Talk:The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

Poster

So, is that poster legitimate? Its source isn't stated and on all of the news sites that announced the film, it wasn't included. It looks pretty real, but I'm not sure... SergeantLuke (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source: http://jphomeentertainment.deviantart.com/art/SpongeBob-Squarepants-The-Movie-2-Teaser-Poster-292583817. It looks like it is fan-made by jphomeentertainment for a cine1.com.ar web page.--Carniolus (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Computer animation

After Paramount showed footage from the film yesterday at CinemaCon websites are reporting that in the live action scenes the characters are computer animated. Should we add this in the article? Koala15 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a Nerdist interview with Mike Mitchell. Maybe you can use this interview to provide some update to this page, even about the movie's animation style. http://www.nerdist.com/pepisode/chewin-it-61-mike-mitchell/

Foreign titles

In this edit I removed content about what the film was titled in Russia and Italy. This sort of thing is a cruft magnet. There are hundreds of nations on Earth, and thousands of languages. When editors see their nation/language not represented, they start tacking onto the end of the list. This sort of content should be added only if there is a noteworthy reason to mention a nation's version of the title, for example if the title, if directly translated was offensive and had to be changed, etc., in which case we would provide sufficient context rather than a random list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The titles were different from the original, since instead of Una esponja fuera del agua it was Un héroe fuera del agua, which means it should be implemented. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Different doesn't necessitate or warrant inclusion. Without context that explains why the change is significant, it's just random data. If the change is significant, surely there would be a reliable source that can explain the significance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Box office prediction

In this edit I removed content about the predictions for the North American opening weekend. This content seems to only have value in the hours leading up to the release. Once the film opens, speculation is irrelevant as data comes in. Since we are not a breaking news source, it makes more sense to start filling out the box office section once the data begins to come in. (Frankly I'd wait until the end of the weekend, but I know how eager some of you can get.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Working titles

The article makes the following flimsy statement in the development section: "The film's title had been changed a few times, going over working titles such as The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie 2, and SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2". Firstly, there is virtually no difference between these titles. The only difference is that a Wikipedia editor made a typo with "Squarepants" (see source) and we're missing "The". Does that indicate two unique working titles? No. Just because two different sources report slight variations does not mean that each variation is correct and worthy of inclusion. This source refers to the film as Spongebob Squarepants 2 (Note the lower-case "bob" and "pants")—are we to infer that Paramount was seriously entertaining a mis-capitalized version of the famous character's name? No we are not. Does this mean Spongebob Squarepants 2 was an official working title? No it does not, because it could just as easily reflect a trade publication editor's choice to truncate the title to save page space. Different does not always mean change. What makes sense to me is this: Let historians decide what the actual "working titles" were. It's lunacy to suppose that there was a pitch session where someone sent out a calendar appointment and the writers and execs got together and debated the inclusion of the word "The" in the working title, with one person feeling victorious and a few others upset that they didn't get their way. It is reasonable, however, to simply say "The movie was first announced as The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2 on (MM/DD/YY)" and leave it at that, which is what I intend to do. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a clause: "...which some trade publications began referring to as SpongeBob SquarePants 2" simply to acknowledge the fact that publications have referred to the film this way, but I think it's a silly thing to include since trades often condense and use cutesy shorthand for their convenience without it suggesting that the film title, working or final, had been officially changed. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph in plot summary

Hi, I keep seeing this ending paragraph pop in and out of the article. Nobody ever explains why it's being added, nobody explains why it's being removed. Briefly, "Burger-Beard is stuck in the sand. Seagulls arrive. They sing the Spongebob theme. There is a rap battle." I'd like to figure out if it's actually part of the film, or just closing footage that we see after the movie's over. It sounds like the latter to me, but I haven't seen the movie. If it's not part of the main story, then we should probably cut it. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it happens before the end credits, and I personally would consider it as part of the filmTimothyJacobson (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

TimothyJacobson But it's not part of the plot, right? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In a way, it was. In a way, it wasn't. It definitely didn't come out of nowhere. There were precursors to it throughout the film. But I agree the film could have finished without it.TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My point being, if it neither advances the plot, nor ties it all together, I don't see the purpose of including it in the article's plot summary, where others keep adding it. I'm trying to establish whether it's worth including or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, that para reads: "Meanwhile, Burger-Beard, who had been left on Bikini Atoll (the island above Bikini Bottom on the surface) by Plankton, is stuck in the sand with his head popping out. The seagulls arrive and Burger-Beard lets them sing the Spongebob theme song. As they are about to finish, Bubbles appears. He then argues with a seagull about how he doesn't like the song and the two engage in a rap battle. When the rap battle is finished, the seagulls continue to sing the song, ending the movie."

I would propose cutting it down to: "Meanwhile, Burger-Beard, still stuck in the sand at Bikini Atoll, re-encounters the seagulls. The gulls sing the Spongebob theme song, but are interrupted by Bubbles. They argue and this escalates into a rap battle."

