Talk:Finding Dory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Invoking WP:IAR despite WP:NFF

I'll begin by remarking that the script has already been written and Ellen DeGeneres has been confirmed as starring as Dory. The announcement of the film has received international attention. Local: Wall Street Journal [1], Los Angeles Times [2], International Business Times [3], Bloomberg [4], Huffington Post [5] and currently referred to from The Daily Beast [6]. International:Globo News [7], Veja (magazine) [8] The Daily Telegraph (Australia) [9] Herald Sun [10] The attention given to this subject makes it easily notable and shows exactly why WP:IAR exists. Ryan Vesey 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fake

Just a thought, this movie might be a joke since it was announced on April Fools, right? Giggett (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It was actually announced on April 2, and if you want to dig deeper, you'll find there have been mentions of a sequel for months prior. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 06:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we need this page already?

The film has just been announced, and its got two years until it will be released. So for a good several months won't this page just be mostly empty and static? So do we need this page alreaddy? Charlr6 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The rules in Wikipedia:NFF are quite clear:

"In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced."

Therefore, creating an article for Finding Dory is not justifyable at this time. Richiekim (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The film could still be notable, even if it hasn't been made (or started to be made) yet. There's a page on Father Christmas!Sophiahounslow (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We've been down this path twice before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Dory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Dory (2nd nomination). I think the article's notability has been sufficiently justified. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 14:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Gould

It says that Alexander is playing Nemo, but then in another section it says he's not. What's the truth here? --Rainbowroad6w (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Gould has stated that he will not be reprising the role of Nemo because of his deepening voice (he's 19 now) 71.188.30.77 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/finding-nemo-sequel-finding-dory-to-star-ellen-degeneres-for-2015-release-8557914.html
Here's another source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the inclusion to the article since no one is debunking or dis-approving the inclusion. 71.188.25.238 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Joe Ranft

Can we at least have Joe Ranft's brother Jerome Ranft voice Jacques. 68.4.41.121 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? STATic message me! 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This isn't up for debate, or for fan-casting. If his brother has been contacted by the studio (which in this case, highly doubt it), and it was released to the public as being true, then we can add the inclusion. No source? No reliable source ? No inclusion. Sorry 68.4.41.121, it won't be included. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we list the co-director?

There's been some back and forth in the edit history in the info box about whether or not to list the co-director. Those who put it in (eg. me, though edit history shows I'm not alone) claim A Bug's Life as precedent. Those who take it out claim that it's irrelevant information (which might be true). @Koala15: asked for it to be brought up on the talk page before anybody puts it back. So any thoughts for or against it? Luthien22 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is an awkward presentation to put in the co-director like that. I like the mention in the lead section and find it sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In a perfect world, I'd like to see a separate listing in the info box for the co director. Baring that, I admit the current version is a little awkward. Luthien22 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of an established consensus one way or the other on co-directors - maybe it should be brought up at WT:MOSFILM or Template talk:Infobox film. There has been discussion in various places, but the decision usually seems to be "use your best judgment". The fact that it exists at A Bug's Life does not necessarily mean it should be included here, though (or there, even, or anywhere else). As for the presentation, I also find "(co-director)" awkward, and as there is no dedicated field, I'd prefer leaving it for the prose. The infobox doesn't include cast other than top-billed, and I think the same should generally be true for director. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete cast list

For reference, the complete cast list was released on March 30, 2016: [11]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot details, and actor for Nemo confirmed

P!ease cite these accordingly. Here are the sources: Source 1 / Source 2. Npamusic (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

For a film that isn't out yet, does the plot have to be so detailed? anemoneprojectors 12:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot for Finding Dory, and more information on the film, including the addition of Nemo.

