Talk:Scott Pilgrim vs. the World/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source to use

• http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/678159 <-- An article in the Toronto Star detailing some information about the filming could be useful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/09/28/michael-cera-on-the-light-bulbs-air-horns-and-secret-lists-of-scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world/ more sources. I can't watch the video being from Canada, so maybe more sources can be dug out from there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Is it normal to have the soundtrack listing in the film article? It currently completely ruins the flow of the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it has enough information to be moved to it's own article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe move the whole Music and Score into that separate article? -- Horkana (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Musical scoring and sound is definately notable in this article per WP:MOSFILM and I do not think (atleast not right now) that it is notable enough per WP:GNG to stand alone in its own article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The soundtrack itself (opposed to the film score) has received significant coverage in Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, and other sources. So that one can at least warrant it's own. Not so certain about the others. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Differences

I think the production section covers most of the notable differences from the book such as the ending. There have been attempts to add more differences to the article but I'm not convinced these changes are especially notable. -- Horkana (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM#Adaptation_from_source_material, we shouldn't be going into detail about differences between the film and original story. Revert, and refer users to the link above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that differences need to be sourced by third party sources, which would assert notability, and also need to have some sort of context on why a difference was made. This is my understanding for difference sections and has been what the Harry Potter film articles have been using. BOVINEBOY2008 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I know this. I flagged the deletion and brought it to the talk page to make it clearer to anyone else who might be thinking of adding a differences section that the most important differences are already covered implicitly in the Production and Development section. I was emphasizing that a seperate differences section is not necessary, but making other editors aware of a good faith attempt in case anyone wanted to find more sources and salvage some of these points and integrate them into the article elsewhere. -- Horkana (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget

What's with the buget figures? Most sources list 60 million. Only The Hollywood Reporter says

Universal's "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," opening Friday, cost $80 million-$90 million (the studio puts the number at closer to $60 million)

So they acknowledge the 60 million figure, but then seem to weakly dispute it. This doesn't seem like a very reliable source, their reasoning for the higher figure is not explained. Maybe what this really means the studio "Big Talk Films" sold the film to the distributor Universal for 85-90. (See also Kick-Ass (film) which has production budget, then a much larger price paid by the distributor.) The-Numbers.com puts the production budget at $85 million, but do not give their source, they usually get their figures from the Los Angeles Times. If most sources agree on the $60 figure - even the one that appears to dispute it but does not explain why they believe the true figure is more - then shouldn't we just list the budget as $60 unless someone can come up with a proper explanation. -- Horkana (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times quotes a universal spokesperson as saying that the budget was $90 million but it cost $60 million after tax rebates. Maybe that's where the confusion is? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So clearly it is $90 million then. Might be worth explain the rebates in the article prose but the infobox should show the actual budget figures not the rebates. Rebates are bunk. The final costs is irrelevant, for an encyclopedia to have any hope of being consistent and not getting caught up in Hollywood accounting then the 'budget should be the budget and not the budget after rebates. -- Horkana (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

$85 million from The-Numbers http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2010/SPILG.php -- Horkana (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The budget is the total money actually spent by the studio to create a film. Every film is given a some form of tax break/discounts by countries/companies its how countries/companies entice films to be made in their countries or use their products. Its not a rebate its a pre agreed discount. The film didn't hand over $90m and then the Canadian government had a little think on it and the handed back $30m. The film would have costed $90m had there been no tax breaks or product discounts but thats a pointless way to calculate the budget because its mythical - as there are tax breaks. Its like saying a train fare in the UK (a service that is exempt from VAT taxes) costs you £1. However if VAT were to be included it would cost you £1.2 - however the actual cost is of course £1 because you are not charged VAT so you wouldn't go around to all your friends saying it cost you £1.20. The people who keep on posting $85-90m are living in this fantasy world where things don't cost what they actually cost - they are what they would cost if tax breaks didn't exist. The whole point of budget vs gross is to work out how much was ACTUALLY spent vs how much was ACTUALLY brought in. Putting this fictional $30m extra on warps that equation. The reason $85-90 has been touted around came off the back of poor opening box office weekend results. The media overinflated the budget to make for a better story. However the truth is the amount of money that left the studio's pocket to pay for this film was $60m. Therefore that is your budget. The best way to think about it is if you ran your own business if you got a discount from one of your suppliers you wouldn't write it up in your accounting books that it cost you the full cost - well unless you wanted to be done for fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.69.218 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Budget and [cost] are simply not the same thing. There's nothing in WP:MOSFILM or Template:Infobox_film to support your assertion.

