Talk:Ralph Breaks the Internet

Gamora gus&jaq and Mary
For the other characters said to cameo there's a source but not for the one in this subject title. Does someone have a source for them?

Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Right actor
Bill Hader voice as Spamley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.110.33 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Theatrical release
The lead sections says that this was the first sequel to have a theatrical release since Fantasia 2000, which came out in 1999. But what about Return to Neverland? That came out in 2002. 2600:1700:BF30:81F0:853E:47C9:C901:1DA3 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's for the Disney Film Animation division. Return to Neverland is by Disney's TV animation division. --M asem (t) 18:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Box office???
Box office??? Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate???? - Purplewowies (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See . —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Princesses spinoff
There’s a sentence in here about speculation of a spinoff featuring the princesses, sourced to an interview in which they speculate. Do we need this here? In my opinion, either we should decide it’s worth discussing beyond a single sentence, or remove the sentence. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cast list is exhaustive
Our current cast list seems a tad excessive. There is no need to pretend we’re IMDB and list every single actor and role, is there? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think people just... keep adding people? It didn't used to be this bad. The Disney Princesses used to be dealt with in prose, though, and I think that's a better treatment for their role at the least. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018
 * I’ve pruned it to leave only important and otherwise noteworthy characters. If anyone objects and cannot find a happy medium on their own, I’m sure we can talk it out here. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that it appears a number of bit parts are notable Internet celebs, these can be listed out in a prose sentence. Same with the Disney Princesses. The ones in the bulleted list should be those that are essential to discuss as part of the plot. --M asem (t) 02:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This describes what I attempted. I hope it describes the result. Edit 03:21: Actually, do you mean we should list out all the Princesses in prose, as previously? That was blue-name soup. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if was blue-named, it gave proper credit. They don't need to be bullet-listed though. --M asem (t) 03:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No no, I mean it was difficult to read a sentence with so many names (and wikilinks) clustered together, basically an entire bullet list in sentence form. But I have no objection to listing out the reprising Princesses in bullet form. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The princesses are given more screen time than Litwak, especially thanks to the climax. And who thought it was a good idea to remove Felix and Calhoun from the cast list?--Fradio71 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Screen time is not necessarily representative of importance to the plot, but Litwak gets a bullet point and the Princesses get prose in my edit. The Princesses function more as a group unit than individual characters in this movie, hence my above 3:21 20-12-18 question. About Felix and Calhoun, I don’t recall any plot beats in this sequel beyond the subplot that "would have worked better as a pre-movie animated short"; what did you have in mind? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How’s this?

