This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
The Critical reception for this article is truly disorganized, it quickly jumps to cite different reviews regarding negative aspects of this film in each paragraph instead of having each paragraph describe a negative aspect of this film (poor worldbuilding, Lego movie comparisons...) and have each one supported by reviews talking about said aspect. Not to mention that it indiscriminately cites various reviewers instead of the publication they're writing for (I didn't know who Yolanda Machado was until I hovered over the reference to find out she was writing for The Wrap)
Actually, the entirety of the fourth paragraph IS about the worldbuilding issues, and all of the fifth paragraph is about the writing problems. The second paragraph consists of general summaries of most of the reviews, and the first paragraph deals with aggregate scores. The final paragraph is also all about the pros given by the reviewers. The section is already organized.
2604:6000:130E:49B0:702E:A0F6:FFD6:AEB1 (
talk)
04:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Not to mention that it indiscriminately cites various reviewers instead of the publication they're writing for..." 1. That's not entirely true, and 2. Who cares? They can find the publication and author names in, oh, I don't know, the REFERENCES list?
2604:6000:130E:49B0:702E:A0F6:FFD6:AEB1 (
talk)
04:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Genres should be based on reliable sources, not based on "common sense" as one editor suggested.
WP:NOTTRUTH
The Wikipedia project film guidelines
WP:FILMGENRE recommend identifying "the primary genre or sub-genre" which should be verified.
Also keep in mind "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". --
109.78.201.233 (
talk)
06:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Back in 2020 someone vandalized the budget and no one noticed (until now). Without any explanation, without any new sources, they changed the figure from $40 million to $72 million.
[2] According to Deadline.com the budget was ~about~ $40 million. Box Office Mojo is no use and does not offer a budget figure. The Numbers.com put the budget at $75 million. Cartoon Brew also put the budget at $75 million.
[3](2019)
[4](2015)