Talk:City of Ashes

Film adaptation.

I've changed the section on Film adaptation to a very short version. I encourage editors to leave it that way until reliable sources are available. Note WP:CRYSTAL and try to avoid speculation. See also The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones#Sequels ([1] version at time of writing) for careful long wording that makes the situation completely clear and is fairly written, roughly paraphrased it says: Constantin have said the film is delayed, others have said it is not going to happen at all.

If you follow the guidelines as the film article does you, clearly lay out both opinions and in both cases you say who said them. It would be pedantic to say 'source A' said this, 'source B' said that, for every reference in the article but in cases where the facts are in doubt this is the proper way for an encyclopedia to do it, if it should even be mentioned at all (which is why I prefer the short version).

Good editors will either leave the short version, or copy the long version.

Bad editors will continue to claim the film is cancelled. Even if it is delayed, or stuck in development for years an encyclopedia needs to stick to the facts and not claim it is cancelled until Constantin actually say so. -- 109.78.182.37 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, bad editors will claim it's still due out in 2014 because even Constantin, the studio that produced TMI, admitted that production was delayed and they didn't give any resume date, meaning the status is unknown. Thus while it is wrong to say it is cancelled, it is just as bad to say it's still due out in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.143.130 (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You've two choices, present both sides of the argument (long version) or accept what Constantin have said (short version) and say that the film is stuck in development. I would not encourage you to present the long version here. But if you really wanted edit the version presented at the film article and rephrase it to say status is unknown or otherwise summarize the difference of opinions as indication that that the future of the franchise is in doubt, that is an edit that would probably satisfy the consensus.

If you want to change the short version to read "in production." without specifying a release date that would be a reasonable edit too I guess.

There is a long history of films that have been stuck in development for many years, development hell. The film is still showing, it is due to be in October for some countries, and there is the possibility of better home media sales. It is simply too early to draw any conclusions (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR). -- 109.78.173.152 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice I never made any edits changing whether it was still due out in 2014 or not, just pointed out that overzealous fans are grasping at too many straws. I'd also like to add that it's box office run is basically finished now and it will end up with 83-85 million worldwide off a 120 million (60 for production, 60 for marketing) budget, and this isn't even taking into account that studios keep only 50-55% of domestic revenue and only 40% of foreign revenue. This movie bombed really badly no matter what anyone says. Also, again, the whole idea of home video sales saving this franchise is along the same vein of thought of fans prior to the movie release who said "It's gonna be HUGE!" and then it bombed badly. Home video says very accurately reflect box office runs and they are hurt by terrible reviews, like Mortal Instruments has gotten. You simply need to look at Beautiful Creatures and I am Number Four DVD sales to see that this movie will only make 6-8 million off of home video sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.171.120 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you but Wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia, so as I said before, if we have still have sources from the studio claiming the film is "in development" the best we can do is present a source that says "in development" and another source (or preferably more than one) that says the project it is dead. Even then, any tiny prospect of a future revival of the project means we must remain objective and leave the question open, even if we write a very skeptical report that allows readers to easily come to the most likely conclusion. -- 93.107.13.68 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Ashes. 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/20090211211859/http://cassandraclare.com/cms/home to http://cassandraclare.com/cms/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)