hush-hush about everything DB-related still, seeing as how there's seven months left, so until then. . . . -- Raidenia

If its valid, other sources should have reported it. The Fox site only gives a date with nothing else, making it questionable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rod

is goku's weapon, the rod that grows in length, going to appear? one magazine scan showed him with some sort of bo staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.213.105 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called the Power Pole. As it stands, we don't know right now.RPGfanatic (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

power pole is the english name. not to be "like that" or anything, but its still stupid to say it like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.213.105 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is enough merit to form a criticism spot

I don't get it. There was a significant criticism about the new James Bond (Daniel Creg) before the movie was released, so THAT was inlcuded, why not this? Of course the new James Bond movie got amazing reviews and Daniel Creig's perfomance was widely praised, but yeah. Hellothar999 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because there are NOT reliable sources for any reception information, including criticism. The James Bond film had such reliably sourcable information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct... bloggers shouldn't be getting their say on Wikipedia anyway. The only thing that could go into a criticism section at this juncture is "They're making Goku look stupid", and this isn't really the place for that. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera and Powerslave. The James Bond franchise has been going on for a long time, so having a new Bond was a notable enough topic for reliable sources to cover. It's not the same with this live-action pursuit. I recommend just keeping the fan base's criticism going without including it in Wikipedia right now. If you beat your drums loudly enough, maybe a reliable source will have some coverage about fans' impressions of the film before its release. It's more than likely, though, that there will be better coverage at the time of the film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kamehameha is in it my reference is reliable.

AnmaFinotera stop taking out the stuff about the kamehameha, it's confirmed. Kazaan (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable reference then because that link doesn't go anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If what you say is true, Kazaan, it shouldn't be hard finding one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Use this[14], scroll down to the exclusive jump sq interviews, chatwin explains it.Kazaan (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a fansite, not a WP:RS. Source the actual issue of the magazine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, a lot of the references for this page are from that site, if you don't include this, you might as well take that stuff out.Kazaan (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd gotten all the fansite refs, but yes, they should all go. Source to the original source, where given, but not to this site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hellothar999, and I don't see where James Bond had some critic sources!?!? and like I said before - here's a source - www.petitiononline.com/dblam444/petition.html db-lam-protest.forumotion.com If you again try to pull that "its not reliable" card of yours, I'm AGAIN gonna ask you and where are those RELIABLE sources for James Bond and many other movies criticism??? If we as fans are not able to conclude it ourselves, than who is???--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources, period. Someone's self-posted petition and a forum. They are not, period. You don't like it, too bad. You see other articles without reliable sources, tag them as such, but their existence does not justify doing the same here. And frankly, for an encyclopedia, no as fans your opinions do not really matter unless it is covered by a reliable source. You want to "weigh in" then don't go see it and the ticket sales (or lack) will reflect fan opinion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Magazine Ads

Here are the current Japanese ads for the film. Part 1,Part 2, Part 3, and the Nikkan Sports ad with Piccolo Daimou. Sarujo (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No space?

I think there is supposed to be a space between Dragon and Ball. Or do the creators of this film have that little knowledge about the Dragon Ball series? 168.103.91.107 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the creators of the film chose to spell it as one word, as per all information about it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Or do the creators of this film have that little knowledge about the Dragon Ball series?" pretty much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.29.112 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Which Piccolo is it?

Folks, we need a reliable source that confirms whether it is Piccolo Daimao or Piccolo Junior. Otherwise, I have half a mind to undo any Piccolo-related wikilinks on this article and on James Marsters. Which is it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Marsters say it was both? Starts off bad, gets youthful, sees the light, is a good guy in any prospective sequels. Technically, he is Daimao for most of the movie, but the links should probably go to Piccolo (Dragon Ball) rather than the list of characters page.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have any refs but I seem to remember him saying that in at least one interview.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the fuck isn't he green?--Cojin (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be going here, but the mere fact that on the main page its got a Quote from Marsters saying "He also confirmed Piccolo will retain his physical appearance from the anime." Shouldn't this be removed as its 'pretty evident' now that the entire story and look of Dragonball has been bypassed?'Lightningbarer (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be modified to say that he originally stated this, then later it was revealed Piccolo's appearance had changed...if we can ever figure out which Piccolo it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He's green in this picture, so that must have been their original intent... --Masamage ♫ 16:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Masamage that is a FAN picture. This is DRAGONBALL and clearly that picture is done by a fan who thinks it is Dragonall Z. He has been confirmed to be green by the end of the movie as his character physically changes through-out the movie. No details on why he changes have been released (spoilers). Please visit Japanese Trailer Leaked for a video showing green piccolo and the kamehameha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.210 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Sabat as Shenron

"Christopher Sabat as Shenron: The wish granting dragon summoned when all seven of the Dragon Balls are gathered" can that be taken as definite? I mean the only source is imdb . Is Sabat really the voice of Shrenon? or is that just wishful thinking? Source from Fox or the media would be better if it is real. - 24.0.220.96 (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the only source is IMDB then it can not be added. Only reliable sources can be added.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, taken out--FUNKAMATIC 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkamatic (talk • contribs)

New source, put back in (good news too)--FUNKAMATIC 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can we put up some Piccolo pics up?

As a lot of you guys might know, a lot of images from the movie have been revealed can we please use them? If so, I will supply anyone with a link to high quality picks. Kazaan (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they would meet the non-free guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They would if they're maybe discussed a bit more. For instance, the article talks about how James Marsters' physical appearance was modelled on the one from the anime. Some expansion on that could merit a photo. --Masamage ♫ 20:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if we could put up a picture of Piccolo it would help clarify the rumors about his color. It would also help people get a feel for the movie's style. Kazaan (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been taking down pictures of Bulma and Muten Roshi and now we think it's okay to have one of Piccolo? I don't think we should. I think this would be warranted only after the release of the movie and there is some reason to have a section on the page about Piccolo's look.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaked Trailer

Hey, I was just wondering if we should put something in the article about the leaked trailer. I saw it, and it is truly authentic. Kazaan (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless the leak is actually covered in multiple, reliable sources, no. And links to the trailer, which are all likely to be copyvio, should not be added at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, I do have a link to a very high quality version of the trailer, but don't want to reveal it yet due to the fear that it would be taken down. I will look for coverage on websites like IGN. If you have any other advice, please tell me. Kazaan (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, There's finally a trailer? Does anybody know what movie it'll be attached to? Oh, and wtf is up with the tiny text?The Great Morgil (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The trailer can be found easily via a Google search. Type in Leaked Dragonball Trailer and it should come up in the first 5 results.72.235.131.7 (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Check ANN or the like. Pretty sure its been mentioned there. And tiny text fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation from dbthemovie.com says that it may be attached to the Day the earth stood still remake on December 12, 2009.Mutlee (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben Ramsey Link

This link currently directs you to a page on a deceased texan politician of the same name. I'm not sure if that really matters, but its there.Oni Kimon (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Thanks for noticing. I have de-linked it. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm lazy.Oni Kimon (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Piccolo vs. Goku Image

Is this alright?! So many other images from the film have been taken down. What is the reason and does this one violate them (guess I should just do some research...)? --FUNKAMATIC 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Its been removed. Decorative images just showing plot or characters, particularly live action films, violate WP:NONFREE. Unless the images are critically discussed, which is highly unlikely before the film is released, they have no place here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution?

