Talk:M3GAN

Change Special Effects
Change Weta FX to Masters of Reality.

Weta FX did not enhance Donald's physical performance. The visual effects where done by New Zealand-based visual effects studio Masters of Reality. 2407:7000:A1A0:5884:C0C0:D2CD:B6BF:CE2 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on what source?  Mike  Allen  19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Approved Visual Effect credits can be found on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8760708/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ql_cl 2407:7000:A1A0:5884:C0C0:D2CD:B6BF:CE2 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not consider the IMDb a reliable source since almost anyone can add information to it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm Weta FX as the special effects team? Klee Bakudan (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It actually is Wētā Workshop.  Mike  Allen   22:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with Weta FX. Klee Bakudan (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct.  Mike  Allen   22:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The "camera" at the end of the movie
Why does it say that a camera turns on by itself in the final scene of the movie? It's not a camera! It's Gemma virtual assistant Elsie which we saw earlier in the movie at the 11:40 mark.

I tried to edit the article saying it was the virtual assistant but it got reverted back. Babar Suhail (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The virtual assistant is never seen in the film. It is software that works wirelessly. All we see related to the virtual assistant is its effects throughout the house when Gemma tells it a command. When she tells Elsie to turn on lights, we don't see Elsie, we only see the lights come on. It's a smart home, very much like any smart home that has the capability of turning lights on and off, setting alarms, and locking doors with a voice command. When I tell my Alexa to play music, all I see is the device that houses the speaker and the software; I don't see a virtual assistant. In the final scene all we see is the camera. We don't see anything or anyone turn it on. All we see is that it turns on by itself when the light turns on, and then it rotates in the direction of Gemma and Cady. If someone says that Elsie, or M3GAN, or a force that we are completely unaware of turns the camera on, that is speculative original research. At this point, the only people who might know who turns the camera on are the filmmakers. And since the script of a sequel (if there is a sequel in the future) has not been written, even the filmmakers may not know. Sundayclose (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "camera" is the AI home device, Elsie. if you'd like proof: https://screenrant.com/megan-movie-ending-explained/ https://mashable.com/article/m3gan-ending-explainer both of these state that the "AI home device" is called Elsie, and M3GAN has some level of control over it (and the other devices in the house). furthermore, there are numerous unedited clips on youtube, that contain a shot of Gemma and Cady exiting the home past the camera. the "camera" is the AI Device, Elsie. Plus, in the movie when she hangs Cole and escapes the lab, there is a clear shot of a device saying that there is danger (it's completely red) and when she walks past it, it turns green. Klee Bakudan (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, not true. Nowhere in either of the sources does it state that the camera is one and the same as Elsie. Elsie is software, just like my Alexa is software that can turn on my lights, change my thermostat, and yes turn on a camera that's mounted beside my front door. The camera isn't my Alexa. The camera is operated by my Alexa. If I remove the camera, my Alexa still works. In the film, if you destroyed the camera, Elsie could still turn on lights and other devices. And of course M3GAN can control devices in the home, including the camera, because M3GAN has taken control of Elsie's software. Here is the crux of this misunderstanding: AI is not a physical device; it's software that can control physical devices. Saying that AI is a physical device is equivalent to saying that my computer speaker which is producing a guitar sound is a guitar. It's not a guitar that's producing the sound, it's the software that converts computer bytes into sound. In the film you never see Elsie because Elsie is not a physical device; it's software. You only see what happens when Elsie controls something, such as the camera. Sundayclose (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Elsie" is the software, yes. But "Elsie" is also the body of the software, the "Alexa". The camera is part of Elsie. Klee Bakudan (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Software does not have a body. It's electronic signals. Once again, if you destroy the camera, Elsie still works. Elsie is not the same as the camera. Sundayclose (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Time period shown in the film
Information from the film demonstrates that the film's events occur during the year 2025. The security camera's time stamp at the toy company when Cady first meets Megan is dated February 7th, 2025 and the calendar in the parents home shows the month of January as it would be configured for the year 2025 (beginning on a Wednesday and ending on a Friday). I'm curious if this should be explained in the plot summary as "In the year 2025....".

Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, "Do not make explanatory claims about information found in a primary source." This would seem to preclude placing the year in the plot. I'm curious to what local editors feel about this. Thank you! Spintendo 17:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like trivia and not significant to note in the plot especially since it's never verbally stated. Maybe if the date was set in 2055 it would be notable to include.  Mike   Allen   18:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As the film's time period is never explicitly mentioned at any point during the film, I don't really think it's necessary to put it in the plot section of the article. It'll probably confuse some readers. Edwordo13 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, It's all too obviously not set in the present day. as their technology is advanced enough to create a M3GAN. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to go by what the film actually says. Not what may be "obvious" to the viewers.  Mike   Allen   21:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this is rather meaningless trivia and not worth quibbling about. Leave it out. Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your feedback, it's much appreciated. And while I agree with you that the information probably doesn't need to be included in the article, I take exception to the suggestion that the information is some sort of WP:SYNTH. The filmmakers chose to include a scene that shows CCTV footage, and they chose to date that footage for February 2025. If anything, the film should at least be included in the category list of films set in the future, where the inclusion criteria states "films with settings beyond the date they were released or made, even if that setting is now in the past, and films with a futuristic setting despite having an unspecified (unspec.) date." Spintendo  19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor a point, but as I read the comments here, no one said anything about SYNTH. The only objection is that it is not notable. The comment "never 'explicitly' mentioned in the plot" isn't about SYNTH. It's about notability in that the only indication of the time frame is in brief glimpses of a camera's time stamp and a calendar. If the opening scene had the text "2025" presented prominently, that would have been explicit. But either way, there is no SYNTH. Sundayclose (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As i said, the *reason* it is set a few years into the future from 2021 (when it was filmed) is so that technology would be advanced enough to *plausibly* create a M3GAN. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you know that's the "reason"? So, in just 4 years technology advanced to the point of creating a doll like M3GAN?  This is exactly why it should not be on the page, it's WP:OR.  Mike   Allen   21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was trying to work out why they seem to have set it almost a half-decade from when it was filmed. But, you are right, that's for a movies fan forum. Apologies. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sundayclose Thank you for your feedback, again, it's much appreciated. Perhaps you didn't notice, but synth is exactly what the reply from Mike Allen suggested. Spintendo  03:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Mike Allen can speak for himself. But I don't see anything about SYNTH. Sundayclose (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sundayclose it's right there in their reply, linked under the words "what may be 'obvious' to the viewers", aka synth. They also mentioned it a second time linked under WP:OR. Whether it's OR or SYNTH, they both mean the same thing (that's why I took exception to it) because, in the end, it's not original research... it's a date stamp placed by the filmmakers in their film. Spintendo  12:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The date isn’t original research, AUSPOLLIE’’s reasoning for the 2025 date is.  Mike  Allen   13:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @MikeAllen Ahh....agreed. Needless to say, consensus has shown that the date need not be added here. Discussion about whether to add it to the list of movies that take place in the future, if any, can be handled on that talk page. Thanks again everyone.  Spintendo  00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"Megan (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megan_(upcoming_film)&redirect=no Megan (upcoming film)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Chess.com M3GAN bot?
I think we should add the M3GAN bot from chess.com since it's in the news HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are in the news. We don't put something in an article simply because there was a newspaper or magazine article about it. Was it in a paper like the New York Times or the Washington Post? Has there been coverage from multiple reliable sources? Is it a continuing news item (such as something that's award winning) instead of something that came and went in a few months or less? Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscrimate facts. You need to make a much better case for it's notability besides the fact that you like it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was pited against the Mittens bot and lost i guess??? HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Gemma, Tess and Cole Do Not Decide or Attempt to Terminate M3GAN
In the Plot section, there is a sentence with the phrase "Gemma, Tess and Cole decide to terminate M3GAN," however, this does not occur in the film. First, Gemma tries to convince the others that M3GAN may have killed the boy and the neighbor, which they argue is impossible. Then, Gemma tells them to "check the inputs on the learning model" in order to find proof and stop the launch. Later, Tess and Cole are plugging M3GAN in while Gemma is driving home with Cady. As she's driving, Gemma calls Tess and they agree to do anything to keep the prototype M3GAN in the lab, to include breaking something on her. During this conversation, it is somewhat ambiguous (though heavily implied) that Gemma is actually talking to M3GAN who is impersonating Tess. Finally, as Tess and Cole are looking at the learning model, they find Tess's phone information, confirming the impersonation, which leads to M3GAN's escape.

That said, I believe this paragraph needs some revision, perhaps something to the effect of "Recognizing the potential risk posed by the M3GAN prototype, Tess and Cole run diagnostics on M3GAN while Gemma drives Cady home. When Tess and Cole begin to find evidence of malfunction, M3GAN activates on her own and..."

Thoughts? 2600:4040:5C00:4A00:2DC2:EA65:76AC:B470 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect rounded box office figure in other territories?
Hi. I have taken the initiative to check the rounding figures by using a calculator. By inputting the initial five digits (85.964) from the box office in other territories ($85,964,168 as reported by The Numbers) into the calculator, the rounding comes out $86 million. Therefore, it is shown there is an error in the current rounded figure ($85.9 million) on the main page. The correct value should be $86 million, not $85.9 million. My intention was to rectify this issue, but my edits were undone without any review.

Here is the calculator I used to verify the rounded box office figure: https://www.roundingcalculator.net/ 190.232.74.118 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)