Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)/Archive 1

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

Can someone post the Inside Out teaser trailer here?

There is currently only one trailer out and it is a teaser trailer. I was wondering if someone could legally post it here on Wikipeida. That would be great. Greshthegreat (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Similarities with the "Brain Divided" animated short?

It seems that as soon as the teasers for Inside Out came out, people began comparing it to the "Brain Divided" short from 2013, which can be seen here. Does anyone know if any important publication has mentioned the extreme similarity in order to include that here? Cancerbero 8 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The trope of little people personifying emotions is not new. Disney's done it at least twice in the last couple of decades: the former Cranium Command attraction at Epcot and the TV series "Herman's Head" (produced by Touchstone Television, a Disney subsidiary). There was a cartoon short back in the mid 20th century that had people governed by two people, named "Reason" (depicted as prim and proper) and "Emotion" (depicted as a caveman/woman). So while there may be similarities to a degree, it's a very common presentation. --McDoobAU93 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Infinity 3.0 mention

someone should put Disney Infinity 3.0 on this since the characters are going to appear in that. Visokor (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a Disney animated feature canon

This film is not a Disney animated feature canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.173.217 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Does the article say that is? I don't see it. Reach Out to the Truth 04:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Box office

Under the "Reception" ---> "Box office" section it says:

"Inside Out is expected by analysts to become a commercial success upon its release—they predict the film will bring in $250 million solely from domestic ticket sales."

Am I wrong, or is Wikipedia not a "crystal ball"? If the news sources want to make predictions, they are obviously welcome, but Wikipedia doesn't include those predictions, do they? 2601:7:7F02:17C0:FDF8:2C53:4776:C633 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel as though a projected sales figure serves a Reception section before the release either. 2600:100E:B124:C205:453B:9594:DF98:F178 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Critical Response

"The film has so far received significant acclaim from critics and film festival attendees. The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes lists a 100% approval rating, based on 28 reviews, with a rating average of 8.9/10." If the first sentence says what the second sentence does, it is redundant. If it says something other than what the second sentence says, it is original research. If it combines what the second sentence says with the Metacritic bit that follows, it is synthesis.

TL;DR version: The first sentence is pointless. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete Plot

The plot seems to be incomplete, or missing some parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.189.227 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it ends with "fall into the abyss", though I feel Pixar would never think it's necessary to kill off these characters. Definitely incomplete. - Theironminer (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Inside Out a fantasy-comedy or comedy film?

I suppose fantasy-comedy is more appropriate. What do you guys think? Saul Grant (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

video games section?

should there be a video games section? I mean, as mentioned before the emotions will be playable characters in Disney Infinity 3.0. Also, there's a Puzzle Bobble/Bust-a-Move style app called Inside Out: Thought Bubbles availableVisokor (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See also = "reminds me of..."

So far, we have two entries for items where elements of personality/emotions are portrayed as individual characters. IMO, we will need limits here, as this is a fairly common device. I'd say the section should be limited to A) links that would be in a fully-developed article (they'll already be in the article, at this point, so that's none) and B) "similar" books/TV shows/movies/songs/operas/knock knock jokes/etc. discussed in reliable sources as being the same idea.

Personally, I don't particularly care that a film critic mentioned another story in reviewing this (or any) film. I don't think that tells us anything about this film. Release a scifi film after 1977 and someone will mention Star Wars in a review. Blended family with lots of kids? Oh, it's the Brady Bunch. Sitcom with twenty-somethings? It's Friends! That said, sources discussing Star Trek: The Motion Picture or Mad TV at any length will make substantial comparisons to Star Wars or Saturday Night Live and those comparisons should be in the main body of the article. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As there has been a lot of activity on the article, but no discussion here, I'm going to restore my edit. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - missed this talk topic. I think I may have removed one of the see also links a week or so ago, but when it got added back I decided to wait to see how others felt about it. I'm not sure I agree that every mention by a critic carries the same (zero) weight, but I also don't want to open up the "see also" section to an indiscriminate collection of works with only passing similarities. I'm fine with just covering the notable items in prose. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
What? No mention of "The Numskulls"? That was a great cartoon strip. Lance Tyrell 2.101.150.177 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I undid your delete of the See also section since at least 2 of the entries are relevant: Cranium Command, a former Epcot (i.e. Disney) theme park attraction, and Reason and Emotion, an earlier similar Disney film. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Martin.
Are there reliable sources discussing the similarity of these or is this your opinion? - SummerPhDv2.0 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the 6 or 7 articles in the "see also" section of late were probably too many, but the MOS guideline does not require independent discussion in reliable sources: WP:SEEALSO says: Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. [The "See also" section] is also not mandatory [...] I think there is enough flexibility there to include a few links of similar concepts, but as there are obviously a lot of articles that could be considered similar, maybe it's better just to omit the section entirely rather than limit the list arbitrarily.
Also, to the IP's comment above, the fact that those two articles are Disney-related does not necessarily make them any more worthy of inclusion than any other, in my opinion. Your phrase "eerily similar" could be interpreted as a suggestion of influence, and that would need to be sourced.
--Fru1tbat (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Fru1tbat. I think you're on the money when you say "as there are obviously a lot of articles that could be considered similar, maybe it's better just to omit the section entirely rather than limit the list arbitrarily". There are just too many stories with a similar concept behind them. Popcornduff (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree ... that section would be ripe for abuse as editors try to add properties that, in their personal opinion, are similar to Inside Out. Let's let the readers decide if Herman's Head and Inside Out are similar. --McDoobAU93 14:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"universal critical acclaim"

The word "universal" means everyone everywhere. "Universal critical acclaim" would mean every critic everywhere loved it. Rotten Tomatoes says 98% of the critics they use gave it a positive review. Rather than every critic everywhere loved it, we have most critics used by RT thought it was somewhere between average and the best film ever made. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Popcornduff (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, perhaps. Metacritic's usage appears to disagree, though, and M-W does provide an alternate definition that's somewhat more broad. That's a bit beside the point, though – if the word "universal" is the problem, change it to "broad" or "widespread". If there's another reason, it should be stated (preferably in a hidden comment). I'm not sure disagreeing with the scope of the adjective is a good reason to remove the sentence entirely. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You don't even need to use modifiers like "widespread" at all. Just "critical acclaim" suffices. Popcornduff (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I tend to not care for summaries of critical response as they tend to require some interpretation anyway and the aggregator totals are already summaries. Why summarize something that's already a summary? When you try to make sense of aggregator totals that do not agree, you wind up with crap like "mixed to positive". "Universal" is obvious hyperbole. After all, the universe is a big place. Infinite, maybe. And even if both aggregators were in agreement, this still represents an opinion and should not be presented as fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviews

Apparently this movie has only been seen by American critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.167.214 (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

99.238.167.214 Your point being...? If you have a problem with the coverage of the critical response, go find some non-American critics from reliable sources and add them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're in charge of the article, why don't you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.167.214 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
99.238.167.214 Nobody is "in charge" of the article. This is a volunteer project and anyone can contribute so long as they are editing in keeping with community standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

in norway it never reached cinamas

it was an unknown movie in norway until its bly-ray release so, it got no box office income here.84.212.73.96 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inside Out (2015 film). 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:

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) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inside Out (2015 film). 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:

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) 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inside Out (2015 film). 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:

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) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I make the Inside Out 2 page?

As long I added the source, then that might be good. Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: The page I made is created, and I added the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_2 --Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inside_Out_(2015_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1201483612"