It seems like the full name will be turned into Dragonball: Evolution. dragonballevolutionmovie.com even redirects you to Fox's site. Killa Koz (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

An actual reliable source is needed, not just a URL redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd think you would of heard this news already -.- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098327/news#ni0621750 http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=37958 Killa Koz (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I said a reliable source. IMDB is not a reliable soruce, and that comingsoon link is useless as it just has Dragonball Evolution without any notes regarding when/if its a name change or possibly a second film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well here you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJVyevwqeM&eurl=http://dbthemovie.com/ Killa Koz (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A YouTube video uploaded by who knows who is not a reliable source. You may want to review WP:RS -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo4t8PeqJ6E -- Gustavo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.228.1 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Same answer. YouTube videos from non-official channels are not RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright whatever dude, it's true (sadly). Killa Koz (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it seems really retarded, AnmaFinotera is right. Don't worry a reliable source will emerge shortly.--FUNKAMATIC 14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkamatic (talk • contribs)

• IMDB is a realiable source. Films can not be posted up unless they are FULLY researched. and ONLY members can post up info. Its not Like Wikipedia where anyone can edit and screw things up. Films on IMDB have to be Approved by a Site Manager.--ApawkF (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's still not. Sites like Internet Movie Database and Anime News Network are not reliable sources because they can be edited by anyone regardless. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Sesshomaru... the title is not set in stone right now. Have some patience, and we can wait for confirmation. For what it's worth, IMDb jumps the gun for future films, establishing a release year when there is none to be had, adds cast members that are not verifiable. IMDb even labeled Valkyrie one time as Rubicon where this was apparently a fake working title. For all we know, Dragonball Evolution could be an alternative title to this one... Die Hard 4.0 was the British title for Live Free or Die Hard, for example. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• So far, all indications are that this new name is coming purely from the international trailer, and not actual reliable sources that the film will be released in the US with the Dragonball Evolution name. I have added a note to this affect to the article. Meanwhile its been moved protected with full edit protection requested. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• LOL IMDB, not anybody can edit imdb. They have to be approved by Administrators who research the following info that a viewer gives them. If the info is proven to be correct, then they will post up the info. Read their board. They find their info all over google rather it will be a rumor or not, By the title they will have ONLY RUMORED. If it Confirmed, then they will confirm it. Not everyone can Edit IMDB. Everyone can summit so information, yes. But they need a HIGH Amount of realiable source to back up their informaton. For Wikipedia, someone just puts up one damn website and expects that to be the source of all the info needed. IMDB requires multitudinious sources. --ApawkF (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is completely, and totally wrong. IMDB doesn't check anything submitted unless it "seems off" and they frequently have errors. They themselves tell you not to consider them "the gospel" because anyone can edit anything. Hence the reason we do not consider them RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am done Argueing with you. I have worked with IMDB for 2 years now. Any info you have you can look up here http://www.imdb.com/help/?adding/ and http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?about

Just to show you that IMDB isn't FAKE! and that Films must be Approved by Professional Associates http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?jobatimdb

• If none of this is still unhelpful to you. Contact IMDB Service and ask them yourself at http://www.imdb.com/helpdesk/contact_form

--ApawkF (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So...you work for IMDB and we should believe you can neutrally discuss its reliability? Uh huh...thanks, but despite what you might think, the issue has been heavily discussed at length. The Wikipedia wide consensus is that IMDB is NOT a reliable source, no matter how much you might like to argue otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

http://movies.ign.com/objects/479/479331.html, this discussion has gone way too far for something that is already proven true. Is someone honestly going to tell me now that IGN is not a RS? This page needs moved to the new name. Killa Koz (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The name has NOT been proven. IGN jumping the gun and renaming their page means absolutely nothing. The page will not be moved until a reliable source actually discusses and states the film has officially been renamed for ALL releases, not just on the basis of a single international trailer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you not even seen the posters either? The name change is in full effect, your denial of it is really pointless. Killa Koz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A poster without a source nor anything to note that it is not an international release poster to go with the international trailer. Again, if you are so positive this is the new name, find a REAL SOURCE that says "they have renamed the movie" not just "the international trailer shows this name so we are presuming its been renamed." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A reliable source would be something like a news article, interview, or even a magazine. We don't count on fansites and message boards for "official information". How is this so hard to grasp? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

....hmmmm http://movies.ign.com/articles/937/937176p1.html Are you really trying to sit here and try to tell me that this isn't a news article? Wow, hilarious 'Indeed" Killa Koz (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)'

What does it say? "international trailer for Dragonball: Evolution" - nothing about the film being renamed for its American release. Hence it being used to note in the article that an international trailer was released using the name Dragonball: Evolution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Collectionian and Sess, IGN has been given the official trailer from FOX, that's more official and reliable than any news article. Also Collectionian, IGN's trailer is a more reliable source than anything before that said the official title was "DRAGONBALL"--FUNKAMATIC 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, IGN's trailer is very specifically marked as the INTERNATIONAL trailer. It does NOT say the film will be released in America as Dragonball Evolution, nor is there a single shred of evidence to support your claim that IGN got the name from Fox, only the trailer. And no, the trailer is not a more reliable source than anything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry AnmaFinotera, if you would actually READ the WP:RS it states than unrealiable sources are things like Wiki's, blogs, and forums. IGN is a credible news source. Also, in case you didn't know, international mean inclusive of multiple nations, not exclusive. If a website claims something as international and one of the web site's main audiences is the US than the article is meant to INCLUDE the US. Wikipedia does not specifically require a source that states a title has changed in order to move a page, if there are two equally reliable sources that state the title two different ways, the more notable title should be used. In this case we have a more reliable source, IGN. If you think there is still a dispute about this we should vote, but there is no need. Under Wikipedia guidelines, this page is to be moved.--FUNKAMATIC 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is still a dispute and no, under Wikipedia guidelines it is NOT to be moved. A video is NOT a reliable source for the claim that the film has been renamed for its US release when the video is clearly marked as its international trailer. The main audience is irrelevant and your claim is WP:OR. And yes, a source IS required to declare that Dragonball: Evolution is now the official American name of the film before it is moved, not just several sources jumping on the same single trailer and one site renaming its section without explanation nor any real claim that the film was renamed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the title is Dragonball: Evolution. But AnmaFinotera's right, there's no guarantee that this is the confirmed US name. We need to be 100% on that before this page is to be moved. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think we needed to be 100% sure. We certainly weren't sure when we called it Dragonball. Sorry Sess, but could you show me the wikipedia guideline that says we need to be 100% sure. It's my impression that we only need to be more confident in the one we're keeping or moving it to. Also AnmaFinotera, the citation is an article, not a video:http://movies.ign.com/articles/937/937176p1.html--FUNKAMATIC 02:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the citation, so I know what it is and what it says. It does NOT say the film's American name is Dragonball: Evolution. Both times it uses that name its specifically noting international trailer. And yes, we need to be fairly sure before we go around moving the article all over the place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So now we're down to weather or not we're "fairly sure". Sounds like the only way to judge this is with a vote.--FUNKAMATIC 02:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the **** does it keep thinking I'm not signing my posts?!--FUNKAMATIC 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) No, we need to be sure period. Again, find a reliable source specifically discussing the rename. If its legit and really is the new American name, it will be discussed in the news or via a press release relatively quickly. Otherwise, be patient and wait for the title to be sure. We do not operate by voting. And it is because your signature is invalid and violates the guidelines regarding acceptable signatures. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. So answer me this: Because no one is going to make that article because the name was never officially "Dragonball" in the first place. Then the movie comes out, "Dragonball: Evolution" is on all the theater's marquee and on all the posters, will wikipedia still need this specific article?--FUNKAMATIC 02:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FUNKAMATIC, I suggest you read WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY. Voting is not suitable for the situation. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