The Numbers, LA Times, and Hollywood reporter support the higher figures. Box Office Mojo is the odd one out. User:Cameron Scott (above) and other editors who have been working on this article have supported the before tax figures, giving a rough consensus for the higher figures. You'll need back up your assertion if you want to change the existing figures. -- Horkana (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times and Hollywood reporter do not know the costs of the film. Universal the FILM studio cites the film as coming in at a total of $60 million. In fact two of the links on the budget people have posted eventually state this after giving the $85m figure so box office mojo is not the odd one out. in terms of the budget and costs not being the same think about that logically. Imagine you work for a company and they say to you that you potentially have a $20m budget for tv advertising. You decide that you don't need to spend that much and only use $5m. You campaign then goes onto generate a return of $15m. All sounds good you have made a good return. You go to tell your boss but he turns round and says you have massively failed and made the company a loss because you had a potential budget of $20m. He then goes and puts in the company marketing report that there was a $5 million loss on tv advertising. Then think about that at a higher keel imagine if the government says it was going to increase the available budget for welfare by 20% but when you take into account recent taxing increases in other areas and a change to the payment system the real net of this is a decline of 5%. Do you think the front pages next day would state a 20% budget increase. Budget means budget used ergo costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.54.81 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Last thing I will say on the matter if you take a random sample of 10 films in the last year and compare their budget in wikipedia and their budget on box office mojo you will find they match. I find taking the LA Reporter budget (a publication which does not take or keep records on such matters) just for Scott Pilgrim is not helping to support consistency on this site which is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.54.81 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm going to change the Budget from $85-90 to $60-90 based on the high number of sources stating $60m:

Box Office Mojo - https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=scottpilgrim.htm
The Movie Insider - http://www.themovieinsider.com/m2333/3/scott-pilgrims-precious-little-life/
Movie Stinger - http://moviestinger.com/the-expendables-wins-box-office-battle-vs-scott-pilgrim/
The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/7968139/Scott-Pilgrim-where-are-all-his-geeky-fans.html
Time Out - http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/10517/michael-cera-hollywoods-go-to-geek.html
Rotten Tomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/news/1920523/box_office_guru_wrapup_expendables_defeats_weak_batch_of_new_films/
Cherwell - http://www.cherwell.org/content/10623
Cinema Blend - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Box-Office-Bob-omb-5-Reasons-Scott-Pilgrim-Vs-The-World-Failed-To-Find-An-Audience-20168.html
IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446029/business
Edgar Wright himself in Twitch FIlm Interview - http://twitchfilm.net/interviews/2010/08/edgar-wright-talks-scott-pilgrim-versus-the-world.php (states its four times the budget of Hot Fuzz. Hot Fuzz was just under $14m or £8m UK)
NME - http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=131&p=8996&title=is_scott_pilgrim_a_film_for_wankers&more=1&c=1

I've changed the budget to include the $60 million figures after the other figure. I've gotten more annoyed at this than I should have because earlier editors were completely deleting the higher figures. Taking a step back I don't really mind having both listed, but it is entirely misleading to include only the lower figure, and I accept you are being reasonable and keeping both.

Having said that you logic is overly simple and I urge you not to trust Box Office Mojo too much and always try to verify them. Most Wikipedia film articles use the simple figures provided by Box Office Mojo but they are usually close to the correct figures and there is little disagreement. In most cases reviewers will parrot the official figures, rather than the few sources that dig a little deeper and do any checking or make the effort to state the actual actual production budget, and not the final after tax cost.

It is unfortunately Edgar Wright is was vague: "the budget is four times that of Hot Fuzz". Again Box Office Mojo fail by not even list the budget for Hot Fuzz, they just aren't that great a source. The Numbers give the Hot Fuzz budget as $14 million USD, which does help your point, but it still doesn't mean they aren't fudging the numbers as Hollywood frequently does (and as Battlefield Earth infamously did).

Box Office Mojo really are not all that precise, and keep it overly simple. Unfortunately you need to see a few examples where you know they are wrong to realise that. I've seen a few but just one example is Mathew Vaughan very specifically (in a very long video interview with Jonathan Ross, cited in that article) said Kick-Ass (film) cost exactly $28 million and said yes US Dollars, not sterling, to produce and yet Box Office Mojo still rounds the budget to $30 million. (That isn't even mentioning the fact that the distributors had to pay a whole lot more to buy it and distribute it... and then marketing budgets and other spending go on to guarantee most films officially never make a profit ... but that's hollywood accounting.)

Now that you're aware of it in this case, you are very likely to notice it more.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Horkana (talk • contribs)

Scott Pilgrim Marketing/Spam

If the content is posted by a user who works for deviantArt and is indeed a member of their marketing department, is this not spam? It seems to be directly in line with his job (the fact that he is employeed in dA's marketing department is publically displayed in his profile). I would even venture a guess he is getting paid to post these things. Some guy (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to this article so it belongs here not on a user talk page. I've reposted it here.

The Deviant Art competition is part of the marketing for the film, it does seem to be a proper tie-in to the film. If it were a promotion by a fast food restaurant, or a drinks company, or whatever it would also be relevant.

