Talk:Real Steel

References to use

• ‘Real Steel’: Has Shawn Levy made a robot movie with human heart?, herocomplex.latimes.com
• The Rise Of Robot Boxing And Real Steel, spinoff.comicbookresources.com
• 'Real Steel' Director And Hugh Jackman Find Humanity In Boxing Robots, mtv.com
• 'Real Steel': MMA with robots?, herocomplex.latimes.com

Reference to use. Feel free to include others. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Release week coverage

• Real Steel's Hugh Jackman: What the Critics Are Saying About His Performance, hollywoodreporter.com
• Weekend Report: 'Real Steel' Wins Middleweight Bout, boxofficemojo.com
• Around-the-World Roundup: 'Real Steel,' 'Johnny English' in Close Fight, boxofficemojo.com
• Hugh Jackman sees ‘Real Steel’ as father-son story, herocomplex.latimes.com
• Box Office Guru Wrapup: Real Steel Is the Real Deal, rottentomatoes.com
• 'Real Steel' shows B.O. metal, variety.com

More references. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots

There have been a couple of attempts to add Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots to the "See also" section. I am wondering if other editors think that this is an appropriate addition. While sources do mention Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots in reference to the film, it is usually tongue-in-cheek. As an encyclopedia, our content should be serious-minded (even for the funny topics). One way we could link to it is when the film comes out, there will inevitably be a review or two comparing the film to these toys, and perhaps we can link to it then, in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason it shouldn't be mentioned. I defy anyone (without knowledge of this film and with knowledge of, or even just knowledge of pop culture references to, Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots) to watch any of the trailers for this, and not automatically think: "Did they really make a 'Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots' movie?!" Despite the fact that the people behind this seem determined to ignore any similarity, it's quite obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.146.2 (talk • contribs) 06:15, September 27, 2011

The problem is what context it fits. The film is not based on these toys like the Transformers films were based on similar toys. Also, the film has not been released or reviewed, so there is not a setup for sampling responses to the film, including a possible comparison to Rock 'Em Sock 'Em. I think including it in the "See also" section is a jokey addition too. There is no explicit connection, and the sources don't appear to report enough of a fuss that we could report a negative (e.g., "The film is not based on the toys Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots"). I'm sure an opportunity will come up to mention them in some way; there is nothing suitable right now. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox says it is based on a book or a short story. And that is sourced. So no, it is not appropriate to add a link to rock em sock em robots. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur completely. Despite what people may mistakenly glean from a trailer, we can't list everything this movie is not ... only what it is. It's not a sequel to Robot Jox, it's not a spinoff of Transformers, it's not a lot of things. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of when I heard about 'Real Steel' was this game I played as a child. If there is no connection this should be explicitly stated by the producers. I think the legal consequences of failure to acknowledge any connection at all should also be explored in this article.50.10.99.70 (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "legal consequences of failure to acknowledge any connection at all" ... because there's no connection. The movie and the game are unrelated.

If Mattel, the current rights-holder, were to raise an objection, that would be notable. But Mattel hasn't. The movie and the game have absolutely nothing to do with each other. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What about in the reception section, professional film reviewers compare the film to "Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots", would it seem to be worth mentioning? There are pleanty of examples of it, like this http://articles.boston.com/2011-10-07/ae/30255095_1_robot-atom-hugh-jackman Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A figurative mention of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots in a film review is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the movie, which has no relationship to or licensing agreement with the toy manufacturer.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If reviews repeatedly mention it though, it seems worth mentioning here. Mathewignash (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning in what way? I'm a little confused. "Some reviewers thought the movie reminded them of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots"? Unless those reviewers are specifically saying something pertinent, such as that the filmmakers used likenesses of the toys without obtaining the rights, then why is that important? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You tell the facts, like in any Wikipedia article. You explain exactly what the critics say... for instance, if you find more of the review I cited above you might write "Critics say this film appeals to those who grew up with Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots." Mathewignash (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate compiler of facts. Facts have to be noteworthy and in context. This seems to me like trivia for the reasons I've mentioned above. At this point, we've both have had our say and I'm not sure we can add anything to the discussion. Why don't we let other editors besides us weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the sheer volume of comparisons between the two, it's not mere trivia. It's hard to find any reviews that DO NOT mention the RESER. Mathewignash (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with your latter point, and I'm unconvinced that some film critics mentioning the toy has any pertinence. They mention the toy — so? What does that mean? What larger meaning is that supposed to have?