At that point, the film itself becomes the reference for the title, just like all films, and of course if it is released to American theaters as Dragonball: Evolution the article would be moved. And there are enough reliable sources in this article noting the name specifically as Dragonball rather than Dragon Ball (the series name) to verify it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Okay. So because some weird blogs, IMDB, IGN, and some stupid websites say it's "Dragonball" it's Dragonball, but when the same sites say it's "Dragonball: Evolution", it's not as reliable? Also, I read those now Sess and I agree, no vote is needed yet.--FUNKAMATIC 02:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Some stupid websites" - yeah, cause Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are just stupid websites...and none of those sites have yet to actually say "the film is now going to be released as Dragonball: Evolution." Two have explicitly noted that there is an international trailer that uses Dragonball: Evolution.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So those sites specifically said what the title was, not just saying the title but something like: "the title for the new Dragon Ball live-action movie is Dragonball". Can you cite the articles?--FUNKAMATIC 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They are cited, all through the article. Go read them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Go read what? I asked if you could cite the articles.--FUNKAMATIC 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article and all of its citations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/12/10/new-dragonball-evolution-trailer-appears-online/ Killa Koz (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, thanks Killa Koz and MTV-- FUNKAMATIC 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That article is already linked to in the main article (and above). Note they say: "it seems" as in we think but don't know. And since some of y'all keep claiming IMDB is a reliable reference, notice that they still have it listed as Dragonball not Dragonball Evolution. Think they'd be the first to know, according to the IMDB ref above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So when a reliable website says "is seems...is" not "it seems...may be" it's no longer reliable? I thought we were just supposed to be "fairly sure". MTV didn't say it might be dragonball: evolution, they said it seems to be it. "Seems" doesn't mean maybe, it means they have indication. So when MTV has enough indication that the name has changed to publish an article about it it's still not good enough?

You know what, I think you guys just forgot how to get it off the "move protected" list.--FUNKAMATIC 03:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems can mean maybe, and seriously what is the damn rush? So it stays at the current name a few more days until the studio actually confirms it will be released as Dragonball: Evolution. So what? And will you please fix your signature already. (and funny...but we both know how to have the protection removed, but it isn't happening until the article should actually be moved). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was joking about you guys not knowing that. I'm not in a huge rush, I'm here because you are, fighting for what we think is the right way to interpret wikipedia policy. Anyways, you could go to my talk page and tell me how to fix my sig, I have no idea what's going on. Is it because I don't have a "talk" link in my sig?

fixed my sig--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 06:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The damn rush? I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to provide pages with facts. I tried to show you this before, but I'll let another site try to explain it to you http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16012.html Killa Koz (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't meet WP:RS. And no, the point is to provide pages with verifiable facts, which the page currently does by noting what can be reliably sourced: that the trailer shows Dragonball: Evolution, but there is no official word as to whether this is the new title, a working title, or the international release title (ala the example above of Live Free or Die Hard vs Die Hard 4). There is also deadline to moving or renaming the title if this is the actual new title and we certainly have time to wait for an official, reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* To end this rather ridiculous exchange and ensure neither of you are blocked for 3RR, here: [15] (G4), [16] (IncGamers), [17] (Anime News Network). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Full protection

I protected the article for one week. Please, discuss changes on this page, before asking an admin to implement them. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslink. Actually I like the mention that the name may be changed, I can live with that until we get a better article or the film comes out. BTW, doesn't Sephiroth's ref up there work. It specifically states that the film's name has changed.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The full protection expired, but not the move protection. It seems consensus says to call it Dragonball Evolution so someone needs to do the move. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't move it so soon. The movie's title still seems to be debated between "Dragonball Evolution" and "Dragonball: Evolution". Should we look at what the majority of sources are utilizing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says Dragonball: Evolution. Why isn't that the name of the title? J'onn J'onzz (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because agreement couldn't be made between whether its Dragonball Evolution or Dragonball: Evolution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Film Poster

The article has been updated to reflect the Evolution name, however we are still having issues with people trying to replace the current poster with stolen ones taken from IGN. All of IGN's poster images are watermarked. Cropping out that watermark (or taking the same image from another site that has obviously done the same) is NOT appropriate. We do not use watermarked images on Wikipedia. To those wishing to update the poster, wait until a valid image is released to the general media/public that is not watermarked, instead of continuing to attempt to take or endore the theft of IGN's exclusive images. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Sabot

Sabot is not in this movie. It's just a rumor that's been copyed from website to website. Apparently he has not been approached by Fox. If someone has a better source that proves he is in the movie, then they should put it back up there. But until there is a reliable source (not IMDb) do not add that, as I'm pretty sure this is just untrue.

http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showpost.php?p=1495354&postcount=18

- Prede (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. The ANN credit list alone doesn't seem like the best of sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a better citation stating that he wasn't in it at all. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 14:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies in trailer and anime

Can we include facts such as Bulma's hair isn't blue? Master Roshi is not bald and not wearing a turtle shell? An most importantly Goku does not appear to be Asian as portrayed in the anime? ( I know he is not human, but at least in the entire Dragon Ball anime he was considered as Asian and depicted as such)--Da Vynci (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The film has not been released and half of that is OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

I would not call it OR, but it is pretty indiscriminate at this point. It may be worth reading MOS:FILM#Adaptations: "Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it... Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section which merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." It is likely that when the film comes out, reliable sources will explore these differences. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about the film, I am talking about the trailer, which is part of the production and promotion process. Besides, there difference is there evidently (except for the blinds and the colourblinds), I don't know since when stating obvious facts has become Original Research. While I disagree with AnmaFinotera's OR classification , I tend to accept Erik's citation from MOS:FILM#Adaptations, perhaps we should look for reliable source that talk about (or criticize) those difference in the trailer and their reasons. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. We do not really discuss the trailers at all. They are generally not notable, and are only teasers, not the actual film itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera. She's also right about the OR. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Its almost laughable if the butchering they made of this movie wasnt so sad. Ah, but I guess "you dont know what its going to be like! you cant judge it yet!" didnt become the determining ignorant logic on the IMDB forums for no reason. Oh well, I guess official publications, actual footage and official statements about said characters are part of an elaborate conspiracy to MAKE us think its going to be a terrible adaption, where in reality it will be completely "awesome". Sigh. 121.221.219.164 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Who knows? :P But please keep discussions related to improving the article... our talk page guidelines say to avoid treating the talk page as general discussion about the article's topic. There are better forums elsewhere to talk about whether or not the film will be good. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove Semi-Protection

Can an admid remove the protection? The article needs to be moved to its new name. Killa Koz (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Read this section. We don't know which title to move it to. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Something i read related to this ...

I read in a comic book about something releasing earlier in asia and i do not have any idea weather thats true or not . Can someone help on this? Eugenekoh12 (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question is vague. What is it exactly that you're asking? --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 03:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New trailer

Might help with the name between Dragonball Evolution and Dragonball: Evolution http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/243366/dragonball-evolution Killa Koz (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How does that help at all? The issue is that different sources are using different versions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The official Fox website uses Dragonball so that should be fine for now. If you click on upcoming movies that's how they spell it. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is it Dragonball Evolution or Dragonball: Evolution with the colon? :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dat' 2. |:-P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So we're basically waiting for an official article stating the official domestic name? -- FUNKAMATIC ~talk 05:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So it would seem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Official Domestic Website is up

Here:[18] And it says the title is Dragonball Evolution. Does this warrant the move? --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd call that good enough. Wasn't showing the title as text earlier when I looked at it, guess they are still tweaking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When will DBE be moved? Goku1st (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or not. How come there's no move bar at the top of the page? :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Yes, there should be a move request. I'm just relieved that they finally selected a title ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its stupid, i mean the protection level is up, which it shouldn't be as things like Doctor Who doesn't have that high of a level and Doctor Who is probs about the same amount as Popular as Dragonball. Lower the protection level please! Goku1st (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...since no one else apparently has done it yet, I've filed an unprotection request with a note that the article also needs moving...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