Here's the source. May be in Spanish (i think) but it has information detailing the plot of the film. Including that Nemo, Dory, and Merlin will be on an adventure together to find Dory's parents, and that the film will be mainly set in the Marine Biology Institute of California. 2601:C:780:234:1A2:8B72:7399:1FF8 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and right now it's just a speculation. Read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS.--Chamith (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Omelete, I would say that it is a quite important website in Brazil, so maybe it is reliable. I would trust the source since it is reporting about the Jim Morris' talk at CCXP, who, according to the CCXP's website, was indeed there.--Carniolus (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a more reliable source for the information I provided via Omelete. 2601:C:780:234:B027:24E4:1F98:A860 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That PixarTimes article uses Omelete as source, so it is not an independent account.--Gray Catbird (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Collider.com says in their article that Omelete is their partner site. Since Collider is frequently used as a source, I think that we can also trust what are they saying at Omelete. Beside that, other more prominent sites have decided that Omelete is reliable enough: The Hollywood Reporter, Huffinton Post, NY Daily News, Daily Mail... If there are no objections, I will add the Omelete's info to the article.--Carniolus (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Vance256 replaced the sourced plot stub with a lengthy plot summary a few days ago, which I reverted as an apparent copypaste (it appears on somebody's blog of copypasted plot summaries, although there is a small chance it was copied from Wikipedia in the hours between Vance256 adding it and me reverting it). Vance256 added back a very closely paraphrased version of the same plot summary today. I've cut it for now, in case it's based on an early draft or a fan's imagined plot summary. Vance256 - where are you getting this full plot summary of an unreleased film from? --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Spin-off

Considering the character focused on, perhaps this film qualifies as a spin-off. 172.58.19.184 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source stating the film is a spin-off, because all sources state it's a sequel. It doesn't matter if the film doesn't focus on the same characters as the first film. It happens a year after the events of the first film, thus rendering it a sequel. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Who?

Blue tangs

The first mention of these is in the third paragraph of § Plot:

After reaching her old home, Dory learns that the blue tangs are receiving their own exhibit in Cleveland and have been sent to Quarantine.

I haven't seen either movie, but I know that blue tangs are a species of fish, and I assume that Dory and her family are such. To readers who don't know either movie and who have never heard of the species, this will be pretty confusing till they figure it out. It should be stated earlier, before it is assumed, perhaps by editing ¶2 of the lede to say

Finding Dory focuses on the amnesiac fish Dory, a blue tang, who...

I am not boldly doing this myself because I haven't seen the films.

Tank Gang, Bloat

The plot section ends:

...the Tank Gang, still trapped in their now algae-covered plastic bags, reach California after a year of swimming across the Pacific. They are then captured by volunteers, with Bloat once again saying "Now what?", and with the gang bound to suffer tank life again.

I can hear it now: "Who are the Tank Gang? Who's Bloat? When did he say that, or anything, before? What's going on here?!"

--Thnidu (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are there numbers listed and saying "this movie is the 25th highest grossing..." among other comments like that? It hasnt even opened in Mexico, so those numbers and comments are basically lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.54.128 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Can you please put the broadcast section of finding dirt into your search of the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanmitchell1991 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a spin-off

