Talk:The Call of the Wild (2020 film)

😀😃😄😁😆😅😂🤣😭🥳🤩😍🥰😘😚😙😗😉🫠🙃🙂🥲🥹😊☺️😌🙂‍↕️🥴🤪😜😝😛😋🤤😏🙂‍↔️😔🥺😬😑😐😶😶‍🌫️🫥🤐😱🫣🤗🥱🤭🫢🤫🤔🫡🤨🧐😒🙄😮‍💨😤😠😡🤬😕🫤🙁☹️😢😥😟😓😞😰😨😧😦😮😯😲😳🤯🥵🥶🫨😵‍💫😵😫😩😣😖🤢🤮😴😪🤧🤒🤕😷🤥👿😈🤡🥸😎🤓🤑🤠😇

The name of the book

I might be sensitive to the name of the book since it was written about my grandfathers dog but the proper title of the book is "The Call of the Wild" not "Call of the Wild". This is a significant difference and was the subject of a letter by Jack London who objected to a reviewer omitting the The. [[User:(talk) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Budget

The 82 million dollar figure is just the portion spent in California and is not totally inclusive there is an estimate of 100 million in total.

RfC notice/Distributor

There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 74#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films closed concluded with The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Also note that IMDb, who generally get distribution credits correct, states "20th Century Studios (2020) (USA) (theatrical)" as the distributor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We just need to keep an eye on the end credits for when/if they ever start crediting Disney. I haven't seen how they're handling it after the rename but I will go see The New Mutants and stick around for the credits and copyrights. — Starforce¹³ 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

After release, IMDb film credit information is generally accurately transcribed from the actual film credits. Also the production itself sends some info to IMDb, likely where the detailed distribution credits for each country are from which won't be in the film credits. Some vandalism on IMDb credit info so can never absolutely trust them, actual credit info from the film itself is authoritative. As for whether or not Disney will start branding Disney as distributor it looks like for now Disney wants to keep the Fox and successor distribution brands alive to will likely continue to brand their distribution of those films with their names. They may change their minds eventually. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the case, at least for Searchlight. We'll know for sure once they're done releasing all these films that carried over from Fox. I feel like Disney will want to put their name on major franchises like Avatar though. — Starforce¹³ 18:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at this https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7504726/companycredits IMdb says the credits are distrubeted by 20th Century Studios through Disney Studios Motion Pictures but its not credited in the actual movie? NakhlaMan (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)NakhlaMan

I’d like to point out that the back of the Blu-Ray for the Call of the Wild does indeed say it was distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment. Don’t believe me? Here’s the image: https://www.blu-ray.com/images/movies/covers/264525_back.jpg This is undeniable proof that Disney is now indeed distributing 20th Century Studios films on home media at least. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is also owned by Disney, so I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. We include the subsidy and not "Disney" as the distributor because Disney is not the name of the actual distribution company. Also, please sign your comments. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: the RfC conclusion was for theatrical distribution since Disney hadn't started attaching its name on the 20th Century films. So, to ensure WP:VERIFIABILITY, it was decided to keep 20th Century as the distributor until the 20th Century films started crediting Disney. For home distribution, the label provided above by the IP specifically states "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." So, we need to respect that and remain consistent on WP:VERIFIABILITY. — Starforce¹³ 23:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Starforce, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here either. Did you look at the IP's edit? Not sure how their comment here supports adding "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment" as the distributor. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert The IP provided this link in their comment above, verifying that the Blu Ray cover says "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." which is the legal name for "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment". — Starforce¹³ 23:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The cover says "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.", it does not say "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment" as was added to the article. Therefore that addition did not match the contents of the reference used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dude, did you not read what he wrote? Buena Vista Home Entertainment is the legal name of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. It’s the same name they’ve used for distribution of new Marvel and Lucasfilm projects on Blu-Ray, and we still credit those as Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. I really do not understand why you are arguing this. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I really believe that now that we have solid proof that Disney is starting to distribute 20th Century Studios films on home media, we should start creditting Disney as the distributor of the films on home media at least. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We go with what the references say, beyond that is original research. You gave a reference and added content that did not match what the reference stated. BVHE Inc. is the legal owner of all the distribution brands. All those companies are "Disney". There is no proof that they are distributing those films using "Disney" in the branding. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, the IP is correct. If you don't know the legal name of the studio, please open the Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment article and you will notice that it is the dba of "Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." That's what all the Disney films say. We usually go by common/DBA name not legal name. — Starforce¹³ 00:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