We should open a new section on fans' reactions to the movie. There seem to be different opinions about it.--Quinceps (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. That would be considered personal point of view. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Read by the orange circle with "!" in it (at top of page). – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is something that should be included into a Reception section, but only if it can be sourced to a reliable publication. However, most fan opinions can't meet this standard. --Farix (Talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's really why some Wikipedia's rules should be revised and discussed. You say "only if it can be sourced to a 'reliable publication'". So what in the world is a "reliable publication", and how can you assess whether or not a source is reliable?--Quinceps (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's so wrong about subjective views? Haven't you see the criticism sections in many of the articles on Wikipedia including Science, Philosophy, Anime, Religion, etc.? Do you really think they should be deleted? For instance, in articles about philosophers there are always sections showing criticisms and even replies to those criticisms. Without those references, the articles would be really poor. So even if they contain subjective views, they are needed yo have a more comprehensive scope on the subject. I've found there is already a petition on the net (undersigned by nearly 3000 people so far) demanding that the release be canceled. Let's call it "reception". I feel the name is irrelevant in comparison with the body itself.--Quinceps (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which are core policies that all articles must follow. Hence why any reception section must be backed up by a reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense. One can cry "No original research" but the fact is that everyone on the internet and off is ridiculing this movie and an organic encyclopedia should reflect this. 24.119.163.71 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone on the internet and off is ridiculing this movie then it should be trivial to find and document a reliable source that reports that ridicule and finds it notable. --NrDg 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, if you read through some boards, like the imdb board, there are quite a few supporters. Also, it IS original research.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How would Wikipedia possibly benefit from having an "Internet Reaction" section like what is being suggested? If a reader desired to know how the internet population is receiving the film, they can simply look on the internet! There are plenty of opinion based sites out there, Wikipedia is not one of them. Also, petition to have the film canceled? What the hell type of Internet Nazi-ism is going on there? Bishoppendragon (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[19], it's from a mexican magazine called primiere. The fact that not only a magazine, but one of the actors of the film are aware of the criticism, then one has to assume that it is worth mentioning. By not mentioning it, when it exists, wikipedia is showing bias towards the movie. It's just comon sence. Also, i got the link from [20]. Just scroll down to "entradas antiguas", and then in the next page search for the other pics. I can't trasnlate it, and the only valid translator i can ask is against the movie.Tosta mista (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an image on a blog, not the magazine. The actual magazine itself is needed, not someone's "scan", possibly edited. And it has nothing to do with showing bias towards or against the movie, its called verifability. Fan reactions are, quite frankly, worthless. Reliable, verifiable reviews from legitimate, reliable sources are what Wikipedia looks at. If someone wants fan reactions, they can Google it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, notes about fans criticizing a movie for personal reasons is a violation of WP:POV and non-notable. This "criticism" is nothing new. Spider-Man 3 was criticized by fans because the black spider-suit was nothing like in the comics, Venom/Eddie Brock was dis-Graced, not to mention he only got 15 minutes of screen time before being killed-off completely. Transformers movie was criticized because Optimus Prime had flames and wasn't a flat nose "block" truck, and because Bumblebee wasn't Volkswagen Beetle. The fact is that this proposed criticism section serves no purpose and only promotes the propaganda of these obviously disgruntled fans of the original source material. Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, the section will not be added.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i suppose the scans can't really be taken into acount. If anyone has access to it though. Anyway i was just trying to help out. To be honest, i have never seen a movie get this much flame before it's release. To me, that's the only thing that could justify a mention.Tosta mista (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Go read some forum postings on some of the remakes of "classic" kids cartoons, like GI Joe when the first promo images came out. *grin* Man...the language! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we turn back Reception article the way it was...YES THE WAY IT WAS! with mentioning that on Anime News Network it was stated that this movie is good only if you are suicidal and want something to push you over the edge! (since it was perfect description of it) Please consider this...I understand that not every detail must be stated but THAT is important, and as DB fans edit this article its totally natural...surely not some Fox employees or impure poser fans...In case they do exist here, they'll have one big obstacle called ME, as I am true DB fan and put my soul in front of formality, not vice versa! Thank you for reading.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It is purely sensationalist writing and completely unnecessary. If people want the full, they can go read the review themselves. Nor is it an important. Suffice to say, he didn't like the movie. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary in my opinion. And please could you explain me...if that's "purely sensationalist" then what is this: "Justin Chatwin as Goku: A powerful warrior who protects......"??? I am not here to argue, don't get me wrong, but man, as this whole page is a bit sensationalist and completely insulting towards whole DB franchise and fans, then I believe that insult-back is a MUST.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Take your protesting and crap back to your site please this isn't the place for just your sole opinion. Killa Koz (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep! just as I expected, I just waited for the moment when someone replies to me in all "buzz off I'm too cool to read your suggestions" fashion... This is also not a place for you to suggest what I should do with my protest, but what we should do with the criticism/reception articles.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear God. You find the default description of every fantasy movie or martial art film to be "purely sensationalist". Only retarded people with half a brain would read that description of Goku and go "oh really, that wonderful, I never heard anyone described like that!!!". God, talk about over reaction. (Mtwigg1)

For Kami's sake...I'm not opposing to sensationalism, I AM OPPOSING TO THE IMBALANCE! if they can be sensationalist about a horrible childhood raping piece of exploitation such as DBE, then we as fans have perfect rights to do the same... OR remove both OR put both. How freakin hard is to understand what I suggested and eventually take it into account.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Article moved.

Dragonball (film) → Dragonball Evolution — See "Official Domestic Website is up" for details. — Farix (Talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - Given this is the official name now, it wouldn't be proper form to keep it under a tenative title. -12.77.8.176 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - per the above discussions, and the official website. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - an unprotect request was already filed and granted, but admin forgot to actually unprotect :P Was already going ot be moved anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Official name according to the official website. A terrible title for a very terrible looking movie. ^_^ – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I really don't expect anyone to contest the move. But given the technical difficulties that's been encountered, I figured that filing a procedural request will resolve the problem. So let's hope for an early WP:SNOW. --Farix (Talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has been moved. I think it's about time to close this survey. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

PSP Game

Think it's time to add in the movie game in the article. http://dbthemovie.com/ http://blog.wired.com/games/2009/01/screens-namcos.html Killa Koz (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm...a game? Yeah I think we should add that, a reliable source here. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Action Figures

Action figures and other toys have been announced right here: [21]. I think it should be mentioned in the merchandise section. Who's with me? Kazaan (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I did it and I provided a reference so you know it's legit. Kazaan (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Poster

Who changed the movie poster?, shouldn't it be the original movie poster that we had before rather than the most recent one. There's been several posters for the movie, we should just stick with the first. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, no, it should be whatever one of the official poster's ends up being, with the proper film name. If the film had actually been released with the first poster used, then yes, but since it wasn't, its fine (though it should have been done as a new file). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not put it under a new file then rather than under mine? :( :P Goku1st (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Acebloo's image should be the one on the page. Mostly because it is the one being used more to market the film like so http://www.fandango.com/dragonballevolution_116461/movieoverview I dunno it just seems 'right' Killa Koz (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be the official US poster. The problem is purely in how he is doing it. He is uploading over a totally different image, rather than uploading properly as a new image with proper sourcing and rationale. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

tentatively titled Dragonball

Is this really needed? What other film that went through a name change has this in their article? Killa Koz (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't needed in the lead, and took it out again. In the production info, it is relevant and should be noted at least in passing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question Killa Koz, French Bean was moved to Mr. Bean's Holiday right? I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the working title in the lead paragraph. The production section is quite sloppy at it. Would a source help bring it back? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, how's this source? Any comments? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what your showing. Killa Koz (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A source for the title change, but I talked it over with AnmaFinotera recently and it was decided that it wouldn't be necessary in the lead. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, crap!