Perhaps you could argue it is not notable enough, that third parties would have to write about it to show it is more than just one of many small competitions being run to promote the film but the stated reason in the edit summary was that it was spam (unsolicited marketing) when it does very much seem to be proper official marketing. -- Horkana (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some guy, If it wasn't posted by a DeviantART employee, what would your opinion be for this to be added in the Marketing sections of film articles? The FILM MOS really doesn't say anything about this type of 'marketing'. I wonder if these contests reached any outside sources other than DeviantART's page? I mean these contest pages aren't going be hosted on their servers forever. So... I'm not sure these contests are particularly notable. He also added the contest on an article I watch and I removed it. I'm going to see if it reached any 3rd party sources... Mike Allen 05:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't find any sources other than DeviantART (and some blogs) for these contests. IMO, at this point it really just looks like Wikipedia is trying to help DeviantART promote the film. Mike Allen 05:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Horkana, I am frustrated you make yourself difficult to communicate with and repost my comment in a different location without notifying me. I just made the edit again with the intention of starting a conversation afterwards but apparently I already started this conversation without my knowledge >_< . On another article where I made a similar edit removing what I felt was spam, an editor reverted my edit not understanding I had been serious that the guy is a dA employee, so I thought that was the case here. Anyway, as MikeAllen said I don't think this contest is notable, and I feel we shouldn't support a user's attempts to further his marketing career through Wikipedia. Some guy (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason you gave for deleting this was not good. I do not think it is particularly relevant that the edit was made by someone who claims to work for Deviant Art. Notability is a better reason, and I'm wiling to accept that since we have a third opinion. There are many editors making deletions and explaining them very poorly, failing to make any effort at cleanup, failing to ask for citations, failing to search the web for source, just deleting and asserting they are correct. I have no problem reverting a delete and trying to improve a section or insisting editors make a little bit more effort to show something is not good enough to keep or improve. It is a lot harder to try to improve an article than it is to delete something. The competition seemed like it might have been potentially notable bit of promotion for the film, as it is an art contest judged by the creator of the comic book himself.

As for your frustration my talk page includes a notice recommending editors keep discussions about articles on the Talk page for the relevant articles. Keeping discussions about an article on the article Talk page is far better than having them on some unrelated editors page, especially if you want a third opinion. My page also includes a warning that I may not respond but I did respond to tell you to take the discussion here, it is unreasonably to expect any more notification than that. You edited this article, you added a comment to my talk page, it is up to you to add pages to your watchlist if you want to be 'notified' and see responses to your edits. -- Horkana (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You should know that you can't expect editors to be constantly checking the full revision history for each article in their watchlist or to be checking the article talk page; it is much more reliable to contact someone on their usertalk. I missed the notice at the top of your talk page, but I think it's silly to refuse to follow an established standard of communication. Also, you didn't respond to the fact that you reposted my comment without notifying me or asking my permission.

We can't be allowing people to post marketing information as part of their marketing jobs, even if it is valid information. If he thinks he is making valid contributions to the article and not just trying to get paid, he should be using the edit request as outlined in the WP:COI article. Anyway, I still stand by the content also being fairly non-notable. Some guy (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM film nationality.

[1] States this is an American Film. I call that even the most reliable sources can be unreliable from time to time. According to WP:MOSFILM, the nationality of the film is difined by its studios nationality, wich is just common sense. But Big Talk is NOT American! This film is British directed, filmed in Canada, and the production company is British. Calling it just an American film based on sources seems a bit off with this evidence outlined above. And remember, the evidence above is sourced too. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite Big Talk's involvement we don't really know how money is being spent on this one through what companies. We can only re-print what has been verified. In this case, I've only found several links stating it being an American yahoo, ABC, New York Times and Allmovie only say "United States" as the production company. For all we know, Edgar Wright might be under some sort of contract to allow Big Talk to be part of this. The article even notes that "Universal Studios contracted Edgar Wright who had just finished his last film Shaun of the Dead, to adapt the Scott Pilgrim comics." without any information about Big Talk's involvement. Being filmed in Canada is no big deal for it's production either as countless American films are shot in Canada. (see the film shot in canada category for details). Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone could E-mail the NYT or something to verify :D but I guess that would be...OR?.. this sounds a bit like the nationality debate on Alexander Graham Bell. I guess it should stay as American, as all those sources state. The only other sources I can find don't even list the nationality. Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB lists the country as "USA | UK | Canada"[2], this is chimes with the company credits, according to which US, British and Canadian production companies were involved.[3]. The nationality of the director and the filming location are irrelevant. Thus the film is a US, British and Canadian co-production. Eljayess (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not use IMDB as a source . WP:RS/IMDB. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Shouldn't Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores be at the top of the section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.184.233 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More sources