In any event, you initiated the discussion, and I responded. The discussion is even and level. Why don't we let other editors weigh in? If you're so inclined, call for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your position, but in this case I think it's borderline - a seemingly trivial comparison has become near universal by critics. I would also appreciate input from other editors. Mathewignash (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. It's always good to work with a civil colleague and I hope others will add their own perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Critics are making the comparison. It doesn't mean it is an apt comparison. There is no connection between the film or the game apart from a ring and that things fight in that ring. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth making the comparison here, for the same reasons that reviewers have done it elsewhere. (The film is uniquely and entirely centered on one concept - robot boxing - that, while highly novel, is not actually original but rather has several noteworthy precedents.)

A typical reader of this article is obviously very likely to be interested in also reading our other robot boxing articles (such as RESER, OMF2097, and Matheson's Steel if the page existed). The bar for inclusion in "see also" should deliberately be low; its function is to help encourage/interest readers to more explore this encyclopedia (and thus, as it is presently such a short list, I endorse adding 2-3 other robot boxing pages there).

Quite frankly, if you try to resist this you're only likely to find a "robot boxing genre" article gets created and linked directly in the lead sentence no-less, plus that a "robot boxing genre" navbox gets created and transcluded wholesale onto the bottom of the article. So I think it's much less cluttering to just let "see also" perform its purpose.

As for the fact that many reviewers have drawn one particular comparison to the movie, that clearly justifies the "Critical response" subsection noting that. The fact we're even discussing this seems ridiculous - instead, we should be talking about the excessive level of detail in the plot section. Did many external reviews set a precedent for us to detail (irrelevantly) the precise monetary values of numerous financial deals occuring along the story? Is it really necessary for us to specify the nationality of some minor character (Farra Lemcova)? (Isn't such unnecessary nationalism kind of racist?) What about someone finding a source for attributing "arrogance" as the most important descriptor of Tak Mashido? (If he's aware that he genuinely is known to be the best, than it isn't really a conceit is it? If he really were arrogant, wouldn't that conflict with his secluded-genius backstory, which portrays him as relatively less interested in his own ego?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Steel was written in 1956, Rock'Em was created in 1964. It is based on Steel, not extrapolated from a game, with admittedly a very complex and cerebral plot, like Rock 'em Sock 'em. If critics compared it to Bad Boys II repeatedly you might have an argument, as it is, they share at best a very thin similarity, robots and boxing. Might as well call it Wolverine 2 since it has Hugh Jackman in it if we are allowing such base comparisons to pass as analysis rather than what it is: an easy/lazy way for the reviewer to describe the content of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Darkwarriorblake. On a separate note, as long as the plot remains within the 400- to 700-word parameters of WP:FILM, then including encyclopedic details is perfectly proper. Is is not a review; it is an encyclopedia article. I also don't believe it is "nationalist" to identify a character — and while supporting, she's hardly minor — by what the filmmakers give as a deliberately chosen attribute. The filmmakers could have made her any nationality they wanted, or made her of deliberately vague nationality. I think we have to respect and acknowledge the filmmakers' choices in that regard. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You should remember that movie reviews also commonly compare this film to "Rocky." Would anyone have a problem with mentioning that in the reception section? The short story Steel was written long before Rocky, so you can't say Steel was based on Rocky, but the FILM Real Steel might have been infulenced by Rocky... so the films have been fairly compared by critics. Same with RESER, it was a standard of the culture long before this film was made. Mathewignash (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another way to mention it would be in the merchandising section, because I saw at the store that a RESER type game with the robots from this film was released. You could just add a sentence like "A tie in game for this film was created style of Rock'em Rock'em Robots, a game that many critics have compared to the film itself.". Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's an official tie-in game, yes, of course, we should mention it, with citing.