... ... look at the website again... and look at the bottom of the page, they use Dragonball: Evolution while at the top of the page they use Dragonball Evolution. : ( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, maybe we should just accept that we'll never know the official name. I really don't know what to do here, It would seem that both are acceptable, but perhaps when in typed form (not logo), Dragonball: Evolution is more proper.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think Collect? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For now, I say just leave it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Official Poster showing up

This is the correct design for the official poster showing up at movie theaters.[22]. No citation for this, but my mother-in-law who owns a movie theater was sent this poster and told is was the official poster. Don't know what to do to make it official but in case something can be done someday, heads-up.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Gross in Asia

Now for once, is this OK to add now with the total at $10mil? Goku1st (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Race Row

Shouldn't this page have something about the race row that surrounds this file and the accusations of "Yellow Face" (Painting up white actors to look Asian rather than using actual Asian actors)? It's a pretty big controversy in Asia and Anime circles and there are have been all kinds of accusations about minority actors being denied Hollywood roles because of it.

CrazyChinaGal (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you actually provide such claims or that there is any actual controversy through reliable, third party sources? If no, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that such an argument would be severely flawed due to the fact that over half the main characters are played by Asians.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking that too, but figured I'd ask if there are actual sources showing this, even if it is a misperception. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Official Rating

Official American rating, yeah it's PG. And here is the link: [23] . Put it where ever you want. Kazaan (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Link ain't working so go to dbthemovie.com and it will provide a link in it's article. Kazaan (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The official website says "this film is not yet rated". – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It goes no where. American film ratings are irrelevant unless controversial, and don't get listed in articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They do. The rating has been listed in many films on Wiki. One i can name: High School Musical 3: Senior Year. Please keep this up. Goku1st (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. People including bad content in articles does not make it valid (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Pointing to a low class article with excessive non-free images, broken code, and a bad trivia section does not support your argument. High class/quality film articles do not include this information unless it is actually controversial. It has been repeatedly rejected by the Films project as being invalid content that is Americancentric in nature and blatantly obvious systematic bias.[24][25][26][27][28][29] It does not belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but bare this in mind this is an AMERICAN film made with AMERICAN money and should be allowed to show an AMERICAN rating. Goku1st (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. Consensus is overwhelming clear here, and it matters not who made the film. The rating doesn't belong, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera. Why on earth do are you fighting so hard to get it up?!--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For the curious, the template that was being used in HMS 3 and many other articles to stick in ratings has now been deleted by an overwhelming consensus agreeing that such information does NOT belong in articles unless actually notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

i look on wikipedia for anything, from rating to how many stars in has. i think it should say the rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings will not be added, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to see a film's ratings, they are very easy to find for your specific country. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Reborn (film)

DragonBall Reborn is the planned sequel to Dragon ball Evolution—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldmen (talk • contribs) 19:39, February 21, 2009

Source? Also, sing your posts. Four tildes (~~~~). – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, you better 'sing' or you could also dance =p †Bloodpack† 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A forum no less. Need I remind you that forums are not reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Chatwin mentioned it in a recent interview. I think ANN had a news article about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read the interview, but I don't understand what's the point of mentioning it when the first film is not even out. Killa Koz (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I know about the interview. However, I don't remember reading anything about the official title of the sequel being "Dragonball Reborn".^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not the official title, its a tentative/working one. Right now, I agree with Killa Koz, though, until more reliable sources give the sequel more coverage, no point really mentioning it in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear this anyway? Because i know DBMB managed to get news on a script for a sequel but it came with no name. Goku1st (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DBMB? What's that? Do you mean IMDb? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it in an interview with Chatwin somewhere, don't remember where now though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Until a good source is found, nothing can be done. On a side note, I think it is unlikely that they would exclude "Z" from the title to the sequel.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

it is common practice in hollywood for directors and actors to sign on for sequels if the movie turns any profit at all. many film series are partially planned out before the first movie even hits the theater. the idea that there is a possible title and possibly even the early draft of a script is nothing notable. it's common practice. also i don't know why they would bother sticking a Z on the title of the second movie as the films bear little resemblance to the anime, and the manga was dragonball. no Z. either way this movie will suck hard and i'll be surprised if it makes enough money to justify a sequel.99.153.29.112 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So because you don't think they will attach "Z" to the next film suggests you know nothing of either Dragon Ball or Marketing, one or the other. Fox is going to try to make MONEY, not comment on how "little resemblance to the anime" it has. Also, your right, the sequels have been signed for, but I seriously doubt that there are official titles yet.-FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

i really don't care for that tone. you having a different opinion than i do is in no way an indication of knowledge. i don't know how you can judge my knowledge of japanese cartoon shows or marketing based on the statement i made earlier. i highly doubt anything in any of the movies will resemble the source material in any way so for all i know they may call the sequel drgonball z and it probably wouldn't make a difference. and as far as making money, yeah they'll make a little, but this movie will mainly be seen by the existing DBZ fanbase, and only the percentage that actually thinks that a live action movie looks good. those people would see it regardless of what the title of the movie is, and adding a Z won't cause anybody to run out and buy a ticket who would not have previously. but as i already stated i would be amazed if this movie made enough money to justify making a sequel, so i don't see the point in discussing sequels.99.153.29.112 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a debate. Chatwin did mention a sequel is being PLANNED and it doesn't mean it will happen. It really depends on how the film fares and if it does well. And anyway, the title hasn't even been announced so the title Dragonball Reborn is not true. Please only use this area for updates on items you believe should be posted, not an argument debate on something that may not even be made. Goku1st (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Until there are solid sources and official announcements, it has no place here. speculation does not belong on Wikis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.76.223 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Budget

There are a few references to the budget for the film. None are official. The estimation for a budget does not have to be official or a part of a press release to be referenced on wikipedia.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the budget does need a reliable source, same as all other article content per WP:V. Its often overlooked, but technically, yes, it should be sourced in the article or in the infobox, and IMDB doesn't count. All those unofficial non-RS references are either making up their own numbers or had to get it somewhere official...if it came from somewhere official, we need to source that "somewhere".-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I got two sources up for the budget, one of them is pretty reliable, quoting James Marsters.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised budget: $45 million

Since page is protected, I guess this needs some discussion. The new figure of $45 million comes from a newspaper in Chile. See: http://dragonballmovieforum.com/showthread.php?t=2612

I know this is only a single source, but as per the discussion above the $100 million figure (which has now made its way all over the internet) wasn't all that reliable to start with.

