Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)/Archive 2

Sequel on hold at fox
Well, taken off their schedule. Here is the source. Npamusic (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

sequel's release date removal
I removed the line that says that the sequel will be released in july 2017 due to the sequel section below clealry specifiyng that the sequel MAY NOT be completed before the 2017 release date. Be sure to have a clear and comfirmed date before writting one that's not comfirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's something else: fox removes sequel from release schedule. Npamusic (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sequel?
I guess it's fitting that I should be the one bringing this up again. Now that the sequel is no longer scheduled we have no reason to believe a sequel is planned, so the lengthy discussion is no longer necessary. Anyone have a problem with: "Before the film's release, Fox announced a sequel to be released summer 2017, but some commentators later questioned whether the sequel would be produced following the first film's poor critical and commercial performance. In November 2015 the sequel was removed from Fox's release schedule. If Fox do not release another Fantastic Four film before DATE, the film rights to the franchise will revert to Marvel."

That's really all the section says at this point. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's there because the sequel was announced. It was removed from its scheduled release date, but a cancellation has not been announced, so that's why it's still here. If a cancellation is announced, then the section will probably became "Cancelled sequel". DarkKnight2149 19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the long and overly detailed discussion is there because a number of users last August or September, including myself, thought that simply saying "a sequel has been announced for DATE" when most of the up-to-date reliable sources appeared to imply this would not happen would violate WP:CRYSTAL. But simply stating at that time that a sequel was announced but that the poor performance of this film meant this likely wouldn't happen was also seen as problematic. So we decided to just summarize what all the sources say. But now that it appears the sequel has been cancelled (to clarify, the only evidence that a sequel was being made was Fox's release schedule, and that evidence no longer exists), devoting this much discussion to the sequel appears to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. This kind of discussion devoted to a sequel that no one can verify will ever be produced is normally reserved for film's that have been famously stuck in production hell for years or decades, not a film that was put on a preliminary release schedule and taken off shortly thereafter. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't decide what most likely will or won't happen. A sequel was announced, a cancellation has not been announced and the film was pulled from its original release date. That's all we know. The only official indication that the film won't happen comes purely from reliable non-primary sources' speculation that the film won't happen due to a lack of news and the film's performance. We aren't about to jump the gun. DarkKnight2149 01:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be disruptive? You are arguing with me when I am proposing reducing the section down to the provable, relevant facts, rather than cherry-picked speculations by reliable secondary sources. The speculation by my previously-cited Bob Chipman source that Marvel and Fox might make a deal for Marvel to give Fox the TV rights to X-Men in exchange for the film rights to FF, for instance, is not quoted at the moment, nor should it be. Your comments here seem to indicate that you agree with me on what needs to be done with the article, but are arguing for ... whatever reason you are arguing with me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. My apologies. I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Yes, I agree that such material should be removed. DarkKnight2149 04:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After your first reply, I assumed you liked my proposal overall but felt we should remove the If Fox do not release another Fantastic Four film before DATE, the film rights to the franchise will revert to Marvel.  part. What do you think of my above wording, anyway? I think we should take the whole section out and replace it with the above. The final sentence is kinda-sorta speculation (by a reliable source), but it's also an indisputable fact. I also wouldn't mind adding that Fox said they were still trying to make a sequel work as late as September, of course. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is an improvement, though I'm not sure on how notable "some commentators later questioned whether the sequel would be produced following the first film's poor critical and commercial performance" is. More opinions from editors would be helpful. I'm fine with mentioning when the rights revert, as long as it's sourced. DarkKnight2149 14:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the wording, but would like at least one more reference for the commentary bit I think, just to make it less iffy. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fantastic Four (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/08/19/sfx239-preview-mark-millar-on-fantastic-four

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Box office ".0"
So not sure who insists we put ".0" after the $168 for the gross, but it's math 101 you don't put the zero if you round up to the nearest decimal place and it's a zero, so I'm just going to remove that... TropicAces (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)tropicAces
 * It would seem to be about whether we are rounding to decimal places or significant digits.
 * Rounding to one decimal place gives an answer with one decimal place: 12.34 becomes 12.3, 12.04 becomes 12.0, 123.45 becomes 123.5.
 * Rounding to three significant digits gives an answer with three meaningful places: 12.34 becomes 12.3, but 123.45 becomes 123 and 1234.56 becomes 1230
 * Yes, when writing "ten", you would normally write 10, not 10.0. However, there are exceptions. When rounding numbers to one decimal, the chosen level of accuracy is retained. Rounding 9.9 to the nearest tenth would be 10.0. Rounding to the nearest unit would be 10. As a result, you know that a 10 that came from rounding to the nearest unit represents data of 9.50 to 10.49. A 10.0 from rounding to the nearest tenth is from data of 9.95 to 10.04.
 * Including the .0 gives an indication of the accuracy of the displayed result. "10" represents 10 +/- 0.5 while "10.0" means 10 +/- 0.05. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Gaps
Do all those gaps with persona opinio and speculation need to be in the article? I'll delete them, so please DO NOT add them again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You were right to remove them, as that was pure vandalism that someone added. DarkKnight2149 01:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe
This film has never been part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.


 * And no part of the article insinuates that. Sock   ( tock talk)  14:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)