• Rappe, Elisabeth. "'Scott Pilgrim' Movie Cast Adds Brandon Routh, Brie Larson, Many Others." MTV. January 20, 2009.
• Marshall, Rick. "More 'Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World' Photos: Matthew Patel, Knives Chau & Ramona Flowers Revealed!" [[MTV]. February 12, 2009.
• Marshall, Rick. "How Two 'Scott Pilgrim' Evil Ex's Stayed True To The Comic (And What They Added)." MTV. August 13, 2010.
• Rapkin, Mickey. "Sharp Knives." GQ. August 11, 2010.
• "On set with 'Scott Pilgrim': Kim Pine and Young Neil talk Sex Bob-Omb." Hitfix. Tuesday May 25, 2010.
• "Alternate Endings for “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”: Which Would You Have Preferred?." - IndieWire
• Levy, Shawn. "O, plucky man: director Edgar Wright talks about his film of "Scott Pilgrim"" The Oregonian. Monday August 9, 2010.
• Bartyzel, Monika. "Imagining Scott Pilgrim's Gruesome Alternate Ending." Moviefone. August 25, 2010.
• Sciretta, Peter. "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Will End Differently Than The Graphic Novels." Slash Film. Friday May 22, 2009.
• Lussier, Germain. "Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Ellen Wong Interview SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD; Plus Info on THE THING Prequel, DIE HARD 5, and the Alternate Ending." Collider. August 7, 2010.
• "Scott Pilgrim Alternate Ending." Home Theater Forum
• "Michael Cera on Training to be Scott Pilgrim." Home Theater Forum.
• Basile, Sal. "Lost in Translation? What the Scott Pilgrim Movie Missed." UGO. August 26, 2010. Pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
• "Scott Pilgrim's girls chat to us!" Digital Spy.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuff to archive

http://www.scottpilgrimthemovie.co.uk/index.swf http://www.scottpilgrimthemovie.com/index.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

'T' anyone?

Shouldn't the 't' be capitalized in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Ora Stendar 15:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No. blahaccountblah (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

International revenue numbers

I'm unfamiliar with the method to work out the numbers given, but I just wanted to say that this movie was only released in December around here (France) and I can still find some theaters to see it, so I'm thinking the numbers aren't final (not that it's breaking any record here, but still). Aesma (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead genre

Kind of how it was discussed on Inception's article here, I think we should make the genre in the lead seem a bit easier to say. Predominantly. This film is a comedy more so than it is an action film or a romance film, I say we keep the categories we have at the bottom, but leave as simple "is a 2010 comedy film". Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film yet, but from the previews I've seen and the plots I've read, the story is more driven by the romance, although it is not a romantic comedy. I feel like the romance should be mentioned, but I could be way off. BOVINEBOY2008 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but I think the brief plot summary in the lead suggests the romance part already, as it reads: "The film is about Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) meeting the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). In order to win Ramona over, Scott learns that he must defeat Ramona's "seven evil exes", who are coming to kill him.". That suggests action and romance already, but maybe not comedy. I say we keep the romantic comedy and action comedy cats and place "comedy film" as the lead intro. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. BOVINEBOY2008 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. I'll change it now. If anyone argues it, it'll attract more attention this talk page at least. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a coming-of-age film comedy. This genre discription can be supported by references.[4] I'll cahnge it accordingly. Mice never shop (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. coming-of-age isn't prominent like "comedy" or "horror" or "science fiction". Feel free to include it as a category, but it does not have to be in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur on Andrzejbanas with this. Not the primary genre. More of a description. Rehevkor ✉ 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

more back story for this movie is needed

im not even sure if more back story exsits for this movie but im certain that something must be going on in there world that we dont know about. the concensus is that this movie takes place many years from now possibly 100 years from now and scott pilgrim is a young man that wanted to play a really cool game in a virtual reality world so he plugs in and then hes completely immersed into a virtual reality simulation like as dipicted in other movies like the matrix triliogy or even like tron. couldnt the actual back story exsit some where telling us the actual timeline of the future surounding this movie's setting or all we really have is just a good movie that bombed in the box office and never made a profit and 5 or 10 years from now no one will care about this movie anymore? but im hoping that its the former that people will care about this movie and that a actual back story exsits. 76.211.5.120 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any sort of back story like this would be news to me. Everything in the film was set to look like Toronto a few years ago so I don't think any of this holds up. It would need a reliable source to back it up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would *really* love a link or two to demonstrate this "consensus", as I don't know of anything in the films, books, game OR related promo material which even remotely supports it. I can't imagine what lead to the idea it's set up that way. Aawood (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

In the movie Scott Pilgrim vs the World the director put in plenty of easter eggs: For example, Gideon is the seventh evil ex, G is the seventh letter, his insignia turned sideways is 3 Sevens, when he dies Scott Pilgrim earns 7 Billion Points. He gets times 7 on everything when he pulls out his sword. There are plenty more, Please add some. Peter G Tilly (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Peter Tilly

Don't mean to put a damper on everything, but please read WP:TRIVIA before adding things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If we organized it the right way, Maybe put why the director did it, how it was thought of and other things like that it probably won't be a list of misc items any more, and thanks for the WP:trivia link, i am new to Wikipedia so i don't lnow all of these things :D

See if the easter eggs are mentioned in secondary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Interview

Here's an interview that I found:

• http://www.wastedtalents.com/scottpilgrimtranscript.html -

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt from the interview:

“ O'Malley: (joking) I think it was Edgar Wright who messed up my comic, since he's not in the room. No, the movie, it's really obscenely faithful to the comic book, I think. Moreso than I would have been. I actually had this conversation with one of our producers the other day. If I'd written my own adaptation, I would have cut half the characters out and changed the plot completely. So I'm glad someone else did it. ”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎46.115.39.192 (talk)

Genre

I think it's best to keep the genre simple on film pages. By reading the brief plot summary you can get the idea the film has fantastical elements and is about a romance between two characters. It's not immediately inherent that it's a comedy. By adding several genres to the lead, it becomes confusing. Besides, the edition I added is skipping over other cited genres. Why skip on adventure? It's included in that citation as well. We can't pick and choose and we'll find several mentions of genres if we keep searching. I think it's best to keep it simple and have as general as possible in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Plot

This contains massive spoilers. Can someone who has seen the film please clean it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.90.106 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Spoiler. Wikipedia is not censored. If you read the plot section about a film, you should assume that it's going to tell you happens in the story. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone deleted entire middle part of the Plot section. I revived plot from web.archive.com but wasn't able to point the internal/external links right. Sorry about that. .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.22.55 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Country of production

Just to clarify what we are doing to get a consensus:

USA:

• BFI [5]
• BFI Film & Television Database [6]
• Screen Daily [7]
• The Guardian [8]
• American Film Institute [9]

UK:

• BFI [10]
• American Film Institute [11]

Japan

• BFI [12]
• American Film Institute [13]

So we have two BFI sources that seem to contradict each other. Both Screen Daily and The Guaridan strictly say US, so I think we should lean towards that. I can't find much information about the film's Japanese origin outside this at all. I suggest we use the ones that support US as it's in the obvious majority and have more specific information than that one BFI link. On secondary research, it appears that AFI and BFI are using that as a source. So i'm not 100% sure what to do. I wouldn't list Japan first in the infobox though as it it's not a predominatly Japanese production. I suggest having it sourced with AFI and go by it's country list. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I see where my error was. I clicked the link in the top of the 2012 source, and found myself at this page, which looks an awful lot like the source I linked. I interpreted that the old source was an old version of the page, rather than a current one. I didn't recognize that it was a separate database, so I apologize for that.

Anyhow, I'm fine with moving Japan to the bottom of the list (if you saw my post on the Grand Budapest Hotel talk page regarding a similar issue, I always assumed it was ordered alphabetically) for your reasons stated. I'd say using the AFI source and keeping all three would be the ideal course of action. However, if you'd prefer, I could always go to WT:FILM and get more input. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe swap with AFI and go by their ordering. I think we should go with the countries by how they are sourced and not alphabetically. I don't have a specific source, but in my book on the making of the film Nikita, where they mention the film being a French-Italian co-production. They state that it was I believe 85% French funded and 15% funding from the Italian side. Generally, I believe they are listed by who was doing more of the funding. The information on who is actually doing that seems pretty scarce, so I'd say list by what is presented by AFI, Variety, etc. I think it comes in handy when doing some things, for example, see this list article here: List of French films of 1963. I listed them in order of what the source says, and it's a bit more obvious which films were Italian predominatly and which ones are predominately french just from who's involved as well. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

AFI uses alphabetical ordering as well, though (it just refers to the UK as Great Britain). Corvoe (speak to me) 19:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100815202551/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i38fc3a9296f214d3ab7258a05995da36 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i38fc3a9296f214d3ab7258a05995da36

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} 01:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

X = ==See also==

• List of films featuring fictional films

y = ==See also==

• List of films featuring fictional films
• List of British films of 2010
• List of Japanese films of 2010
• List of American films of 2010 81.156.141.182 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: violation of WP:OLINK. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Its not vandalism, its the truth.81.156.141.182 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Per Jalen SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazon.ca versus Amazon

@Somethoughtsaboutthings: Referring to your edit summary, we aren't talking about "at the end of the day". This article is about the film. In the film they talk about Ramona working for "Amazon.ca" and Scott receiving a package from "Amazon.ca". It isn't for us to second-guess the film and declare that at the end of the day she really meant the company, which is called "Amazon". We should say she works where the film says she works; otherwise, it's original research. Largoplazo (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Please cite the sections from the film where they talk about Ramona working for 'Amazon.ca', I have found zero evidence in the script or the video where someone cites, 'Amazon.ca' as where she works. It's mentioned as URL for a web site, which it of course is. It's not original research to know Amazon.ca is Amazon, it's common knowledge and I imagine the writers of the film would assume the viewers would make this connection. And to just further cement this issue, the quote from the film,

She just moved here. Got a job with Amazon. Comes into my work.

The one and only mention of where she works refers to the company she works for, not the companies regional domain. In the script, as well, Scott doesn't receive a package from "Amazon.ca', see the following

....RAMONA FLOWERS bursts through the door, skating past Scott and down the hall, PACKAGE from AMAZON clutched in her hand.......

So in this situation, I don't believe any "second-guessing" or declaring what she really meant is necessary, it's clear that the company she works for is Amazon. Love and kisses. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)

[14]

There's even a joke based on it in the dialog.