This $45 million number seems legit, and makes much more sense given the relatively basic production values and visual effects etc. in the film. 211.31.9.243 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The full details of the actual, original newspaper article are required before it can be considered a reliable source and used to update the budget. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The budget is 50 mil http://www.telecinco.es/informativos/cultura/noticia/888471/888471 Killa Koz (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think AnmaFinotera? It's coming straight from James Wong that the budget is $50 mil. Killa Koz (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They aren't doing a quote there, though. Its in the article in the production section that two different figures have been reported. Until something is clearer, for now that seems the best solution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia's release date

Australia's release date is the 2nd of April 2009 for Victoria and Northern Territory. New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania's release date is on the 9th of April 2009. Could someone make this edit. 124.188.181.31 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything to correct. Its first Australia release is April 2nd, as is already noted. We don't break those down by territories. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

DBE Easter Egg

Is it possible to mention in merchandise of a Dragonball Evolution Easter Egg? Because in todays "The Sun", they have a section where they are giving out Vouchers for a Free Dragonball Evolution Easter Egg at Toys 'R Us. (Don't say this is unreliable as its sort of like when newspapers give out free Discs to a film or something) If it doesn't need to be included, then I won't add it, but let me know if it can be added. Atleast it will add more to the article. Goku1st (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, those are generally just trivia and not worth mentioning :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahwell. I'm glad something takes an interest in DBE. I mean, in the UK, nothings been going on about DBE. Well except that i went to the Cinema and they showed !3! dragonball evolution posters in a row. I mean What's on TV... nothing. Empire... nothing! Total Film... (Will be in TF issue 155... and last month they said it would be in 154... ITS ISSUE 154 RIGHT NOW!!!) BAH!! ITS MADNESS!... On the bright side... atleast the (unreliable) Sun did something :) And Toys R Us :) Goku1st (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit Protected Page Request

{{editprotected}}

Under the section "Reception", the sentence 'Criticizing the films lack of...' is grammatically incorrect. "Films" should be changed to "film's". -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The guy said although it was incoherent etc... it was NEVER boring. Rotten Tomatoes.com66.60.221.38 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In the "Production" section there is still a few errors that need to be addressed. In "Development" there is "The Matrix and 300, is working on the film." that should be something around the lines of that they did work on the film. In "Filming" there's "Shooting has also been scheduled at Los Angeles, California." and mainly the last sentence that needs revising. Burned17 (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cast list (who played what)

Why was this deleted? Can someone revert that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobobobobbob (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because who played what is in the Plot section. The casting of characters as merged into the production section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I think its fair to say the current information listed under the "Reception" heading of the Dragonball Evolution page should be removed. What or who gives the right to Zac Bertschy to lambaste the film when it hasn't even been released to American critics or theatres. It's clear he watched the bootleg or leaked shots and are those anything to base a film review on considering the fact that bootlegs are always of poorer quality compared to actual films. Does Wikipedia now promote piracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.114 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How he watched the film is irrelevant. Anime News Network reviews are considered reliable sources, and they have reviewed other materials that aren't licensed. And you have no way of knowing that he wasn't given an advance copy by the company, which does send those to reviewers ahead of releases. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be trimmed. That he is critical of plot elements, overall storyline, and the acting is relevant. His comments on what would hypothetically make the film enjoyable for him seems irrelevant. Surely if we are to put a specific quote, we can put something else. That just seems juvenile, and degrades the quality of the article. Onikage725 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that needs rewording. When unlocked, will change it to just "he felt the film could only be enjoyed while intoxicated." Would that work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please end protection. The release details need updating. andycjp (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is why it was protected in the first place. People running around changing the dates over and over again, some with and some without sources, and continuing to go against the MoS in the infobox. I'll also assume your struck remark was only intended in a sarcastic fashion and was not an accusation or anything. Obviously if we were protecting the "PR" we wouldn't have ANN's review up there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to request that the article lock be removed. There is information I would like to add to the article now that I have seen the film's Australian release. Chebo (talk) 10:45PM, 2 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

The protection will end on the forth. Feel free to discuss new additions before then and they can always be editprotect requested if there is consensus for them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for finally removing the article lock. Now I can add the information that I've been wanting to add, such as changing the name of Master Mutaito - it is not used in the film - and (if it will be allowed) a more detailed synopsis of the film. Chebo (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A more detailed synopsis is fine, but please try to keep it under 400 words. Just give main points, not scene by scene, etc, and purely what happened, not views/interpretation of the plot per WP:MOSFILM. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall do my best, you have my word :) Chebo (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now we have enough info for this section. See http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dragonball/?page=1&critic=approved&sortby=date&name_order=asc&view=#contentReviews 189.120.13.145 (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RT is pointing to lots of good usable reviews there, so long as people only use the legit, critic reviews, not any user ones. The actual reviews themselves, however, are what need to be used, not RTs quotes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that should have the Toriyama comments on Dragonball Evolution: "As the original creator, I had a feeling of “Huh?” upon seeing the screenplay and the character designs, but the director, all the actors, the staff, and the rest are nothing but “ultra” high-caliber people. Maybe the right way for me and all the fans to appreciate it is as a New Dragonball of a different dimension. Perhaps, this might become a great masterpiece of power! Hey, I look forward to it!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.32.237 (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

International and foreign reception - since Dragonball has a worldwide following (Asian, European and Latin American) and this movie grossed much more abroad than it did domestically, I think this section should be expanded with reviews, comments and press releases from countries other than the US. This movie has been shown, particularly on IMDB, to have some Hong Kong involvement, though Stephen Chow's actual contribution, or lack thereof, has been discussed in some Chinese media. This together with other comments like Akira Toriyama's response as posted above and perhaps the reception in Spanish media, a source already used for this article, ought to be added to this section.90.206.64.241 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can point to some reliable sources from said markets, by all means please do so as they would indeed be useful. All, however, must come from reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Since its required a trustworthy site for putting the same one in a reception article, it amazes me that nobody so far didn't mention IMDB ranks - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098327/ratings Out of 6,529 votes Dragon Ball evolution got 3.2/10 So please, I STRONGLY suggest that we should put IMDB's overall rank in the reception article right below the Anime News Network's review :) Thank you!--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable sources. Now knock it off with the WP:POV pushing. --Farix (Talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The reception information on this film needs to be changed from "mixed" to poor. Dragon Ball only has a 14% approval on rotten tomatoes.63.96.255.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Freshness rating is irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would really like you to give me A SINGLE reason why the official IMDB rating is less important then a subjective opinion by some random critic from IGN who is not even a DB Fan? I would just like to hear your answer on this.

And yes, I cant more agree with the comment above you...seconded! I cant believe I missed that one... Thanx.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Freshness rating is irrelevant when summarizing the reviews? Elaborate, please. In fact, for the "mixed", since it seems to be original research without a cite.

And IMDB's rating is like an informal poll, easily manipulated by canvassing and self-selection bias. A random critic can be held for accountability, theoretically. --Raijinili (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Freshness rating is an arbitrary calculation that only makes sense to someone intimately familiar with RottenTomatoes. It does not add any value to any film article, period. And no, "mixed" is not original research without a citation, as it is a summarization supported by the paragraphs that follow. This is done in many film articles as a transition to the review summaries. Some critics have given the film decent reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Critical reception specifically states that sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be used for statistics about reviews. This indicates consensus in the Wikiproject for the use of Rotten Tomatoes. Try to start a new consensus discussion there if you don't like it.

I would hazard that "mixed reviews", to most people, indicates no real consensus (though I hesitate to use the word) among reviewers as to whether the movie was good or bad. Thus, either it's original research, or misleading. My hazard is supported by the fact that people are here complaining about it.

Yes, some people have given the film decent reviews. Yes, you've shown that in the section. However, that should be as far as it goes. "Generally poor reviews" doesn't mean "nobody liked it". It means "most people didn't like it that much." To summarize it as "mixed" is original research by selecting an equal number from both sides when one side is about 20% the size of the other.

And please stop making vague, dismissive comments such as "Freshness rating is irrelevant" without explaining them. It just takes longer to resolve when you draw out the conversation by forcing people to ask you what you mean. --Raijinili (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what the MoS says, and apparently someone changed the wording. Asking about this now. I also know how to write high quality film articles, and none of them include such useless "statistics". Mixed reviews means: "some liked it, some don't", which is what is shown here. If you disagree with the wording, though, why not suggest something else? It would also be wrong to say it was completely panned as it said before. Note I did attempt some compromise warning and it was removed without explanation by another editor who has yet to join this discussion[30]. Sorry, but irrelevant seemed self-explanatory to me: adds nothing relevant to the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of saying that you "know how to write high quality film articles"? That's irrelevant to whether or not you're correct about the standard. As far as I can see, it's just expressing a high opinion of your ability as an article writer. It's not good for the discussion if I just kept saying, "I know Wikipedia policy very well, thank you," and I'm sure you would agree.

