Talk:Kim Possible (film)

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

Requested move 31 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Possible (2019 film) → Kim Possible (film) – There is no other film simply named "Kim Possible". The other two films are subtitled A Sitch in Time and So the Drama. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I think I'm going to sit on this a while before !voting, but Kim Possible Movie: So the Drama is almost certainly why somebody felt the need to put this at Kim Possible (2019 film). Now, that said, it looks to me that this (and A Sitch in Time) both WP:NATURALDIS themselves from the 2019 film, and so WP:INCDAB may not apply here, and so the RM proposal may have merit... But I think that is why it was put at "2019 film" in the first place. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a classic case where a little extra disambiguation helps because people routinely drop subtitles, so the existence of other films with the same name but a subtitle makes the qualifier useful. See the likes of Thief (2014 video game) for an example (the first game in the series is also called "Thief" but has a subtitle). SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SnowFire; also because this film will likely have a subtitle when it is released, and will probably never be the primary topic for films named "Kim Possible". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New article[edit]

Dose anyone want to help with Draft:Kim Possible in film Fanoflionking 21:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Kim Possible (2019 film)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kim Possible (2019 film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "itunes":

  • From Good Luck Charlie, It's Christmas!: "I'm Gonna Run to You - Single by Bridgit Mendler (GB)". iTunes. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
  • From How to Build a Better Boy: "Something Real (From "How to Build a Better Boy") - Single". iTunes. July 22, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim's father[edit]

Was it my imagination, or did I see John Glover as Dr. James Timothy Possible? IMDB doesn't give anyone any credit for the role (but as a member, I can always correct that missing info just like I do here). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely say it wasnt John Glover--Fradio71 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nana surname[edit]

 – Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid a potential edit war, I'mma lay out my reasoning here… look over the entire article. Connie Ray is listed as "Anne's mother, Kim's grandmother." Okay, well, problem is, a mother's mother will NOT have the father's last name. That's paternal vs maternal, thus a different character. Plus the on-screen fact that Kim, "Ann", and "Nana" are ALL redheads, the narrative implication is maternal-side lineage. Again, Nana cannot have the paternal surname.

In addition, the actual aired product, the movie itself does not name the roles of the actors. Connie Ray's role is not listed onscreen or end credits, only identified in dialog as "Nana". Kim's father, who in the animated series was "James Possible" is not named in dialog, and end credits simply list him as "Dad". Similar for Alyson Hannigan, dialog only identifies her as "Mom", and the closest thing to an end-credit mention is listing the "Mom Stunt Double". Same for Nana, dialog only identification and only end credit mention is for "Nana (and Shego) Stunt Double".

Which begs the question, WHY the ambiguous disconnect between the pre-production casting announcement and aired crediting/narrative identification?? Especially since 1) the original creators produced the film, and 2) after 18 years it is not as if the proper character names are without complete sourcing across the internet. Yet there is a clear and distinct difference between pre-production information and what the complete, aired end-product gives us.

And if the response to any of this is "it's a reboot", then everything and every detail becomes suspect. If I'm not mistaken, that then means the actual aired final product is the definitive source over even pre-production information.

I know what I do on other sites has little weight here on Wikipedia, still, FWIW I'll mention that I've been running Fandom.com's Kim Possible Wiki since 2012. I'm a little more than the average knowledgeable fan. :) Love Robin (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Love Robin: Our guidelines cause a bit of a conflict here. WP:TVCAST says "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source" which is generally interpreted as prefer credits but fall back to a reliable source if we don't have credit info. Given that the film itself counts as a reliable primary source that is more recent than the TVline source being used for the name now, the surname is not in the credits, but she is referred to as Nana in the film dialog, it looks reasonable to me to drop the surname completely from the name in this article as a reasonable compromise on this. As an aside on this, there are cases where parents do share the same birth surname, the children of Franklin and Eleanore Roosevelt for example, but this is rare. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez: Thank you. Now, in the same vein, the movie and its credits as direct and latest source, keeping in mind this is a reboot and many details from Old Canon are now suspect, there are other character name incongruities which should be addressed…
  1. Dr Ann Possible, Kim's mother… dialog="Mom", closest credit mention lists the "Mom Stunt Double"
  2. Dr James Possible, Kim's father… dialog AND credits simply list him as "Dad"
  3. Steven Barkin… dialog AND credits simply list him as "Mr. Barkin"
  4. Bonnie Rockwaller… Dialog="Bonnie" and "Bon Bon", the actress is listed without role, closest credit mention list the "Bonnie Stunt Double"
I have zero clue as to why a product produced by the same franchise creators left so many well-known and verifiable Original Canon Continuity details as vague and ambiguous in this their latest addition to their own rebooted intellectual property unless it be to leave open options to change them from what went before. But it is what it is, and like in many other franchises where reboots and incarnations make changes both major and minor, the Kim Possible fandom needs to be less intractable and woke to the possibilities… Love Robin (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The character names for the first 10 actors listed in the article are not shown on-screen. With the exception of Maxwell Simkins, Disney ABC Press' bios page has all the character names and supports last names in most cases, including Nana. That is more recent than TVLine and still supports that; there is no issue here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Love Robin: Disneypress info is official from the production and is authoritative and should be used for stuff not shown in credits. For whatever reason they use Nana Possible so presume they didn't think this through about maternal line names or Kim's mom and dad really are cousins and have the same birth surname. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Earlier sources—the casting announcements—report this as a comedy-adventure. The announcement with the premiere date reports this as a comedic action-adventure. I have three genres listed for this currently, but that's probably a bit overkill. Which genre should we go with? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Comedy" and "Action-adventure" as the two listed genres is fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

This DCOM received the lowest ratings within the last decade, and it is verifiable by looking at List of Disney Channel original films. This was previously discussed for another DCOM at: Talk:Freaky Friday (2018 film). Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rotton Tomatoes info[edit]

I think it should be in the article, sourced, but not characterized. 6 reviews is low. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I just added information on the IMDB, and two fan-sites. And it got deleted FAST. MitchellTF (talk) 12:45, November 15, 29 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.167.148.65 (talk)

Added audience ratings from same source for a better comparison (and more objective representation) Quality Control (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Variety article under the Critical Response section[edit]

There is some confusion over the text cited. Some claim that it shoud not be listed under the section. Maybe moving the text to the Production section would be better? Since the Variety article ‘Kim Possible’ Boss on Live-Action Movie as ‘Wonder Woman’ for the ‘Prepubescent Set’ lists the work of the women who worked on the live action movie, it would be a better fit . ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Possible_(2019_film)&oldid=958990365#Critical_response ) —2804:5ED8:113:F600:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 November 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kim Possible (2019 film) → Kim Possible (film) – — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But films like Yogi Bear (film), The Flintstones (film), Scooby-Doo (film), etc all have film within their title not there year follow by film and they all have films that was released before then Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. On second thought, I am striking my previous "oppose" vote and replacing it with "neutral". Perhaps some consideration should be given to the fact that the previous two films were animated, while the 2019 film is live action. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title is overly precise. The previous RM seemed to fail for CRYSTALBALLish reasons, with comments like "because this film will likely have a subtitle when it is released" that didn't wind up being true. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, perhaps having a hatnote to point to the other films would be beneficial. El Millo (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Possible_(film)&oldid=1207977895"