Talk:Pixels (2015 film)

Voxels

Three dimensinal pixels are called voxels. I can understand why the director/producer choose a title from a word that normal people actually know, but still... the alien weapons are made of voxels... not pixels...220.220.9.59 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot

Perfectly succinct plot description. Any chance we can keep it that way after the movie premieres? In fact, how come nearly every time I try to read about a movie on Wikipedia I get a twenty-page description of spoilers that not only ruin the ending, but practically every scene in the film? And could someone please explain to me who are the people writing those and who are they writing them for?

I would direct you to WP:FILMPLOT, particularly the section on spoilers. It also talks about the proper length for a plot summary (albeit above the section on spoilers); I'm not sure if you have a specific article(s) in mind when you say "twenty-page descripions", but if there's a plot summary somewhere you feel is in need of fixing, go ahead and use the guidelines there to adjust the length accordingly. :) Rocky Role (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015

The Taj Mahal attack uses the paddle from Arkanoid, not Pong. 23.29.85.214 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Next time please provide a reliable source which backs up your change. I found this one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Moviebob's review

1.5 Million views later and apparently finding some time for Howard Stern and a Boston Radio station doesn't quite make it a reliable source in the same sense we're used to, but does anybody think its worth blurbing? You can find it here. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

Dobbsy11 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

I would like it, if I were allowed to edit. The plot seems too long. I've seen the movie so I believe I can simplify this article.

Kordads (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What would you rewrite the plot to be? Put it here on the talk page and then we can discuss/change. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: - I agree the plot is too long - but we need to see what is proposed - Arjayay (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"was panned by critics"

First, Callinus, I have no conflict of interest here. I have no connection that I know of to the film. I have not seen the film. I saw a trailer for it and strongly suspected the film would suck.

Yes, the lead section should summarize the rest of the article.

The sources we have say the following:

• 18% of the critics used by Rotten Tomatoes gave it "positive" reviews. Maybe they thought it was the best film in the history of cinema, maybe they thought it was ever-so-slightly better than average. It was likely a mixture of points in between those extremes. This does not say "critics" "panned" it.
• 82% of the critics used by Rotten Tomatoes gave it "negative" reviews. Maybe they thought it was the worst film in the history of cinema, maybe they thought it was ever-so-slightly worse than average. It was likely a mixture of points in between those extremes. This does not say "critics" "panned" it.
• Metacritic assigned it a score of 27/100, based on the critics it uses. They said this indicates "generally unfavorable reviews". (I say "They said" because they often use the word "universally" is a way that doesn't appear in any dictionary I can find.) This does not say that "critics" "panned" it.
• Peter Travers of Rolling Stone clearly feels this film sucks. This does not say that "critics" "panned" it.
• Some guy from some blog fell all over himself trying to be funny while saying it sucked. This does not say that "critics" "panned" it and is not an appropriate source to cite here.

Combining all of that into any one statement is synthesis. If you feel that Metacritic's critical consensus is an accurate reflection of the section, I would not object to its inclusion as a statement made by Metacritic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of these?

• forbes "Adam Sandler's 'Pixels' Is Bombing With Critics" - "Sandler has been on such a losing streak lately that even critics who say this is his best movie in years are panning it"
• 997 (possibly self published) "Pixels Panned Pre-Opening"
• Hypable (possibly self published?) "Adam Sandler’s ‘Pixels’ universally panned by critics"
• Vindy (AP reporting, custom title) "'Ant-Man' inches above critically panned 'Pixels' for top spot at box office this weekend"
• ArsTechnica "The Internet didn't really need another reason to hate July's critically panned Columbia Pictures film Pixels"
• MyNewsLA "The critically panned Adam Sandler comedy, “Pixels”, about evil video games, disappointed with a $24 million weekend, but still managed a second-place finish."