Per this source ("Disney has announced that as of this weekend, the Finding Nemo sequel has reeled in an estimated $445.5 million at the domestic box office, surpassing Shrek 2 to become the highest-grossing domestic animated movie of all time.", the film is not a spin-off. It's just a sequel to Finding Nemo. A sequel continues the story of the first movie or what happens after the events of the original film. A spin-off focuses on something entirely different. Had it been a film on the fish tank gang, it would be a spin-off. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes Finding Dory qualify as a spin-off is the fact that it focuses on Dory. Dory was not the protagonist in the original film. A spin-off is usually defined as a story focusing on a character who was not originally centered on. It is also explained here. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Many reliable sources call it a sequel. It had been disputed before that if it was a spin-off, when it is in fact not. It continues the story of the first film, not start a whole new idea. Also, the source you provided calls it a sequel: "The long awaited sequel to Finding Nemo, Finding Dory, was finally unleashed upon the world on June 17, and boy did it deliver. [...] Secondly, it's a sequel to an extremely popular movie, and audiences are always more willing to spend money on a familiar property than to take a chance on something new that they might not like. [...] Finding Dory isn't just a sequel, but a sequel to an old movie." Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are plenty of reliable sources stating it to be a sequel:
"Director Andrew Stanton returns for the exceptionally well-received sequel which places Ellen DeGeneres' forgetful fish Dory front and centre of the story. Source
"Pixar’s sequel Finding Dory has become the fourth Disney title this year to cross the $900M mark after Captain America: Civil War ($1.15B), Zootopia ($1B) and The Jungle Book ($949M). And get this — even with $423.5M in overseas grosses, Finding Dory still has more waters to swim into including Italy and Germany." Source
"The Dory-centric sequel to 2003’s Finding Nemo has raked in the cash since opening on June 17, and not only is Dory the biggest domestic movie of the summer, but it’s also the biggest domestic movie of the year with $476.9 million total." Source
"Now, Nemo director and co-writer Andrew Stanton has brought Dory back for a moderately entertaining, borderline-pointless sequel and star-showcase. [...] Finding Dory is a sequel which appears to have been cloned from the first film using an impossibly smart and sophisticated process of concept development and audience-demographic research." Source
"This sequel to 2003’s beloved Finding Nemo turns out to be a ­disappointment too, a toon that may appeal to ankle-biters but feels several steps backwards in terms of storytelling and visuals." Source
"The prospect of a sequel to Finding Nemo may make most fans sound exactly like that picture’s resident worrywart, Marlin: Do we really need a sequel some 13 years later? But Finding Nemo is perfect: why risk ruining it?" Source
"Finding Dory review: Fishy sequel is one of Pixar's most charming films yet" Source
"With $897m worldwide (including $476m domestic), the Pixar sequel’s overseas strength means that all four of the year’s top grossers are courtesy of Walt Disney." Source
"For starters, fans have remained rabid in their support for a Finding Nemo sequel for well over a decade." Source
"If Dory’s motto is “just keep swimming,” Ellen DeGeneres’ is “just keep asking” — for a sequel." Source
"But I really believe that one day it would happen. And today, I am proud to officially announce that Pixar is making a sequel to Finding Nemo." Source
Shall I go on? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It is clearly a sequel. WikiP operates on WP:RSs and Callmemirela has provided more than enough to justify the use of the term in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Do we have to let sources dictate everything in Wikipedia? What wrong with things that are generally understood? 173.55.97.103 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you not know how Wikipedia works? Please see WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. No. Unless you have a reliable source indicating it's a spin-off, it will not be included. Are we done here? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
How's this one? 173.55.97.103 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The source above seems good. What more needed? Wubzy (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of independent reliable sources say it is a sequel. One local review says sequel/spin-off. A passing comment by a vanishingly small minority of sources does not merit mention. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Though fewer sites mention the term, Finding Dory is, by definition, a spin-off. If you still need sources, I can get more. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, "fewer". There are more sources stating it is a sequel than a spin-off or sequel/spin-off. Adding 3 more sources doesn't change the majority. I agree with SummerPhD. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that the opinions here are not going to change. Two of us says that WP:WEIGHT and WP:V say it is a sequel and not a spin-off. The IP doesn't seem to feel that sources override their original research. I don't think that is likely to change. The narrow WP:CONSENSUS says we keep it as a sequel. If you would like to, you can certainly start a Request for Comments to bring in more opinions. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Per SummerPhD. "By definition" is original research. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If the sources here that say Finding Dory is a spinoff aren't enough, here's 10 more. Wubzy (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

The links provided by Wubzy are pretty much convincing. Hirameki (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
May I ask how you found the sources? I typed in "Finding Dory spinoff"/"Finding Nemo spinoff" and I only found one source. I type "Finding Dory sequel"/"Finding Nemo sequel" and results are much bigger. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I simply googled "finding dory spinoff." That's how I got them. It's possible that I can find more than what I posted here. Wubzy (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Is everything settled? Wubzy (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I watch over 100 articles and that includes their talk pages and so on. I didn't see that you had replied until your most recent edit. Even though I don't agree with the whole spinoff, I can't disregard policy. I suppose consensus has been reached, unless other users have other ideas? Just add the source which states it's a spinoff and sequel directly rather than a source that just mentions "feels like a spinoff" and such. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Finding answers

Do we really need this quote The film was projected to make over $1.2 billion in global ticket sales because of its former film's critical success, although it failed to do so it makes it sounds like dory underpormer at the box office yet it is the 2016 animated champion so far.82.38.157.176 (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finding_Dory/Archive_1&oldid=1136726469"