Scott Pilgrim    Wallace... Amazon.ca, what's the website for that?

Wallace Wells    [pause]...Amazon.ca

[15]

Yes, that was a joke poking fun at the Scott character not knowing what the domain was for. Part of the humor involved in this joke is that we, the audience, are well aware that Amazon.ca is the domain for Amazon (not Amazon.com, mind you, just Amazon), so it's funny to encounter someone who doesn't. The joke doesn't uh, change or even attempt to contradict the fact that it was explicitly stated by a character that Ramona Flowers works at Amazon. Yes, we see the Amazon.ca domain on packages, yes, the domain name is mentioned in the movie because it is seen on a package. This doesn't change that at no point in the film did anyone say she worked anywhere else besides just 'Amazon'.

This combined with the fact that no one actually works at or for 'Amazon.ca' since it's not a real company and the scene notes from the script make me curious why you're so insistent on being against this edit. Even in the original post, you said it's not up to us to second guess and we should say she works where the film said she works. Shouldn't the direct quote from the film saying she got a job at Amazon be enough for you? Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)

I'll concede with apologies. Perhaps "amazon.ca" bit was so strongly embedded in my head that I'd forgotten mentions of it that didn't have the .ca part. Largoplazo (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114071449/http://thefilmstage.com/2010/03/03/exclusive-kevin-smith-talks-scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world/ to http://thefilmstage.com/2010/03/03/exclusive-kevin-smith-talks-scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816120717/http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/Scott+Pilgrim+marches+beat+Plumtree+Metric/3387032/story.html to http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/Scott+Pilgrim+marches+beat+Plumtree+Metric/3387032/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

And could you also please add categories "Relativity Media films", "American romantic comedy films", "American films", "American action comedy films", "American LGBT-related films", "Japanese films", "Japanese action comedy films", "Japanese LGBT-related films", "Japanese romantic comedy films" and put in the "see also" section "List of Relativity Media films", "List of cult films", "List of British films of 2010", "List of American films of 2010" and "List of Japanese films of 2010"? 81.152.44.131 (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, although I'd appreciate it if you could look at this group of edits I just did and ensure everything's in working order.

I won't speak for anybody else but I'll tell you why I, personally, ignored this. The request here includes two full versions of this article's extremely tall infobox, making a side-by-side comparison practically impossible. I repeatedly skimmed it and didn't notice any changes. I ended up copying both versions, pasting them at diffchecker.com, and analyzing the differences. Most editors responding to this request would have just declined it.

You seemed a bit put off that you put a pretty good amount of work into this request and it didn't seem like anybody was noticing. Would you consider signing up for an account? If you have reasons not to, that's fine, but it really is the easiest way to edit pages that are locked like this. CityOfSilver 18:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

X= {{Portal|Toronto|Film|Video games|2010s}}

Y= {{Portal|Canada|United States|United Kingdom|Japan|Toronto|Film|Video games|2010s}}

And can we also add the category "British action comedy films" ? Also can we add in the "Reception" section "The film benefited from highly positive reviews" ? And in the top can we put "It is a British-American-Japanese venture" ? 86.157.161.205 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DonIago (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

Please undo the 4 revisions by 'TheOldJacobite'. 86.136.135.188 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a rationale for why those revisions should be reverted. DonIago (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Because Lumiere said that "some of our films countries are incorrect and need to be updated". Plus if you have 2 websites (the BFI & AFI) against 1 (Lumiere) then the majority win. 81.156.163.75 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is Ellen Wong missing in the starring list?

Could we include Ellen Wong as part of the "starring" list on the right. I know she's not as famous as Anna Kendrick and the others, but she had a much much bigger role in the story, and I wish the "starring" section wasn't only white actors... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.141.157.189 (talk)

Good question! Before offering an opinion not based on existing guidelines, I searched and found that this guidelines from Template:Infobox film/doc applies: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list." I haven't yet found any copies of the movie poster online large enough for me to read the white-on-white cast listing. If she isn't listed, I'd be up for a discussion to add by consensus. Largoplazo (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've found several posters now with legible billing blocks, and, unfortunately, Wong isn't included. Largoplazo (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Film nationality (again)

Regarding changes to the countries listed in the infobox. The film has one production company, which is British, so the film is British by WP's standards. I don't know what the BFI's standards are for determining a film's nationality, but by our standards, the film is British. ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: Where is this standard? I looked at MOS:FILM and couldn't find it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A recent discussion at the FilmProject, subsequent to this post, showed me that my statement above is incorrect. That's why you can't find it. I picked that up over the years while editing, and took it as gospel. In the case of this film, we have three sources that contradict one another, which is why I added a note to the article stating that there is a seeming contradiction. This is why the article lists only the UK and the US. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The production countries.