As for RESER, with which this movie has no licensing or rights connection, I still believe that film critics making a glib comparison is non-notable. I'm not sure there's a lot of interest from other editors in that regard; this would be where they would be expressing it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Premiere

Resolved

Real Steel apparently premiered in Paris on September 6. I'm trying to find a reliable source online to reference this specific date. Can anyone help? It also appears that the film has premiered in some other countries leading up to its public release; ET says, "Jackman has set off on a global promotional jaunt that brings him to Paris, Germany, England and Latin America." More references like this would be useful. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a reference for the world premiere in Paris. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Correcting myself

My edit summary about the ages not being in the cited article was incorrect. My apologies. I was correct in that the cited source was making a different point about the demographics than the article presented, and Erik and I discussed it on our talk pages and agreed to keep the edit. Wikipedia collaboration! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reception

I removed the "Reception" section because I think it is too early to have it based on just five reviews (from Rotten Tomatoes). It's likely that the film will receive 50 or 100 reviews, and the score will definitely change significantly based on that larger sample size. Let me know if you disagree. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Real Steel Toys and Video Game

There is a Real Steel Toyline and a Video Game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.253.143 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the film based on some old DOS shareware game? Namely, One Must Fall: 2097 (also [1]) or its sequel? Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Companies involved

Can someone help untangle the mess of companies mentioned as involved with this film? The Hollywood Reporter labels it as a Disney release and mentions the following involved with production: "Touchstone, DreamWorks, 21 Laps, Montford/Murphy Prods." Yet Variety calls it "A Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures release of a DreamWorks Pictures and Reliance Entertainment presentation of a 21 Laps/Montford Murphy production." I'm reluctant to mention the companies in the infobox because it becomes indiscriminate. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

21Laps is Shawn Levy's company and he is directing and producing so that is why that one is there at least. I can't see any mention of Disney on the official site. Official Facebook says Dreamworks. I would've said leave out 21 Laps as it seems to be there solely because of Levy, Dreamworks is the actual studio making it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Disney might be named because Touchstone Pictures is one of the company's labels. If you Google "real steel" disney, there are pretty frequent mentions. Strangely enough, Box Office Mojo mentions "Buena Vista" as the distributor, and that appears to be an older name for Walt Disney Pictures (that receives no Google News Search results). As for Reliance, Googling "real steel" reliance has results indicating that it's a DreamWorks-Reliance Entertainment production. I have a feeling most of these sources don't know what they're talking about, haha. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading the poster I just realized that when it says "a whatever production" it seems to be referring to the producers where I always took it to mean the studios. The lack of any official highlighting of Disney leads me to believe its purely a distributing role which makes sense with the Facebook (calls itself the official Disney facebook page for Real Steel) as that is a marketing component the distributor should be tackling. It seems, to me at least, that this film is made by Dreamworks and Reliance, produced by 21Laps under Levy (For which he gets $10 mill) and the other one. But then I don't know where TouchStone comes from. It DOES belong to Disney so maybe it is just distributing the film under that banner in certain markets.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Budget

Resolved

According to Boston Herald here, the film's budget was $130 million. It is the only reference that reports this figure. A few other sources repeat the report of $80 million, but Film Journal here quotes the director, "I'm not allowed to say—it's a little north of $80 million." It does make sense that it would be higher than the original figure, but $130 million sounds high. Since no other source repeats it right now, I'm thinking we should not mention the budget right now. Otherwise, we could do a "$80–130 million" range, but that's too unspecific, IMO. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Reports say the budget is $110 million, so we have our answer now. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman

I think we have too many images of Hugh Jackman! We have him in the poster and him in free images in the production and release sections. Maybe we could replace the one in production with one of the filming locations? I didn't do that earlier because I didn't know which locations would be very prominent in the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying we have too much Oxygen. It might balance out if the article expands, I don't know how much information is going to be available for it but Id keep the premiere pic if you're only keeping one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Jackman image in production could be especially replaced by a clear shot of any of the robots, especially ones whose design has been well-covered. I'm pretty sure that Animation World Network (awn.com) will have a visual effects article about the film soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Weren't there some actual robots built? Are there no set photos of those?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article says the special-effects house Legacy built 26 1/2 robots. I'm sure there are images somewhere; may fan-press journalists were on a set visit and I'm sure took photos that they would upload with the rights to use. Any fan-press guys out there? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is AWN.com's article about Real Steel. It may permit us to use a fair use image to illustrate the context. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvin

Surely Marvin was named after Lee Marvin the star of the Twilight Zone episode of this story and if so and it should included as a fact in this article. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom of the page.