Except now I’m wondering if all this shouldn’t be merged into the following section about cameos (and maybe make that a subsection of Cast?). —96.8.24.95 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: Felix and Calhoun, I feel like their billing order on some level suggests that they should be included in the cast list, even with their relative lack of screentime/non-importance to the plot. They're listed fifth and sixth respectively, billed higher than many other people still in the cast list. On the Princesses, I think we should stick to credit order rather than chronological (which is alphabetical by actor last name, i.e. Pocahontas, Anna, Ariel, Moana, Cinderella, Aurora, Jasmine, Merida, Elsa, Rapunzel, Belle, Snow White, Tiana, and Mulan). Also, we can't use the sentence "most of them are voiced by their original actors from Disney's animated movies, except for Snow White" specifically, because it implies that the other two replaced actors were not replaced (or their replacements are the original actors); Aurora's and Cinderella's actors are their current "stable" actors in all properties including the characters AFAIK, but they're not the original actors for the films. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn’t realize that about Aurora and Cinderella. Or I’d forgotten. Hm… replace “original” with “existing,” maybe? I honestly hadn’t given any thought to order (it’s an unordered list, after all). It’s obviously a concern in the industry, but—genuine question—does it matter in a simple list in an encyclopedia article? As to including them at all, I’d be more inclined to consider due weight, particularly regarding the plot and discussion thereof, and in my view these two don’t have much. I could be totally wrong, of course, but there’s my rationale. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd just always heard billing used as a rationale because of its use in MOS:FILM though I don't remember the exact text of the guideline and am taking a look now. (ETA 22:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC): Gasp! Billing is only one tenet that can be used but it doesn't have to be! Hmm... I think there are merit filled arguments for and against Felix/Calhoun inclusion... hmm...) - Purplewowies (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do keep in mind with regard to the Disney Prinesses, Anna and Elsa are not official ones, but obviously were in the film, and they should be noted too. --M asem (t) 22:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Better? Or else please someone else rewrite it. And again, listing out all their characters and actors seems like overkill to me for individually small roles in the movie, but I can shut up and do it if that’s the consensus. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sequels
The lead sections says that this was the first sequel to have a theatrical release since Fantasia 2000, which came out in 1999. But what about Winnie the Pooh ? That came out in 2011 witch is a sqeuel to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh witch came out in 1977.Fanoflionking 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * People have flip-flopped between the two. I don't know if there's a metric people are using to change it to Pooh or back to Fantasia or if there's not a strong consensus, but maybe it should be discussed? (I... have no idea either way. I looked at the Pooh article and saw the sequel sentence there when I noticed it was changed to Pooh once and didn't consider it worth changing back, but...) - Purplewowies (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For the time being, someone seems to have removed any version of the claim. If it remains so, that solves the problem here. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it was removed a few days ago after someone expanded it to list every one of Disney's theatrical sequels, for reference to anyone reading. (Or, well, The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, Winnie the Pooh, and I think one other?) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * “Time since last (qualified) sequel” seems a rather silly factoid to me, anyway. Do we need it? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do know that the press kit for this film mentioned the Fantasia part, "The follow-up to 2012’s “Wreck-It Ralph” marks the first feature-length theatrical sequel from Walt Disney Animation Studios since 2000’s “Fantasia 2000,” which was a sequel to 1940’s “Fantasia.”" --M asem (t) 21:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Cameo list
If anyone truly feels an encyclopedia needs a list of every single character cameo in the movie regardless of significance… why? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A short with the film
This is the second time when the film was released without a animated short. It's similar to Zootopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Internet packets containing Ralph, Vanellope
Before the hero and heroine are injected into the internet, their bodies are wrapped in Internet packets (their heads are visible). Perhaps this could be worked into the article. This implies they were side-loaded from the arcade? --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 21:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020
Remove all the train stuff like "East Japan Railway Company" at the end of the article, has nothing to do with the movie? 2001:A61:4F3:8201:351F:C935:C450:A9B3 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for noticing that, remnants of the vandalism that got this article protected in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"WiFi Ralph" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WiFi Ralph. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting change to sequel classification for Fantasia 2000 and Winnie the Pooh (2011 film).
I spoke to an admin about this already and I was given the go-ahead to make an edit request.

There is currently a sentence on the introduction page for Ralph Breaks the Internet where Fantasia 2000 is claimed to be the last previous Walt Disney Animation Studios sequel. There is currently a consensus to leave this sentence as it is and to not change the sentence to say Winnie the Pooh was instead the last previous sequel from the studio. Despite what the production notes say, I feel it is fair to argue that Winnie the Pooh (2011) fits the classifications of a sequel (perhaps more than Fantasia 2000), and there are existing sources that can back this up. Given the context of how the production notes made their statement, I feel it is more plausible that the writer of this source made an honest mistake; writers are fallible. Many of them fail to remember the film exists simply because it was not an extremely successful movie amidst much more successful, original computer-animated Disney films (and perhaps the fact that it was released direct-to-video in a few territories has something to do with it). Nevertheless, it is still a franchise property produced by the studio, and it can be argued that it is a sequel.

I have many points as to how Winnie the Pooh (2011) qualifies as a legitimate sequel, but hopefully I won't need to share those. Instead, I would like to propose modifying the sentence being discussed. Currently the sentence reads as "It is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first animated film sequel to be created by the original film's writing and directing team and is the first sequel from the studio since Fantasia 2000", while citing the source for the production notes. My request is to remove the phrase "and is the first sequel from the studio since Fantasia 2000" so that the new sentence reads "It is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first animated film sequel to be created by the original film's writing and directing team" while still using the production notes source to back up that part of the sentence. I feel this would be best because not everyone agrees with the current statement and one can provide sources to refute it. It should also avoid unnecessary drama or edit warring from persistent editors and allow each person to decide for themselves how they want to classify the other films. The part that I am proposing to remove is (arguably) also irrelevant to insist on mentioning even if it were true since Ralph Breaks the Internet is not the first of its kind in that regard, and Fantasia 2000's supposed status has no real impact in relation to this film. Thanks.DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)