They also do business as "20th Century Fox Home Entertainment". That is what is also listed on the label. Disney is only mentioned with respect to insiders benefits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s actually more reference to Disney than most Marvel films on home media have and we still credit WDSHE as the distributor of those films on home media. What point are you trying to make here? That unless it explicitly says Disney somewhere on the box we shouldn’t be creditting WDSHE?96.32.2.157 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez We follow the "distributed by" credit not all the units that have a copyright. The label specifically says "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." So, that's the unit that gets the distribution credit. Marvel films also mention Marvel Studios, LLC but that doesn't mean they're distributed by Marvel Studios. Same thing for Pixar and Lucasfilm. So, that argument doesn't make any sense. — Starforce¹³ 00:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

See Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment § Company structure. Nobody is arguing that a unit of The Walt Disney Company is not distributing the content, the issue is what branding owned by Disney that Disney is slapping on the the distribution. We report the credited branding. The fact that other articles are ignoring what the references state should not inform what is done in this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about branding. It's about the "distributed by" credit. Distribution and branding are two very different things. Even the RfC we had, concluded that we should follow the credited distributor.— Starforce¹³ 00:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The reference provided credits the distributor as "Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." 20th Century Studios Home Entertainment is a division of that company, not just a label. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13 Couldn’t have said it better myself, and yeah, Geraldo Perez you are now actively arguing against the prior consensus with this, and I really don’t get why. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez But it doesn’t say, “Distributed by 20th Century Studios Home Entertainment”. It says, “Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment”. If it said the former, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It also doesn't say "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment". Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As we have already said multiple times now, Buena Vista Home Entertainment is the legal name of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. If BVHE’s name is on there, then that means it was distributed by WDSHE. Why are you still trying to argue this? 96.32.2.157 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Use the legal name which is what the reference directly supports. If they wanted to credit WDSHE they would have. They are also the legal owner of "20th Century Studios Home Entertainment". Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with using Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. - which will just redirect to Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. However, as an existing consensus, we usually use WP:COMMONNAME for companies, not legal name. But as long as we follow the source instead of adding WP:SYNTHESIS about some parent/child relationship, that's fine. — Starforce¹³ 01:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Except Disney never actually credits WDSHE anyways, even for films like Aladdin. They still say BVHE on them. As Starforce13 said, the consensus is that we generally use WP:COMMONNAME for companies rather than the legal name. That is what I was doing: I was simply following the guidelines you yourself enforce. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We should report credits exactly as listed for cast, crew and companies. Basically that is all I was pushing for in this case. Let redirects do their job. If Disney never credits WDSHE as a distributor, we shouldn't list it as the distributor and only list what Disney says, nothing else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, the existing consensus has always been to use WP:COMMONNAME for companies, which is how pretty much all companies are wikilinked on movie/tv articles etc even in cases where the sources use the legal name. And that's not just an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Existing conventions exist for a reason. To change that and start using the legal name would be changing existing conventions. You can't just change existing conventions on the fly to suit your preferred POV. — Starforce¹³ 01:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In what MOS is that recorded as a consensus? General consensus is to actually report credits as listed in the sources - that is supported by WP:V which is policy. It is also the conclusion in the RfC for these articles. Disney has a choice on who and what they list in the credits. There is no valid reason to second guess what Disney says. If Disney chooses to credit BVHE as the distributor, why are we reporting something else? Honor Disney's choices in this matter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dude, now you are just being unreasonable. 