You make an interesting observation. I think if we had a third-party reliable-source citation it'd be worth mentioning, maybe as part of the script-development process. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvin also the Paranoid Android... Drsruli (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

/* Film Format */

Apologies, in advance, if I overlooked an obvious link. I clicked on discussion and things seem to have changed since I last posted. I would like to request some information be added regarding the film format. At the beginning it states that this movie was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters but without any reference to the source format. If I did miss the obvious place to make this request would you please leave this up for 6 hours and give me an obvious pointer? I will check back late this evening. Thank you.

74.235.63.77 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Crew credits

Here are the final, contractual main crew credits, in order, from the official press kit, which by contract are the onscreen credits. Please DO NOT add uncited claims about other individuals who, per Paramount, did NOT work on the film:

• Directed by . SHAWN LEVY
• Screenplay by. JOHN GATINS
• Story by . DAN GILROY and JEREMY LEVEN
• Based in Part upon the Short Story “Steel” by. RICHARD MATHESON
• Produced by. DON MURPHY & SUSAN MONTFORD and SHAWN LEVY
• Executive Producers. JACK RAPKE, ROBERT ZEMECKIS, STEVE STARKEY, STEVEN SPIELBERG, JOSH MCLAGLEN, MARY MCLAGLEN
• Director of Photography . MAURO FIORE, ASC
• Production Designer. TOM MEYER
• Edited by. DEAN ZIMMERMAN
• Costume Designer. MARLENE STEWART
• Animatronic Robots by. JOHN ROSENGRANT
• Visual Effects Supervisor . ERIK NASH
• Music by. DANNY ELFMAN

...

• Casting by. DAVID RUBIN, C.S.A. & RICHARD HICKS, C.S.A.

--Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pushing for B-Class Assessment

I'm pushing this article for a C class assessment level. ASHU^IND 08:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Distributor

I used rollback here because I suspect this is part of the same trend to add false company information to film articles and vice versa. I am pretty positive about this but have issued a low-level template warning just in case. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Box office

I'm fine with Spinc5's contributions to the "Box office" section. We can tweak the wording a little bit to avoid terms like "close race" and "gained on". I've seen secondary sources cover Real Steel's performance around the world in Variety, so it's information of value. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Erik. Always good to speak with you. I'm not sure "the highest IMAX debut for an October release" is what you have in mind. As you and others noted here, there's been concern about his overly detailed box-office additions to Disney movies primarily. They give the unquestionable appearance of being promotional; they use the very same language we see in box-office press releases that studios constantly send out promoting "records" such as, well, "highest IMAX debut for an October release."

In addition to seeming promotional, these edits often use non-neutral tone and are very frequently of undue weight: While one can see an anchor, perhaps, in how the film did in its star's home country, a laundry list of other "territories" (a word studio marketing people and trade journalists use) seems dubious. I'm unconvinced of the general-audience value of knowing how Real Steel opened in Malaysia and Peru — and I know he said Russia and Mexico, but what is the qualitative difference? To whom, in English-language Wikipedia, would any of these "territories" be of interest besides industry people (who well have numerous trade sources) and, more bluntly, Disney marketing and promotion people?

