Talk:Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FatimaSani21, Brandon Shortrede. Peer reviewers: Bluewildflowers, Hadasam, Starlyia, Mglamb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Setting

Except for the flashbacks, this movie starts 8 minutes after the end of the first film (according to Flint). This probably should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:700B:100:24D6:9FBF:3EBC:81B5 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

2014

It's going to 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.64.149.42 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Any source for that?--Carniolus (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

I think the name is now Cloudy 2: Revenge of the Leftovers. I've changed it on the page, but I'm not sure how to change the article name.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 05:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Cloudy 2: Revenge of the Leftovers is the old title. You can read about the change in the Production section.--Carniolus (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Toriko Influence?

It could be a coincidence, but this sequel seems to have been heavily influenced by the anime Toriko. It would be interesting to know whether or not this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.189.137 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

POV as fact

@Koala15:: 70% of RT. Is that "generally positive", "mixed to positive", "favorable" or what? Whatever your answer, is it the same for 69%? How about 68%? At what point, for you, does it cross a line and become something else? How did you arrive at this "fact"?:

"Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 70% approval rating with an average rating of 6.4/10 based on 115 reviews." THAT is a factual statement. Perhaps all of the reviews were essentially lukewarm. Maybe 70% thought it was the greatest film in the history of cinema. Maybe 30% wanted to hunt down and kill the filmmakers. Maybe 70% were ever-so-slightly positive and 30% "hated, hated, hated this movie." In my opinion, each of those possibilities is distinctly different from "generally positive". Your opinion may differ and that is fine, but it is not a "fact". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

70% beats 30% meaning the reviews were generally positive. If it was 50% i would say mixed, if it were 30% i would say negative. That's just how it is. Koala15 (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

50.0001% beats 49.9999%, so would you say that is "generally positive"? If not, what is the dividing line between "mixed" and "generally positive"? How did you arrive at this? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You know exactly what i mean, a 70% would mean generally positive. Even Metacritic has a 70 as "generally positive". Koala15 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You have not explained how your opinion that this is "generally positive" is a fact. That Metacritic reports a 70 on their pseudo-normalized scale as "generally positive" is immaterial to the straight percentage of favorable reviews given by RT. In this particular case, Metacritic has a score of 59, which they label "Mixed or average reviews".

You say "generally positive" reviews is a "fact". If this is true, Metacritic is wrong or "Mixed or average" means the same thing as "generally positive". Which is it? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What else would 70% positive reviews mean? It means the majority of reviews were positive. Nuff said. Koala15 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that and that isn't what your edit says. The source says that 70% of reviews on RT were positive (which the text I left in states quite clearly). Your edit says that "reviews" were "generally" positive. Your addition is your interpretation of the material that I left in. The only thing your addition adds is your opinion. The facts are there without it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see your point. I just explained it in the most simple way possible in my last comment. Koala15 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The material you have added is not an objective summary of the sourced material. It is your opinion, nothing more. You still have not answered where you draw the line between "generally positive" and "mixed". Is 60% "generally positive" or "mixed"? 59%? 58%? and so on. Once you have answered that, answer this: Where did that line come from? It is youopinon that X% is "generally positive" and X - 0.00001% is "mixed". It is not a "fact". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Its definitely not my opinion, its common sense that 70% would be looked at as positive. 60% would be mixed and so on. Koala15 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We're making progress. You've almost answered the question: Where do you draw that line? (60%/60.0000000000001%? Maybe 69.9999999999% is mixed and 70% is "mostly positive"?)

Again, if it is so glaringly obvious that 70% is "mostly positive", what is added by saying that?

Please note, I asked two direct questions. This will move a lot faster if you directly answer both. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What would you consider 70% to be? Cause i'm getting sick of this discussion. Koala15 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to use a bland description here? We can use this to say that Rotten Tomatoes reported that critics thought the sequel "lacks the freshness of the original" but still considered it to be "an energetic, visually inventive family movie". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would consider 70% to be 70%. That is neutral and verifiable, unlike "mostly positive", which is neither. I would not consider it: "good", "pretty good", "C+", "3 stars out of 5" or anything else some editor on here "considers" it to be. Again, please answer the questions: Where is the line between "mostly positive" and "mixed" and what, other than your opinion, is added by saying something you consider to be so glaringly obvious? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Its not even my opinion, i think anyone with a brain would consider 70% to be a positive critical reaction. I don't know why your acting like we don't use this sentence on any other articles either. It's all over GA'S and FA'S. Koala15 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes labels a review as either positive or negative. That means there is no middle ground. A film could get 90-100% regardless of whether critics found the film decent or one of the best ever. (If you compare RT and MC figures of The Avengers and Gravity, you'll see that is the case.) RT reports here a score average of 6.4 out of 10, which is closer to reality (as well as Metacritic). That's why we can't just translate 70%. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, I assure you I have a brain. Additionally, you don't seem to like the direct questions, which you still refuse to answer. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/2013/09/26/review-cloudy-gorgeous-visuals-cheesy-puns/m6pfqzWLFWuD8biwuTORPN/story.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131001145131/http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/2013/09/26/review-cloudy-gorgeous-visuals-cheesy-puns/m6pfqzWLFWuD8biwuTORPN/story.html to http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/2013/09/26/review-cloudy-gorgeous-visuals-cheesy-puns/m6pfqzWLFWuD8biwuTORPN/story.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Meatballs

Can some help finished Draft:Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Franchise) page I need help with cast, crew and anything else anyone can think off. (P.S I use the HT franchise page as a template.82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

reference to Aladdin

I had recently edited the article; but it was revised and deleted for being unsourced. I had tried to find a source but I couldn't. but I am sure that edit was true. Because I have watched both movies I mean Aladdin disney animated film. Aminabzz (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)