I believe it is a UK-USA-JPN co-production. And here is why. Both the BFI (http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b8d48928d) and AFI (https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/66586?sid=af193de6-880a-40ab-95b7-645a1d502164&sr=5.1012025&cp=1&pos=0) say it is. However Lumiere (http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/film_info/?id=34929) says otherwise. But they also said that some of "the films" havnt got all of the countries they are from (http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/sources/astuces.html). So the BFI and AFI win over Lumiere. 86.139.174.52 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What you believe is irrelevant, especially considering your track record for POV-pushing and disruption. Per the FilmProject's suggestion, I added a note to the article stating that the different sources disagree and that we are going with UK/USA because those are the only countries all the sources agree on. Please stop disrupting the article and hijacking the talk page to push your preferred version. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Im not "hijacking" anything. And for you to think I am "that guy" is ignorant when I am "NOT" that guy. And out of all honesty I myself would trust the AFI & BFI anyday over Lumiere. So suck on that. 86.132.173.166 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You are clearly the same abusive, POV-pushing anonymous editor who has been disrupting this article for months. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually Lumiere has changed its info look http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/film_info/?id=34929 plus the Sewdish film database agrees aswell http://www.svenskfilmdatabas.se/en/item/?type=film&itemid=71420 so can you please change the info now? 88.98.30.181 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But this is balanced out with several other sources saying different things as well. Screen Daily refers to it US, even more confusing is the site Cine-Resources declares it US, UK, Canada. The only one that remains consistent through-out is US. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

How many more sources don't say that it is "Japanese"? 88.98.30.181 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You are not going to hijack this article or talk page again in order to push your POV. You have been warned and blocked multiple times for this same behavior. When are you going to learn? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you guys going to learn that you cant just judge this on what other people have written? You have to judge it on who produced it. Are you ever going to learn that? And if anyone else wants to agree or disagree with me then that's alright. 88.98.30.181 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll give this user the benefit of the doubt, but including the sources found above, I've a Globe & Mail and Guaridan sources simply referring to the film as American. Normally, I'd stick with the production companies, but well, whats the Japanese company involved here? Hollywood Reporter states the production companies as "A Marc Platt/Big Talk Films/Closed on Mondays production". I'm generally unfamiliar with any of these, so what's what? How do we know for sure? Surely its not obvious as our sources above have apparently changed or disagree with each other completely. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Then i will give all of these sources a piece of my mind. 88.98.30.181 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Uhh, not sure what pestering the publications to update eight year old articles based on your original research plans to accomplish but be my guest. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Digging up an old chestnut, the older BFI Film & Television Database declared it simply an American production as well here. I really miss this site because it used to give details about the nationality of production companies as well, like Mark Platt Productions which appears to be American. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello there TheOldJacobite, I would like to speak to you so I thought that I could just be the bigger man and drop you a note.With this "issue" with Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs the World and The Kid who wopuld be King lets clear it up. They are produced by Universal Pictures or 20th Century Fox. Did you know that Universal & 20th Century have a number of branches? A branch is like when village Roadshow has a branch in Australia or Studiocanal has a branch in the UK. Well I have an IMDB account & it says next to them what countries that they are from. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were produced by Universal Pictures UK and The Kid who would be King is being distributed by 20th Century Fox, not being produced by it. Now with that out of the way I would like to get onto Scott Pilgrim vs the World. These "sites that are missing "Japan" (and some are missing UK) are either...

1.) Reviewers who get their info from what we right on wikipedia.

2.) Databases that are 8 YEARS out of date.

What are we going to do now? I have sent all of these websites emails & I am STILL finding ones that are out of date. The ones that do mention "Japan" (like the BFI and AFI) are up to date. Please read this all before you reply. There are so many websites that I wouldn't rely on because they are out of date. One of these told me in an email that they have not updated their site in 5 years. That's like using dried up glue to make an Airfix model. Bye 88.98.30.181 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You keep talking about websites being up to date. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Whatever the production countries were was determined by the film having been produced in them, and they have never, ever changed and will never, ever change. So the question of websites having this information up to date is a non sequitur. The information about the production countries on a given website may be correct or incorrect, but the question of being up to date is inapplicable. Largoplazo (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean?88.98.30.181 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of EVERY film company that produced the film.

   Universal Pictures (USA)
   Marc Platt Productions (USA)
   Big Talk Productions (UK)
   Closed on Mondays Entertainment (USA)
   Dentsu (Japan)
   Relativity Media (USA)
   Scott Pilgrim Productions (USA)

