Wikipedia

Talk:How to Train Your Dragon 2/Archive 1

< Talk:How to Train Your Dragon 2
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Preview in Danish cinemas

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tomorrow, in the CinemaxX chain, before any movie start there'll be a preview of the first 5 minutes. Is this happening anywhere else? I thought of adding it to the wiki but I don't know if it was relevant enough. Certainly, I'm going to add it to the Danish page because it has relevancy there.

http://cinemaxx.dk/media/242643/dragen7.png

That is a banner from CinemaxX's website. The text reads "Watch the first 5 minutes of DreamWorks How To Train Your Dragon 2 on Friday the 18th April before any movie! Only in CinemaxX"

Ztash (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny coincidence that they were in Norway...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The filmmakers went to Norway, but the "art of" book is very, very vague on when they went. It's known that the art team on Frozen went to Norway some time in early 2012. And it's known that the teams behind both films fell in love with the country's landscape and culture. Must be great for Norway's tourism to have two animated feature films based on their country to come out only six months apart.

The fascinating question is whether anyone at DreamWorks or Disney knew the other studio was working in the same time frame on a Norway-inspired film. These studios are only two miles apart (Glendale and Burbank) and a lot of employees have jumped between them over the years. Haven't seen any news coverage on that issue, though. Unfortunately, I can't add that kind of speculation to the article because it violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. But if anyone sees any pertinent news coverage, it would be a good point to add. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Too Many Reviews

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There are too many reviews in the critical reception section. And most of them are high-rating reviews (four out of four stars). This amount is totally unnecessary. We get it, critics like the movie.--209.240.48.138 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a bit much, but I think it's a good grouping of what was praised and criticized about the movie, which is generally the format used for deciding which specific critic quotes are used in a Wikipedia article. Besides, it's not really the point that critics liked the movie. It's the point that it was so nearly universally liked, in a way that an animated sequel almost NEVER is. Even Despicable Me 2 only got a 74/85% critic/audience aggregate. Dragon 2, got a 94/93 aggregate. That's massive. That's Two Towers numbers - and much like the article for the Two Towers, as the award nominations and other accolades start coming in for the film, they will replace much of the critic quotes.
But the critic quotes listed are GOING to be almost all from 4 and 5 star reviews, when less than 10% of the reviews were anything but raves. CleverTitania (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If anything, this section needs to be more organized. I've seen on most film articles that the section starts out with the incredibly positive reviews, then as the list goes on, it gets to the more mixed, and the negatives. And perhaps certain paragraphs should focus on certain criticisms, both good and bad. Right now, its just messy. And yea, it's high acclaim is big, but it's not having Two Towers numbers.--209.240.48.138 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
There is not a problem with reflecting the generally very positive response the film has garnered, but the reviews section is waaaaay to long, and each subsequent 3/4 review is adding nothing of encyclopedic worth - this isn't advertising space. Unless a film has been particularly controversial, has generated a large quantity of academic criticism or genuinely polarised reviewers across the board, a reception section longer than the synopsis is ridiculous. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack Track Count

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have bought CD from UK's Amazon - it has 20 tracks including Rybak's song. Same (20 tracks) on Spotify. USA's Amazon indeed lists 19 tracks. Perhaps there were some licensing issues for Rybak's song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardische (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see from the Wiki page that the song is only featured in Europe, including Russia. What is considered to be the main release in these situations - the one in country of production?

Eduardische (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo sucks

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This has happened before but I didn't believe it. Today I can say with certainty that Box Office Mojo revises figures down and backwards. I didn't think they'd do that. Next time I will need to use webcite so that there is clearer proof but once more and yet again Box Office Mojo reveals how sloppy and unreliable they are. -- 109.77.115.97 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they always correct their estimates. Koala15 (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Recording took place during April 2014 at Abbey Road Studios in London[64]"... Indeed, a small amount of the soundtrack was recorded here, but the vast majority was actually recorded at AIR Studios in London. I worked on it as part of the recording team at AIR Flying Delorean (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have source that says so? Koala15 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Facebook is an awful walled garden that is destroying the web, but maybe this link explaining that at least part of the soundtrack was recorded at AIR Studios by Nick Wollage will work for you. Also the Torygraph -- 109.78.141.51 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Positive reviews

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Various people keep trying to change the article to say "critical acclaim" and most of these do see to be good faith edits. I disagree with these claims -- a few others seem to agree -- they are overstatement and hyperbole. An encyclopedia should be careful to avoid hyperbole, the reviews and the aggregate scores speak for themselves. In general I think it is best to categorize reviews as positive, mixed, or negative, where mixed covers more than the middle half of the reviews. Metacritic does have a top score, indicating "Universal acclaim" but this film, despite many positive reviews, did not achieve that very high score. There are other articles such as A Million Ways To Die In The West where the sources say reviews are mixed, and although I personally might interpret them differently, the only way we can even begin to hope for something that resembles a reliable and consistent encyclopedia is to go with the sources and not our own personal opinion. I would recommend that the article contains to say "positive reviews" and avoid the word "acclaim" and that if people disagree they should state their case here on the talk page. I will refer any further reverts to this talk page. -- 109.76.191.19 (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove that sentence? Let the reader decide if the reviews indicate a "critical acclaim" or not.--209.240.48.138 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So far I and others have changed the article so that it says "positive reviews" which gives a broad overview and as you say readers can then interpret that and the figures how they want. After making the same edit more than once, so as to avoid wasting each others time, it is best to start a note on the talk page, which I've done here. Any further reverts can now tell people to see the Talk page and discuss first, and hopefully there will be less edit warring or time wasting. This kind of discussion comes up repeatedly. I'd like Wikipedia to be more like an encyclopedia and at least try to be more consistent, and this kind of cautious wording is in keeping with the WP:NPOV guidelines (and on the other end of the scale we have to be similarly cautious about films that were panned by critics). -- 109.77.135.149 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In the phrase "very positive reviews" please remove the word "very" to bring the page back to the wording before it was locked. -- 109.78.3.41 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word very for a neutral point of view and because "very" would imply to me top ratings from most critics. BethNaught (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on How to Train Your Dragon 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on How to Train Your Dragon 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on How to Train Your Dragon 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:How_to_Train_Your_Dragon_2/Archive_1&oldid=1180492243"