I've noted my concerns to user User:Spinc5 — and I'm sure it's just coincidence, but "spin"? Really? — and have invited him to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, to which I would like to invite other concerned editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The amount of content Spinc5 added to the "Box office" section is not overwhelming. In that discussion, the amount of content for some other film articles was overwhelming. For something like the highest IMAX debut for an October release, that information comes from the reliable source The Hollywood Reporter here. If a film is critically acclaimed, are we going to worry about reporting that at the risk of sounding promotional? Real Steel has done well at the box office, and trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter report and analyze the figures. We reference them in turn. Wikipedia has all kinds of information that appeal to different readers. Some readers may like to read about production, others about the theatrical release. In addition, box office information is useful to report because it assesses how audiences respond to the film. In addition, figures outside of the US and Canada are also useful because it is global coverage, and that's something that's tough to do for all-American films. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For others, a comparison: before Spinc5's edits and after Spinc5's edits. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I changed my mind about the contributions. The sources need to be ones conducting analysis. We need to do better than referencing Box Office Mojo's tables directly because there is no indication whether the information is worth noting or not. There is analysis here under "Related Stories", plus analysis in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (with Reuters backing up the latter). We can follow these sources' leads in identifying milestones in different countries or in genre groupings. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm thankful we're on the same page, since you're a responsible and collegial editor. Context, as you note, is critical, since we're not an indiscriminate compiler of information. That's aside from the fast-dated nature of box-office record claims.

The promotional intent, however, is of equal concern; as the many people I know who have worked at "Mauschwitz" (as Disney is sometimes more or less affectionately referred to) can attest, it is inconceivable that no one there is monitoring Wikipedia — which is laudable and foresighted for correcting errors, but crosses the line if Disney attempts to use this encyclopedia for undue-weight promotional edits. The fact that only one person is adding such edits raises a red flag to me. In any event, I'm glad to see another editor weighing in, and I hope we'll see more.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Spinc5 has edited box office information for Warner Bros. (e.g., Harry Potter) and DreamWorks films (e.g., Transformers), though. (I see that Spinc5 mentioned these on your talk page just now.) I think it's just a case of a specialized focus. Some editors focus on adding film posters, others on perpetually updating the box office figure in the infobox. Regarding the context of box office figures, with The Hollywood Reporter mentioning the IMAX milestone, is it a problem to report that? We can revise the wording of such a report. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Biggest opening of an IMAX movie would seem notable. Biggest opening in October? I have to wonder how that is notable, and whether this means we're going to list biggest IMAX openings for every month. I'm not sure that sort of highly specific industry detail has any meaning to the general public.

And, of course, some of this may be moot: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office takes a limited view of the box office section, probably to avoid this type of promotional-seeming prose: It says this section may detail results of a film's opening weekend — and not subsequent weekends — and only include results from different English-speaking territories. And even there, the only consensus-derived, guideline reason to discuss an opening "in a country not of the film's origin" is for the kind of contextual reason you and I agree on: "e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country)."

I'll try to go along with you and presume Spinc5 is a disinterested editor, despite the trade terminology and press-release-style writing he uses. And even assuming so, he's way off WP:FILM MOS in certain respects — and you can see I simply trimmed back and condensed his edits, having in no way simply deleted or rolled back. You and I agree in general, I think. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

These guidelines make recommendations on what to include, but absence of other specifics does not mean that these other specifics should be absent. For example, I think it's worth noting the second weekend in general because box office analysts pay attention to the so-called drop in between weekends as a way to determine the film's long-term viability. As for English-speaking territories, I think that has more to do with the total gross of the film in that particular territory. After all, there is a distinction between "this section may detail specific results of [multiple] opening weekends" and "results from different English-speaking territories". If a film performs noticeably well in a non-English language country, it is worth reporting. I think there's just a lot of different details that the guidelines cannot cover comprehensively. Maybe it's worth a discussion at WT:MOSFILM to say "follow the [reliable] source" in its analysis of the box office performance? Also, for what it's worth, American Beauty (film) is a featured article with a solid "Theatrical run" section. It really is just a matter of what the sources say. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion started at WT:MOSFILM#Box office revision. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For B-Class assessment.

