Talk:Norm of the North

"Universally panned"
One or more drive-by, anonymous SPA editors seem to be having some problems with sourcing and definitions. Let's take this apart. "Universally" adverb - by everyone; in every case. - We do not have a source that looks at the opinions of everyone or even all critics "Panned" verb - criticized severely. - We do not have a source stating that the critics reviewed by RT, MC, etc. all criticized it severely. The RT score, for example, decides if each review was "positive" or not. None of them were. That does not indicate that each one criticized severely. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since my first note, there have been several other interpretations: "generally negative", "mostly negative", "negative", etc. The fact that editors cannot agree on a single statement to summarize what all of the sources say indicates pretty clearly that this is synthesis. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion
This is not worthy enough to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisha Gaurav (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Worthy" is not a criterion. The film is notable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"considered one of the worst of all time"; "universally negative reviews"
Re these edits:

For better or worse, the "considered one of the worst of all time" statement has been generally conditioned on inclusion in the article List of films considered the worst. I botched my earlier attempt to revert its addition there, I've removed it now. If you disagree with that removal, please discuss the issue there and we'll establish a consensus there the resolve the issue.

The word "universally" seems to confuse a lot of editors who seem to believe it means something along the lines of "a lot". It doesn't. It means unconditionally everyone. The source cited does not say anything close to that, only that at that early point, all of the reviews cited by RT were considered negative. There are other reviewers that RT does not list. We cannot know that all reviewers gave it a negative review and, based on the non-zero score we are told the film "has"*, we know someone liked it. Even if we some how knew there was only one reviewer in the world who liked it (which we do not know), we would know that the reviews were not "universally" negative.

(*We cannot say the film "has" a rating of 9% (present tense) as that score can change at any time. For similar reasons, Wikipedia cannot say that it "is" not raining in Paris.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Keys to the Kingdom
Should we create a separate page for the sequel? because it kind of deserves it's own page. Dvdmovies123 (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly, WP:Be Bold--Mr Fink (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

well boys, i did it
i contacted mike young of splash entertainment and asked him if a fifth norm movie is coming out. he has yet to reply, will update here if he does! Dvdmovies123 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To add anything here, you would need to be able to cite a published reliable source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

E-mail reply from Mike Young, CEO of Splash Entertainment
Recently, I e-mailed Mike Young, CEO of Splash Entertainment, about the possibility of a fifth Norm of the North movie. This is his exact reply.

-

Sorry (name), but number five is not going ahead. Glad you are a fan, they are fun films. Here are some of our current and recent productions. Also please check out www.Kabillion.com And please share it with friends. You will see how to get it. We have some good stuff on there.

Best to contact me at (Mike's e-mail address)

Www.splashentertainment.com

https://vimeopro.com/user29657132/trailers Password: SPLtra1l3rs

Trailers Nom of the North: Family Vacation Rock Dog ( our versions in full mature production) Littlest Robot All I Want for Christmas

All the best Mike

Dvdmovies123 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To add anything to this article, you would need a published reliable source. This is not verifiable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)