Also

• Sydney Morning Herald "Other crew announcements were equally worrying: a script by Tim Herlihy, writer of many panned Sandler vehicles including Little Nicky and Mr Deeds"

The language "panned" would appear to be widely used by RS. -- Callinus (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Now it isn't synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Worried about the "Copyright Abuse" section

Right now this section of the article seems very once sided. The opening section makes it sound like Columbia intentionally hired someone to abuse the DMCA system, which is something that we can't really know. The section also states that the company "Abused the DMCA system" and then cites the chilling effect google page) the fact that the word "abuse" is thrown around almost as a fact based statement concerns me. Now if we could cite other articles and state "So and so called this abuse of the DMCA system" that would be one thing but it's not what's being written here. --Deathawk (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Anachronisms and some other trivia

• Some of the video games referenced by the movie were released a few years after 1982, for example Tetris (1984) and Paperboy (1985). This is a somewhat interesting anachronism since the movie mentions 1982 in multiple scenes to reference the real-world record score in Donkey Kong established by Billy Mitchell on August 13, 1982.
• Besides video games, there are various other 80s references, some of which are also anachronisms: http://www.indyweek.com/arts/archives/2015/07/24/movie-review-pixels-pumps-80s-video-game-nostalgia-into-an-enjoyable-throwaway-farce The aliens communicate through video projections of Ronald Reagan, Hall & Oates, Fantasy Island’s Mr. Roarke and Tattoo, Max Headroom and the Madonna of “Lucky Star.” Max Headroom (character) for example is from 1984/85.
• The game Dojo Quest is called 'fictional' by the article. This is so far true as it's not a genuine game from the 80s, but it was actually created for iPhone and Android to promote the movie: http://www.dojoquest.com/

The anachronisms are maybe not worth mentioning because that stuff happens in movies all the time, unless several sources complain about it (not really the case, it gets mentioned here and there though). But as there's already a list of classic video games, shouldn't the other 80s pop-culture related references be listed as well? They made me curious enough to look them up because despite growing up in that era myself I didn't recognize all of them while watching the movie. Rh73 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Seeing that in the meanwhile the list of video game references got deleted with the reason "unsourced and trivial"... well, the whole movie is based on those references. All plot summaries and most reviews out there list some or many of them because the cameos are essential to the plot. Rh73 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Video game references that are essential to the plot should already be in the plot summary. The same is true of lots of things in lots of movies. That we can extract various elements and build a list does not mean we should. (While various foods are important plot elements in Big Night, for example, we don't need a list. We could also list office supplies in Office Space, land-based products in Waterworld, real people in Contact, etc.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with deleting that video game bullet list and don't wish to bring it back. Most of it is already in the prose, where it belongs, so that's covered. The remaining question is if the non video game related footage used for communication deserves explicit mention (as a stylistic contrast and/or to add further nostalgic elements from that era; whatever the intention was, it's an additional theme used multiple times). So far, Max Headroom is listed in the cast, but no connection is made in the plot summary, so a reader could wonder where this character fits into the story and might draw wrong conclusions like for example assuming that he joins the animated video game fight scenes which are described abundantly. Rh73 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources discuss the "nostalgic elements", we should discuss them, with appropriate WP:WEIGHT. If Max Headroom was a minor character in the film, he/it shouldn't be in the cast list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

box office success?

Is it? It hasn't even made double it's budget. That isn't a box office success. 185.97.213.6 (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Budget

I have read sources giving different numbers for the budget of Pixels, with wikipedia saying $129,000,000, but IMDb (and one of the reviews mentioned in this article) saying $88,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDB contains user generated content and is not a RS. Their budgets are often estimates. The $129 million was reported in the FilmLA annual feature film study and also confirmed in the Sony hack. The full budget is actually online on wikileaks. Depauldem (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear why the IMDB figure of $88 million is still included in the article. I'm going to remove it.

The article Film budgeting explains at length, and the budget of this film was $129 million (gross) and $111 (net) after rebates. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Now I think I can see what was happening, Film budgeting is a mess, and naive calculations don't help.

The Film LA report (from July 2006) put the budget at $129 million. The Hollywood Reporter article (from July 2015) said the budget was $110, and all sources agreed that film got rebates of $19 million. The claimed figure of $88 million is clearly based on deducting the $19 million rebate from the lower budget estimate of $110. I've attempted to clarify the text in the Box Office section to better explain this, but without making calculations for the reader. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The wikileaks source is included in the article Film budgeting. [I would included it here directly but I've set off some kind of edit warning.] and it shows the budget was $129,669,659, and the lower figure of $111 is only later after rebates have been deducted. (Note you need to click on the embedded subfile PixelsTopsheet -V12Toronto_69 Dys_051414.pdf to see the total.) -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Critics are morons

This movie is proof critics are blithering idiots. Movies should, first and foremost, be entertaining. They all don't need to be long, boring, artsy-fartsy pieces of crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.240.42 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)