Talk:Christopher Robin (film)

Question

Has there been anymore news concerning the casting of this movie?

I’ve been waiting to find out who was going to be the characters that weren’t listed yet for a long time. I think others have been doing the same too. Austin012599 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Austin012599: The page has been updated and cited for the casting.

Speculation on casting

While the "Development and casting" sub-header has numberous citations, much of the text in the latter portion of the paragraph seems to focus on speculation on what the actors want. I propose removing these sentences, specifically " Alan Tudyk Is currently interested in voicing Tigger but it should be noted that Jim Cummings has also done Tigger starting in 1990 with the third season of The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and the 2000 film The Tigger Movie so he may end up doing him despite of Tudyk wanting to do the role for the character. However it is unknown if Tudyk, Cummings, or any other newcomer will ever get the chance to do Tigger as of now." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Speculation is not something we include. Especially if it’s sourced by an unreliable cite or unsourced all together. I remove it but it just keeps getting readded. It’s irritating. Rusted AutoParts 05:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Sounds good, I have removed the text again. I'll continue to monitor it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Speculation and unsourced future info about cast should not be in article. Some editors are making strong assertions about the cast but don't seem to be able to find references to support that. It is a mild WP:BLP issue associating people with projects without a source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Another Question

What happened to Jim Cummings, Kristen-Anderson Lopez, and Wyatt Hall coming back to voice Pooh, Kanga, and Roo? Austin012599 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Austin012599: As stated above that unsourced casting information was removed from the article due to lack of references. If you think it correct, provide a reference for it, all the existing cast listed is sourced. Assertions not sufficient when talking about people. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1692019/disneys-live-action-christopher-robin-has-cast-winnie-the-pooh-eeyore-and-more
• https://disneyfilmfacts.com/2017/09/17/kristen-anderson-lopez-and-wyatt-dean-hall-join-christopher-robin-voice-cast/

Are two references that might be used if someone wants to use them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The story that broke the casting of Brad Garrett as Eeyore confirmed Jim Cummings will return to voice Winnie The Pooh

The story that broke news of Brad Garrett as Eeyore confirmed, what is still being deleted which shouldn't be, that Jim Cummings will return to voice Winnie the Pooh: http://www.tracking-board.com/brad-garrett-to-voice-eeyore-in-disneys-christopher-robin-movie-starring-ewan-mcgregor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.238.98 (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Official synopsis and cast list for "Disney's Christopher Robin" from Disney, via comicbook.com

Comicbook.com has received, from Disney in their 2018 film slate press kit, the official synopsis and cast list for "Disney's Christopher Robin": http://comicbook.com/movies/2018/01/16/christopher-robin-disney-movie-synopsis/. I'm hoping that we can add this official information into it's wiki page: http://comicbook.com/movies/2018/01/16/christopher-robin-disney-movie-synopsis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.98 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Third Question

Would these two links count as tickets to reliable sources and references?

http://comicbook.com/movies/2018/01/16/christopher-robin-disney-movie-synopsis/ Austin012599 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

https://screenrant.com/christopher-robin-movie-plot-details-synopsis/ Austin012599 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New information on the music for "Disney's Christopher Robin"

I believe we have some overlooked information that we haven't added to the page. According to "Christopher Robin" producer, Kristin Burr, Disney music legend Richard M. Sherman has written 3 new songs for the movie: http://www.thepositivemom.com/christopher-robin-first-poster-teaser-trailer-qa-with-producer-kristin-burr. I hope we can add this into the wiki page for the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.50.246 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

New info on why Chris O'Dowd was replaced with Jim Cummings as the voice of Tigger in "Disney's Christopher Robin"

https://discussingfilm.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/chris-odowd-is-no-longer-playing-tigger-in-disneys-christopher-robin-heres-why-exclusive/

Hope we can add this info into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussing Film seems to be, essentially, a blog.[1] As such, we really cannot use it as a source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Early projections for Disney's Christopher Robin's opening weekend revealed

Box Office Pro is saying Disney's Christopher Robin will have a $30M opening weekend and a final domestic cume of $110M: https://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-tracking-christopher-robin-incredibles-2-update/. Hope we can add this into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Geoff Zanelli announced to co-compose the music score for "Christopher Robin" plus other screenwriting details

Geoff Zanelli announced on his Twitter that he is composing the Christopher Robin score with Jon Brion: https://twitter.com/GeoffZanelli/status/1018981673780707328. Hope we can add this into the movie's wiki page.

Also, if you're wondering if this is part of the new billing, according to two new international posters, it is, along with a new screenwriting credit for "Christopher Robin" that now goes by "Written By Alex Ross Perry and Tom McCarthy" not "Alex Ross Perry and Allison Schroeder": https://twitter.com/DisneyFR/status/1016986724579397632 https://twitter.com/DisneyStudiosLA/status/1017811093660553216.

Hoping we can add all this new info into the movie's wiki page. Please, guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.230 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reception

This maybe pointless to discuss, considering that the REVIEW EMBARGO is set to expire a few minutes from this writing, but there's been some back and forth editing over the reception. As it stands, Rottentomatoes does not have a tomatometer up. However, the last time I checked rottentomatoes, which was a few minutes ago, had four reviews up, three fresh and one rotten. How were editors getting these tomatometer scores before rottentomatoes could? Don't edit war before the embargo expires. Crboyer (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Critical Reception was Positive