And they even have their respected country next to them. So however known by websites these companies put up some of the money for the film weather you like it or not.88.98.30.181 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean what I wrote. If you want a more specific answer, you're going to have to ask a more specific question. Otherwise, how do I know what part of the fairly simple "You keep talking about X but X is irrelevant", with a fully spelled-out explanation of why it's irrelevant, needs even more explaining? Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What needs explaining "pal" is why we cant put Japan back on the main page when its PRODUCED BY A FILM COMPANY FROM THERE CALLED DENTSU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!88.98.30.181 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you were only pretending to be responding to me while not actually responding to me. I wish you well with that approach. Largoplazo (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Largoplazo, you are clearly well-intended, but you really are wasting your time. What we have here is an anonymous editor who has been blocked numerous times for POV-pushing and block-evasion because he just can't seem to stop himself from trying to impose his will on numerous film articles. No amount of reasoning has had any impact. Nor have his numerous blocks. He's probably evading a block right now. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A tricky situation is, not every company involved generally make it part of a production. There are exceptions. For example, Iron Man 3 had funding from China, a Chinese production company was involved, but per some regulations listed there by the Hollywood Reporter, it did not appear to be an official Chinese co-production. Could it be the same thing for this? I don't know, and I know its not proof, but it shows that its more complicated than just finding the production companies and applying our own choice here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessarily that "X" studio has put up money for a project but that "X" and various "X" 's have come on board to the project and put its machinery behind such as a studio marketing it yet was not involved in the actual creating of the project until their "executives" okied taking it under wing. So to say one secondary source is any better than another is pure guesswork as to how far along that secondary work information is current with the progress of the production. And if a studio takes it under wing they very well may "suppress" how many participants may be involved for business purposes so that when it comes to taking a film off-shore (if it is a US production) other nations are not pissed off at who is involved.2605:E000:9143:7000:C4F4:8A9:74:80B4 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but its still all of us guessing here as sources all over the place and none go into more detail on why there's are more correct per listing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly about guess game. The only way that if there is going to be a true reflection of who is and who is not involved is that basically the story is who is and who is not involved based on what source is used. The film serves as a start then move on to the poster then on to who is marketing it, etc all down the line. of course that does not serve who want to be definitively selective.2605:E000:9143:7000:C4F4:8A9:74:80B4 (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Dentsu and they are going to claim rights to this film. This whole thing started because I am the only one who cares what the countries say. I will do you a deal, you put back Japan back on the page and I will destroy that email. How does that sound? 86.177.80.181 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence.

I think this will clear everthing up. http://variety.com/2010/digital/news/social-media-gains-virility-1118025114/ 86.177.80.181 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What everything is that? Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The disbute of if the film is "Japanese" or not when it is. 86.177.80.181 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The word Japan isn't even mentioned in this article. It's an article about the importance of social media and how Scott Pilgrim, despite its good word of mouth on social media, bob-bombed at the box office. Crboyer (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is that the film is co-produced with a Japanese company called "Dentsu". 86.177.80.181 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You are seriously going to have to go back and read the Variety article again. It makes absolutely no connection between the movie and that company. Also, first you wrote "distribute", then you changed it to "co-produced". Neither the film's production companies nor its distributors is mentioned. And distributors are irrelevant anyway. An Italian wine distributed in the United States by an American company isn't an American wine. Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The variety article needs to be updated because it says that "Lumiere has it down as a UK-US-Canadian" when they do in fact have it down as a "UK-US-Japan-Canada".

See for yourself. http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/film_info/?id=34929 So the countries that the BFI, AFI and Lumiere all agree with are the UK, US and Japan while Canada is questionable. 86.177.80.181 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That article doe suggest Dentsu was involved with the film in some way but not the capacity or anything. I don't know why we believe databases that do not explain how information is gathered or applied are being held to the uphold 'absolute' in correctness. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The article "suggests" that only in the sense that any article that mentions X in some paragraph and Y in another paragraph can be understood to have "suggested" a connection between X and Y. In this case, it quotes somebody from a digital media agency named Dentsu. It doesn't even say that he was talking about Pilgrim, rather than about the subject of social media's impact on apparent film popularity. Pilgrim happens to be the last thing the article talked about before quoting him. Finding that the article suggests a relationship between his company and the film, let alone that that company (which isn't a film production company) produced the film, is like finding that the article suggests that David Berkowitz is married to Nada Stirratt because they are a man and a woman mentioned within three paragraphs in the same article. In case it wasn't clear, the article opens its commentary on that particular film with "Universal Pictures’ “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”, not "Dentsu’s “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”". Largoplazo (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to some other films

Look at Shaun of the Dead , Hot Fuzz, The Kid Who Would Be King and Silence (2016). The first 3 have USA down in their country section and Silence has UK, Japan and Italy because thats what the sources say but they dont have any of those country companies involved. So I think either of these 2 things should happen. 1.) We put back Japan on SPVTW or we use this WP:WHEIGHT thing for the other 4 films. 88.98.30.181 (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

They should be brought up there as well. I've brought up this issue with Alien vs. Predator recently as well. I wish more information existed to confirm the smaller details of production companies, I know its out there, but its not always available. Take a look at this site for a new canadian-french horror film. You'd think its mostly a France production based on the companies and crew, but its a predominantly Canadian production (this site even gives nice details saying its "Coproducer countries : Canada (69.12%), France (30.88%)". Wish more things like that existed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Settling the matter of origin

It would seem more appropriate to add both Canada and Japan to the infobox with the addendum: (disputed) This would simplify matters, I think. R0tekatze (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that would be adding an opinion, which would be a terrible idea. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Scott Pilgrim vs. The World signed Blu Ray! (5168132961).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)