As for a better wording, I would say "generally poor reviews" is a good start.

• ("Rotten Tomatoes" discussion continued here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Reception section change)
• ("Mixed reviews" discussion continued here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#"Mixed reviews")

I didn't ask you to explain what "irrelevant" means. My comment was that you didn't explain why you thought it was irrelevant, since the user clearly didn't think it was irrelevant. --Raijinili (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Raijinili, thank you for helping out and pointing him out the point :) colleconian, but you DID NOT answer my question, and I would really like to hear it please...I didn't ask "WHY IS IT IRRELEVANT?" I asked "WHY IS IMDB RATING MADE BY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IRRELEVANT BUT THE REVIEW OF SOME RANDOM IGN GUY IS NOT!?" If it was by the onwer of IGN, or someone from their administration then I could understand somehow, but this way it just don't make sense to me to put THAT and not THIS...its imbalance... And as for the "mixed" thing, I think that it goes without saying for ANYTHING in this world that there's always gonna be people FOR something and AGAINST something for one or another reason. So if you're gonna put "MIXED" then better not put it, I don't see any sense in writing it. If you need EVERY LIVING PERSON to hate the movie in order to write "poor" you're NEVER gonna write it therefore its senseless to put any of those "mixed", "poor" and "successful"-grades in the first place! yet I SO many times saw the "poor" grade on SO many movies that did SO much better than DBE, both financially and review-wise. Also you probably know that IGN is owned by Fox, therefore I believe we should consider such sources as tendentious and completely untrustworthy, unless they're actually criticizing the moive. Sorry for my POOR english and thanks.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

To AnmaFinotera: Do you find it hypocritical that on your personal page you post "This user is opposed to online censorship" and "This user loves anime"? I ask because you are censoring the actual truth about this movie while also supporting the bastardization of a classic anime/manga series. I'm not trying to attack you personally, I honestly don't understand where you are coming from. Are wikipedia employees paid by Fox?

No, I don't. I adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, as all editors should. IMDB is not a reliable reference (nor does sticking IMDB's user ratings provide any actual usable info to anyone at all). Wikipedia's policy is not "truth" (as you see it), but "verifiability based on reliable, third-party sources which does not include IMDB ratings. Its policies also include neutrality: articles should present information in a neutral fashion and not reflect editor personal points of view. I am not supporting the film at all, I am simply editing an article on a film in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, and keeping overzealous fans from adding inappropriate information to the article because they hate the film. I haven't personally seen the film and have no intention of ever doing so. However (and again), my first priority here is to edit Wikipedia in the manner prescribed by its guidelines: neutrally, factually, using only reliable, third-party sources, and keeping my personal opinions out of the article. While your last remark was likely intended to be facetious, I will answer it anyway: I don't think most Wikipedia employees are paid at all, since its primarily a volunteer project, but I can honestly say that any that are paid are certainly not paid by Fox, but by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, pursuant to wikipedia's policies, the following is added to reception: "As of April 22, 2009, 14% of 51 critics listed by review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes had given the film a positive review, with an average rating of 3.3/10." This is completely nonbiased and simply reports a statistical fact. Furthermore, it is the prescribed method to use when referencing a site such as Rotten Tomatoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tseongsun (talk • contribs) 22:11, April 22, 2009

There is currently a discussion going on about that guideline (not policy), so am waiting for its resolution to see whether the percentage should be added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the outcome of the discussion, will the wikipedia editors remove all rotten tomatoes references from all movie entries and prohibit rotten tomatoes usage across the board going forward? Or will this rule be isolated to Dragonball Evolution?

If the discussion concludes that the numbers are useless, they will be discourages across the board going forward. Will someone go through and find every last usage currently and remove it? Probably not as few people have that time. It, like removing IMDB "references" will likely occur during article clean ups, and start at high class articles that use them (though I can't think of any GA or above that do myself). A similar thing occured recently with ANN's encyclopedia section being determined to not be a reliable source. The anime/manga project is still working on removing and replacing it in all Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists, however beyond that, there is no mass removal going on. Its just something else added to the list of "things to check for and fix if you are working on improving an article." Unless its a legal, copyright, or spamming issue, in general mass removals generally don't happen like that due to the sheer number of articles on Wikipedia.

Ok...second try: I strongly suggest this to be put into Reception artlicle - http://www.fandango.com/dragonballevolution_116461/criticreviews its official and trustworthy more than you can ever get so I assume it should go there no question? Thanx!--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The original copy from the Los Angeles Times would be far better as it has the appropriate publication information.[31] Fandago striped out details (and provides no evidence it had permission to reprint that.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok here it is - http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-etw-dragonball10-2009apr10,0,1504060.story--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I already linked to it in my message. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked it.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Title

The title of "Lord Piccolo" is strange - I mean shouldn't it be "King Piccolo"? The anime suggests that it's "king" not to mention the manga. Or is it what the film calls him? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This article uses the official Film names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects

• Dragonball Evolution: Ripe for VFX Film Picking at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• A Frantic Evolution of Dragonball at fxguide. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy?

I should have asked about this in the talk page before editting, I apologise for that.

Anyway, there is a controversy around why the director chose the main lead to be Caucasian, when in the manga and anime, it is clear that Son Goku is Oriental. Some source have even mentioned the director to think Caucasian as superior, as his reason of choice. Perhaps this is worth mentioning?

Unoispam (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source actually discussing this supposed controversy. Thus far, the the race of Goku has only even been mentioned in one review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have several reliable sources, this being one - http://www.theasianeconomist.com/dragonball-evolution-why-is-goku-white/ There have not been many reliable reviews on this movie, but simply Google "Is Goku White?" and you will get numerous reports on this controversy. I would not edit Wikipedia without reason. Please ensure your facts are correct before attempting to delete my edits. Unoispam (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts have nothing to do with it. Obviously the dude is white in the film. Whether it is a controversy is another whole issue. And, again, I said RELIABLE sources. That is an opinion blog and does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, considering this sentence "I said RELIABLE sources. That is an opinion blog and does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines" May I yet AGAIN ask why does than this meets the Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines - http://movies.ign.com/articles/970/970094p1.html As it is clearly also just a IGN blog of some random guy with his opinion written there. Would you be kind enough to explain me that please, and to give me a single difference between those two? Thank you--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IGN is a reliable news source. It is not "clearly" some blog of a random guy. That is a professional critic review. It fully meets WP:RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not IGN it is just a BLOG made under the HOST of IGN. its not like the administrator of IGN put THEIR review on the front page. And if he's professional then I can find you bunch of other professional critics that critic DBE fiercely...I actually posted that one--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a blog. And so what? Yes, we know lots of critics have panned the film. That does not mean you can dismiss any who actually did give it any praise just because you hate it. WP:NPOV is not negotiable.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Goku is NOT Asian. He's an Alien. He was created by an Asian man, but since when does that mean he's Asian? Where in the entire series is it ever stated Goku is anything but an alien race? Buuhan1 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree on above ^ Goku is a Saiyan. Does that make him Asian? NO! So shut up already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chullage (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Success in Asia

On "cite" 37, the article says that Dragonball Evolution was succefull in Asia. It's a very wrong point.

DBE really taked the first place on the oppening weekend... But it's a usual thing.. And there was no other great release to compete whith.

If you look at the Ranking of best opening weekends in conutries of Asia, it's possible to see that DBE have poor numbers.

Boxmojo have all this rankings.

Success means great numbers..