It is necessary to change that the film received "mixed reviews" from critics to "mostly positive reviews", seeing as how the bulk of critics have positively reviewed the film-Time, USA Today, Collider, Seattle Times, NY Times, and CBN, among others (as noted in the article, the Chicago Tribune). This edit must be made to have an accurate reflection of how "Christopher Robin" was critically received. Of course the film had its critics, but the majority of the reviews were positive. Additionally, it would be worth noting in the article that the performance of Ewan McGregor was particularly well-received. 89.237.124.68 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: Unfortunately, we can't make those evaluations by ourselves, since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Instead, we rely on summaries from review aggregators to determine how the film was received. A 59 from Metacritic falls under "mixed or average reviews". Regarding the performance of Ewan McGregor, I'll be happy to add it if you can write this in a sentence, tell me where to insert it, and cite a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Newslinger: I left many sources on your talk page of McGregor's performance being praised, from Rolling Stone, Time, and others. I feel the sentence "McGregor's performance as Christopher Robin was particularly well-received. David Stone of Rolling Stone said '...'" would be fine. Thanks for your agreement and effort, just write the names of the authors of the articles I quoted on your page and the quotes themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.168.91 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done. Also, since this article is no longer protected, you can edit it without submitting a request. — Newslinger talk 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to update Christopher Robin's budget number on the film's wiki page

Since Hollywood Reporter and Variety are saying Christopher Robin cost differently, $70M according to THR (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-mission-impossible-6-beats-christopher-robin-35m-1132282) and $75M according to Variety (https://variety.com/2018/film/news/box-office-mission-impossible-fallout-christopher-robin-1202895223/), I was wondering if we could update the budget number for Christopher Robin in the movie's page from "$75 million" to "$70 million-$75 million". Can we please do that? Thanks.

Budget again

The requested changes above seem to have been made at some point and point. Both figures were listed were listed for most of 2018 then at some point $75 was removed and only $70 million was listed. Eventually in June 2019, instead of restoring the budget range, someone changed the budget from $70 to $75.[2] No reason was given.

Template:Infobox film still says "do not cherry-pick" and I've no reason to believe there was any good reason not to include both figures. I'm going to restore them but I add this note asking, that if they are vandalized again without any discussion or explanation here first, for editors to please restore them again. -- 109.76.144.154 (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know why some editors continue to vandalize budget figures[3] and I am even more disappointed that editors who should know better do not immediately revert this vandalism. Anyway I've fixed it once more and yet again. It shouldn't be this difficult to keep people from deleting reliably sourced information like this. -- 109.78.195.136 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Link to use

Los Angeles Times recently published an interview with Jim Cummings that could be useful on his voice acting process for Pooh and Tigger. Feel free to implement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Mixed reviews in third paragraph

"the film has grossed over $67 million worldwide and received mixed reviews from critics.[4]"

In this paragraph, "mixed" is directly from the source cited.

Having been blocked for edit warring and socking over this, Political Expert 47 (a.k.a. Political Expert 47 47) is now using multiple IPs (2607:FCC8:EC41:F100:2839:377A:ACB7:A84C, 2607:FCC8:EC41:F100:65B4:CD2A:F504:CFC1, etc.) to change this. Having seemingly finally figured out that the source has something to do with it, they're now changing the source as well.

I have been reverting their changes, per WP:EVADE, and intend to continue to do so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"grossed over"

The lead has been repeatedly changed to say the film "grossed over $X million". Yes, $172.1 million is over $172 million. It's also under $173 million, which no one would use, unless they were trying to say it didn't do well.

"$172.1 million" is shorter, less POV and provides more information than "over $172 million". - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, $180.6 million is "over $180 million". To be more accurate, it's "under $181 million". To be even more accurate, with no POV (and shorter to boot) it's "$180.6 million". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Over $180 million has the advantage that it is not ephemeral whereas a precise amount without the qualifier over would be. This also covers the case of different rounding practices in different parts of the article where the numbers would differ and possibly conflict. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Under $181 million" has those same advantages and is closer to the reported figure. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Under $180 million" or just "$180.1 million" will become wrong at some future point as the film continues to its theatrical run and sales increase so needs an "as of" qualifier to be valid. "Over $180 million" will remain correct and stay true as sales increase. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ANYTHING we report in present tense is problematic in that it will change. I see the film "has an approval rating of 71% based". Without looking, there's a good chance that has changed. If that score ever changes (and it very likely will) it will be wrong at some point. Feel free to add "as of" language to the reviews and grosses. That's a side point. Yes, if we say "over $X million" and it is never updated, but the film goes on to gross $3 billion, "over $X million" is not "wrong", it is, however, grossly misleading. The as of would fix that, the "over" does not.

I'm willing to bet there are numerous films that performed very poorly at the box office where our article currently says something to the extent of "Turkey (film) performed poorly at the box office, grossing under $Y million at the box office." Should we change that to "Turkey (film) performed poorly at the box office, grossing over $Y-1 million at the box office"?

Truncating $180.6 million to $180 million and adding "over" is not rounding. Throughout the article, grosses and budgets are rounded. For some vague reason the introductory paragraph ignores that and decided to go with truncating and adding a descriptor. Said descriptor varies from article to article based on whether or not we are trying to say that figure is big or small. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Most stuff we report is somewhat stable. Reporting grosses while a film is still in theaters is inherently dynamic and needs to be qualified in some way with either {{as of}} or some other statement that will remain true if the article is not updated which reporting over some truncated amount will accomplish. We shouldn't be reporting under for any monotonically increasing values unless it is qualified in some other way. Part of the issue for the lead is that the exact value isn't really that important and people are being careless about the as of part of reporting things and keeping it up to date along with the changing data. Also some people refuse to use the significant .0 when appropriate and then other editors forget that we are reporting tenths normally when updates get made. Using over keeps things consistent with the rest of the article even with varying precisions being reported in different parts of the article. Yes at some point this could get misleading if the value doesn't get updated to stay somewhat close to what is happening. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I Can’t Help But Wonder Something...

Did any critics at all particularly note the performance of Brad Garret as Eeyore? Austin012599 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)