Talk:Sucker Punch (2011 film)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sucker Punch (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802014316/http://www.ugo.com:80/ugo/html/article/?id=16899 to http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=16899

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That may be true but classifying the film as a box office failure is also wrong. 89 million is quite strong for a movie of this genre, dark and strange, terrible reviews - with no box office generating actors. The budget of 83 million was too high for film to ever succeed. Planerjeffy (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Arcade Game
There is an arcade game that is also made in the mould of the 2011 film. No mention of it here.

Idyllic press (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Budget/Gross
I removed the incorrect statement that the film "made back its budget"; movies do not break even or "make back their budget" when total box office receipts match/exceed reported production costs due to splitting ticket revenue with theater operators. The link provided to Box Office Mojo shows only the totals, and it does not say the film broke even financially. It is possible that the film made significantly more from rentals and broadcast rights, but a separate source proving they were collectively equivalent to approximately double the reported budget or more would be required as proof.HistoryFightFan (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MPAA rating, extended cut
I would like to briefly cover the fact that a love scene was removed to drop the mpaa rating from R to PG13, as discussed | in this article (original interview was in a Nylon interview I don't have a link for) but am unsure what section it would best fall under. Thoughts?

I thought I remembered that this material was in the article previously but couldn't find reference to its addition or removal in the archives. I did see one editor asked about this in regards to the extended cut release back in 2011 but no one replied at the time. While looking up a source, I noticed Den of Geek had an article that includes a more brief version of the Browning's comments on the scene removal in the course of reviewing the extended cut. This makes me wonder if I should put the whole one or two sentences of coverage I'm thinking of in the home media release section since that's typically where we cover alternate endings and extended versions. Millahnna (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Co-production, "rewrites"
I recently re-edited the lead section because it seemed outdated and failed to present a brief description of the article as a whole, however it was reverted for apparently making too many "sweeping changes". Yet, nothing I wrote in the lead section was new or false information, but was elaborated on later in the article. As for the plot section, I reduced the number of words and told it in chronological order to avoid confusion. As for the "co-production", I merely referred to it as that since it country of origin is referred as both US and Canada in the infobox. I don't see a valid reason to immediately revert these changes because the lead section doesn't seemed to have been touched or developed in a long time. Tailskin2021 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)