Not first place on "dead" weekends.. There was more than 30 movies since 2008 with better oppening weekend on China.. more than 30 in only one year.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.150.146.120 (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source saying otherwise, that is all speculation and original research. What other films do is pretty irrelevant anyway. It was still top in the box office on its release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In China Dragonball was the only film on the first week.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/china/?yr=2009&wk=11&p=.htm

Counting films from 2007, Dragonball evolution is on 32 position.

The real successfull films got more than $10,000,000 on opening weekend.

Dragonball got only $3,066,634.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/china/opening/

In JAPAN not entered on top 100 opening in films since 2002.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/japan/opening/

In South Korea taked the 347 place on best openings since 2002.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/korea/opening/

Taked first in malaysia on opening.

But conting only openings from 2008 there are at least 14 films with better opening.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/malaysia/?yr=2009&wk=11&p=.htm

On SINGAPORE opened in first.

Just on opening.

And there are at least 21 films with better openings since 2008.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/singapore/?yr=2009&wk=11&p=.htm

All asia numbers shows that "the film was very successful in Asia" is not a good conclusion.

I'm not saying that didn't take first place on opening in 3 or 4 coutries.

I'm saying that takes first place on opening wekend doesn't means, necessarly, a "very successfull film".

Even with the first place, DBE is far away from real successful films in asia.

And there's more countries that DBE didn't take the first place on opening in Asia.

Boxmojo have all numbers to prove what I'm trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.20.53.245 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Release/reception

I really think this article should conform to MOS:FILM and combine the Reception and Release sections. There is no good reason for them to be separate and the release is part of how a film is received. BOVINEBOY2008 02:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The section DOES conform to MOS:FILM and to the standards set by current GA and FA film articles. Check the talk page, it was discussed and agreed that having them separate like this is perfectly acceptable. The release has nothing to do with how it was received at all. It was released, period. Whether it was received well is a separate issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball: Reborn

It was announced by Chatwin that the script for Dragonball 2 has begun. Why hasn't anyone added this info yet? its old news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.63.224 (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it was only one person saying it, and no really reliable sources have said anymore on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Offical Budget???

does anyone know what the offical budget of the film is???Movieman72 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the article...as it states no official has been released, with numbers varying depending on source, time of day, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DVD release

The DVD is set to be released. Should this info be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.63.224 (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source confirming the release date? I've seen one source noting that Diamond has dropped the DVD from its July listings, but it didn't have a date. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it still has the same release date http://www.amazon.com/Dragonball-Evolution-Justin-Chatwin/dp/B00260HH3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1246591194&sr=8-1 Killa Koz (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source: IGN[32]--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merchandise

Under merchandise I think there should be a mention that Bandai in America released a toyline for the movie from April, to May of 2009. There should also be a mention of Ayumi's Hamasaki's Rule CD Single, with the cover drawn by Akira Toriyama, the author of DragonBall. Thanks in advance. {{subst:unsigned}}

Reliable Sources or the toy line? and the single doesn't need mentioning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.toywiz.com/dbzmovie.html

I think an online store selling figures would be enough of a source. I got the release dates for the figures from the DragonBall Evolution Posterzine. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, we avoid using stores for sources except as a last resort. What is the "posterzine"? That sounds more like an appropriate source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Posterzine is a small magazine released by Viz Media to celebrate the release of the movie. The contents in it are mostly just posters of shots from the movie. But it features some articles, mainly interviews with Chatwin, and Marsters, but one of the few articles was about the toyline being released in May of 2009 (I said April because members on message boards said they've purchased them before the May release). The figures do exist (while I've never actually seen them), Anime News Network had a skin promoting the launch of the line. I think Bandai may have done a press release. I can try to dig that up. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds like the Posterzine is a reliable source for noting the line of toys, if it mentions it. Just need the basic details of the magazine. Or Bandai's press release if available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.action-figure.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=24479&theme=Printer Good enough to be considered a reliable source? Damnedfan1234 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph Structure

The opening paragraph is good, but the second paragraph: "Justin Chatwin was cast as Goku, and James Marsters portrays Lord Piccolo, the antagonist of the film. A video game of the same name was released on March 19, 2009 for the PSP."

What's up with that? Horrible. What's that you say? "if you don't like it, than fix it instead of complaining here". Yeah, I agree except that I don't really know what to do with it. I think that the video game should have it's own section or to be only mentioned in the merchandise section. The sentence stating the roles should be taken out completely and a statement like the following should be added to the first paragraph: "staring Justin Chatwin, James Marsters, and Chow Yun-Fat" --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a space between Dragon and Ball

To the unqualified creators of this movie. Remember that. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The film's poster clearly shows that there is not space in "Dragonball", so the article will remain under its current name. —Farix (t | c) 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Budget?

The article currently lists the movie having a $30million budget with no source. On the press junket, the cast said that the budget started around $100million, and skyrocketed to nearly $200m. I'm not saying that the casts' word is encyclopedic, but with this huge a gap, at least one reference is in order...68.52.147.84 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

````````````````````````` sombody seems to have vandalized the budget marking it as 3 million, which is off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.214.150 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot

The plot synopsis is no good, and assumes the reader already knows basic facts about the fictional universe and the characters. For example, who is "Chi-Chi" and what is a "dragonball?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.248.210 (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The entire plot line made no sense,and this is one of the (never thought I was gonna ever say this) crappiest article I have ever seen, Like the person before me, They didn't include some of the main plot devices and characters. Only people whom know of and read/watched dragonball would understand. This page needs a MAJOR revamp.

A crappy article based on a crappy movie.184.96.242.187 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Start-class?

How is this article a start class ? Shouldn't someone update that ?--MartianH (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary Links in the Plot Section

There is no need to put the actors' names in the Plot section, since the characters' names are already mentioned in the Cast section. Thanks. Aymdaman777 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So what's the best way around this? Unlinking the characters in the Plot section or placing the Cast section before the plot section and then unlinking those in the Plot section? Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 22:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Country

• BFI: Australia, UK, Hong Kong, US [33]
• AFI: Australia, UK, Hong Kong, US [34]
• Allmovie: Australia, UK, Hong Kong, US [35]
• New York Times: United States [36]
• Screen Daily: United States [37]

Yes, there are sources that say it's a US production, but more of them (all of which agree with each other) say that it's an international co-production. Andrzejbanas, is there some reason why we should ignore three reliable sources that say the same thing? {{infobox film}} privileges AFI and BFI right in the instructions, which is another reason why I think we should follow their lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Was following another users' edits. Screen Daily specifies what were the production companies for this film, while AFI only states Twentieth Century Fox. Where did the other countries come from? BFI lists others as "in association with", which is not clear, and lists only "Star Overseas" as a production company. This was a fairly popular film, so if we could source the other production companies, and how they were involved, it could help correctly specifcying why each country fits. Yours probably isn't wrong, but we should clarify it all, no? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Why they fit is relatively unimportant. It's black magic, anyway. There is no widely agreed upon criteria, and all we can do is go by the sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not actually, it's clearly stated in {{infobox film}} that "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.". So unless we can figure out where the sources of Australia and such are coming from, we should either not include them or leave this section blank until we can find more information on it. Andrzejbanas (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dragonball Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201103312/http://www.tvguide.com/news/james-marsters-smallville/080130-02 to http://www.tvguide.com/news/james-marsters-smallville/080130-02

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

At the end of the article, the "See also" section lists the Whitewashing in film page. Why? Justin Chatwin being cast as Goku hardly counts as whitewashing. The character of Goku is not Asian. He's an alien. He wasn't born in any Asian countries, he was born in another planet. And the rest of the leading cast, or most of it, is composed of Asian actors, with the exceptions of Bulma, who is not supposed to be Asian either, and Piccolo, another alien. The link to that page is misleading and shouldn't be in the article. --190.55.230.72 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)