Have made the article C-Class and now pushing it for B-Class assessment. Hope to make it a GA. ASHU^IND 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Plawres Sanshiro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plawres_Sanshiro No? 46.177.107.153 (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The robots themselves

Should there be some list of the robots involved in the cast? I know they don't have actors, even voice actors to credit, but they are major characters in film, they seem important. As an example, the cast and characters section of a 2007-2011 Transformers films mention characters that have no actor in them, like Mixmaster or Sideways. Mathewignash (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Home media

The DVD and Blu-ray release has been announced, and I was thinking of adding the following language:

The film will be released on Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital Download on January 24, 2012. The release will be produced in three different physical packages: a 3-disc combo pack (Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital Copy); a 2-disc combo pack (Blu-ray and DVD); and a 1-disc DVD. The film will also be released digitally in high definition and standard definition. The DVD bonus features include "Making of Metal Valley," "Building the Bots," and "Bloopers." The 2-disc and 3-disc combo packs include all the same bonus features as the DVD, plus Disney Second Screen, "Countdown to the Fight - The Charlie Kenton Story," "Sugar Ray Leonard: Cornerman's Champ," and "Deleted and Extended Scenes with introductions by Shawn Levy."

References:

http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Real-Steel-Blu-ray-Release-Date-Details-and-Cover-Art/9959

http://filmonic.com/real-steel-dvd-release-date

Does anyone have any feedback before I add this? Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Digital Download is capitalized; is it a proper-noun, trademarked term?

The first and third sentences, which are about format, seem necessary, of course. Not sure we need the second sentence: The fact it's being released in three specific formats is notable; mentioning the specific marketing configurations feels like promotional in nature. And I'm not sure giving the titles of the promotional featurettes ("bonus features" is marketing talk) is necessary, since they don't mean anything that couldn't be said by: "The promotional featurettes include a profile of film consultant Sugar Ray Leonard; other extras include deleted and extended scenes with introduction by director Levy." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make the edits and add it to the article. I'm not sure about the "Digital Download" thing. It was how it was written in the press release. --TravisBernard (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the Disney Second Screen is worth calling out because it is a unique feature. I'm going to leave this. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhamed Ali Resemblance

Is it me or does Atom's discription (fast for the most part) echo Muhammad Ali?(Undeadplatypus (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

'Mixed reviews'

Not really mixed reviews. A 60% score and A ratings should translate to 'good reviews'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.213.84 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wife or girlfriend

Per this review, at least, it was his girlfriend: "ten-year-old Max (Dakota Goya), his son with the now-late woman he'd abandoned while she was pregnant... phttp://www.filmjournal.com/content/film-review-real-steel]. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC on including talks of sequel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include the talks about a potential sequel in the article? JDDJS (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Include The information is sourced. When there are reliable sources talking about a potential sequel, we always include it in the article, whether or not the sequel is ever made. JDDJS (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• If you are going to talk about a sequel that was announced seven years ago, I would probably just write "a sequel was announced in 2011" and leave it at that. There isn't much point in discussing, in detail, a speculative event that never actually happened. Per WP:ONUS, not every verifiable detail belongs in a Wikipedia article. As to whether this should be included, I don't really have a strong opinion. But why not try to find a compromise, like making the coverage a bit more concise? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include: Since it's been seven years, and the film was in talks for a sequel in 2016 we can mention that in perhaps 2-3 lines but no further. But if new information has surfaced then certainly it should be included. Nauriya, Let's talk, 11:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - wait for something to say. Rumors of a hypothetical would be WP:CRYSTAL. Until there is some actual work begun there would not be anything specific to say anyway, and as WP:CRYSTALHAMMER says, it will not hurt to just wait. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per Markbassett. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Exclude per Markbassett, which is how we normally handle things like this. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Summoned by bot. Per WP:CRYSTAL as noted above. Let's just wait to include. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Netflix

Number 2 ranked on Netflix.

• Brueggemann, Tom (28 September 2020). "'Ava' Joins 'Antebellum' Atop VOD Charts While 'Enola Holmes' Rules at Netflix". IndieWire.</ref>
• Mendelson, Scott. "A Forgotten Hugh Jackman Sports Flick Is Now One Of Netflix's Most-Watched Movies". Forbes.

Maybe this is notable, I can't be sure. There didn't seem to be an obvious way to mention it in the article like "Legacy". Maybe someone else can think of a better way to make use of this or maybe it wont seem notable enough by next week. -- 109.77.214.109 (talk)

"I, D'oh-Bot"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_(Annoyed_Grunt)-bot

Also based on the same story. Drsruli (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NWG

NWG is rapper 41.115.85.14 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)