96.32.2.157 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reporting information as sourced is unreasonable? Accurately reporting sourced information is the desired standard for Wikipedia and is supported by policy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:VERIFIABILITY#WP:COMMONNAME vs Credited Legal Name if you want to challenge the existing convention / status quo consensus... and update all the hundreds of Disney movies from "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment" to "Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." since that's what they all say... and then all the other movie and TV show articles since they all use common name, not legal name. There was also another RfC Talk:Walt_Disney_Studios_Motion_Pictures#RfC:"Distributed_by"_v._"Studio" here to use "Buena Vista" instead of "Walt Disney Studios" but it failed to no consensus. If you achieve consensus that says we should start using legal names, I'll be fine with that. Until then, the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS which has been used on all other articles holds. — Starforce¹³ 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is a process to achieve consensus in an article and that consensus applies to that article only. What is decided in some article does not impact consensus in some other one particularly when the decision is to go against policy or the manual of style, which misreporting a credit actually does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles of certain types usually follow existing conventions, which serves as the status quo consensus. You don't change the rules on the fly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, which MOS says we should use credited name over common name? Even MOS:TVCAST (which is the most detailed on credits) makes it clear that we can use either the credited name or common name. It states All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Can you point me to a MOS or WP that says we must use credited names and can't use common names for credits? — Starforce¹³ 04:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes WP:V is the policy. What I don't like is going against explicit policy. If the film project wants to establish something different it need to be discussed with an RfC at WT:WikiProject Film to achieve a project wide consensus to go against a wikipedia policy. WP:OSE is not sufficient. The general project convention for credits is to go with credited names as per WP:V and only use something else if supported by reliable sources. Don't see any reliable source that supports any other name but what is listed in the credits for this specific film in the sole reliable source that is being provided. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't say anything against using COMMONNAME. Unless there's a dispute in common name, there's no reason it can't pass WP:V. You can't use WP:OSE argument just to change convention that has existed for years. Conventions exist for a reason. Your primary reason seems to be to avoid "Disney" mention. That's why you keep changing rules. First, when IMDb had "20th Century", you argued IMDb is usually accurate, but now that it got updated to Disney, you went mum. Then started saying BVHE and WDSHE are not the same thing; then started arguing in favor of crediting uncredited 20th Century... and now it's wikilawyering about common name vs WP:V. Yet, you've never questioned WDSHE being used on the other Disney movie articles that credit BVHE. Looking for new excuses at every corner to avoid calling a spade a spade. When you sum it all up, it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Either way, we'll see if the discussion at WP:V concludes in favor of wikilawyered jargon or in favor of readable content and common sense. — Starforce¹³ 04:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never attempted to change any rules, I always supported going with what the references say. Nothing else, nothing more. When someone cites a source and adds article content that isn't in that source, I object because it goes against WP:V - I looked at the reference and don't see support for what was added. My only issue here. There is other stuff in that reference I though may be relevant and I brought it up for potential use in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

CGI and computer animation

It would be good to have a more detailed discussion of the use of CGI and computer animation in this movie. I watched the first part of the movie and found the use of CGI and computer animation very obvious and crude. That was about it for me. A detailed account of its use and the rationale behind it would be most helpful. ---Dagme (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that more information would be very helpful. Aside from information in the Cast list, there is only one skinny sentence at the end of the Production section.

However, although the dog character does things that a real dog cannot and on cue no less - especially the range of facial expressions, I think its creation is far from crude. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits and breed?

1. I made some small clarifications and eliminations of superfluous text.
2. The article calls Buck a "mix of Saint Bernard and Scotch Shepherd". How does the WP writer know this? Did I miss something in the movie?
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: The changes were to the Plot section. Wordreader (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)