This would explain how the film ends with regard to Burger-Beard, the gulls, and Bubbles. (It also ties in to the series' regular ending, plus it references the rap battles of the voice actors). I am aware I am not explaining myself very well, but this would keep the salient points intact, but trims down the waffle, taking the para from 86 words down to 34.

It may also be worth mentioning the post-credit scene, if only to spell out that the above takes place before the credits. Thoughts? TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Spóinse as Uisce: Irish-language version

The movie is being released in Ireland in both English and Irish versions on March 27th. Dialogue has been dubbed by TG4, and it's the first time a Hollywood blockbuster has been given such treatment for Irish cinemas.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Culloty82 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Culloty82 (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Zappa connection?

Is there a connection or inspiration from Zappa? A Frank Zappa song, Excentrifugal Forz, is set in an underwater world with characters surnamed "Plankton" and "Tenticle". Coincidence, or inspiration?

Cast

I wasn't arguing about anything, I was just making the cast list a little better. FrozenFan2 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Final scenes, post-credits, blah blah

In this edit I removed content about the final scenes and post-credit content. I don't see how any of it is relevant to the actual story line, and our plot summaries are not intended to be substitutes for actually seeing the movie. In-depth plot content can be deemed derivative works, which would be a copyright violation. I think it best to stick to the plot highlights and omit seagull raps and post-credit whatevers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Does it really even matter? No offense, but you shouldn't have any reason to dismiss any information from a film even if it's the last scene before the credits or especially if it's a mid-credit to post-credit scene. It's like saying you removed the post-credit scenes of The Avengers or better yet its sequel, saying "they aren't needed here".--73.166.187.154 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It does matter. We're not here to replace the movie-going experience, we're here to provide an academic summary of the film's plot. If we know what the story was, then the mission has been accomplished. But a rap battle? That has no bearing on our understanding of the story. Most importantly, excessive detail can be considered a derivative work, which can present significant copyright violation issues for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly it doesn't matter because in my view YOU do NOT remove anything that isn't considered a post-credit scene or "claim" they have no importance to the movie --73.166.187.154 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Enjoy your opinions. They are not consistent with community standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Post credit scenes and such are generally not consistent with the brief basic description of the plot called for by WP:FILMPLOT, WP:PLOTSUM and WP:NOTPLOT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed post-credits and non-plot content in this edit. Though I can understand why inexperienced editors keep adding it, it is not related to the story, and it only makes the plot section, which is already too long at 733 words, longer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Starring parameter

Antonio Banderas appears to be the only actor listed in the poster's billing block. [1][2] Per Template:Infobox film, that would suggest his is the only name that should be in the |starring= parameter. Thoughts? How did we decide that Tom Kenny, Clancy Brown, Rodger Bumpass, Bill Fagerbakke, Carolyn Lawrence, Mr. Lawrence, and Matt Berry should be included as "stars"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Animated or Hybrid movie?

In my opinion, both spongebob movies are traditional animated movies with some live-action scenes but some other people say both or just Sponge out of water is an animation/live-action hybrid movie(s). Unlike hybrid movies, only minority of both movies are live-action. If spongebob movies are hybrid movies then The Lego Movie is definitely a hybrid movie too.

I had some discussion with 82.38.157.176 at Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films#Spongebob_movies but it's going nowhere. Paleocemoski 18:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are editors' opinions being factored in here? What do reliable sources call it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, so you want reliable source(s) for my statement? Paleocemoski 22:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Paleocemoski Yes, this seems like the kind of thing that references to reliable mainstream sources could resolve, rather than having to rely on our personal interpretations, which are rarely helpful here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Unfortunately, this is something that can't be solved by mainstream sources because they are usually not very specific. Best I can do is give a reliable reference(s) to definition of animation/live-action hybrid movie. Paleocemoski 15:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Paleocemoski These mainstream sources call Sponge Out of Water a hybrid: [3][4][5][6] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb You are right, these sources say that it's a hybrid movie. But I just want you read the third paragraph from [7] that begins with The result is a movie.... That part of the article contributes to my point. It's animated movie with some hybrid scenes. Paleocemoski 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a very selective interpretation, but even still, what's the threshold? What's the ratio of live-action to animation that would qualify? Moot point, because it's too difficult to quantify and we're not here to editorialize or to fabricate terminologies. It's always problematic when we as editors have an opinion about something and our reference base isn't in agreement with us. The best we can do is say what the references say and write an angry blog post to blow off some steam. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb So, you want me to give up? Paleocemoski 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible disruptive editing?

This anonymous user constantly changes the order of the cast and adds voice actors to the Infobox. [8] There is no edit summary given. One was a personal attack. [9] LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 18:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration: text in this section removed by me; I've left it here in case the removal breaks any references.

Prior to October 9, residents were given yellow flyers handed out by the production crew to detail the inconveniences of the filming would have on them.

References

Baffle☿gab 04:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

October 31 RFDs

"Spongebob 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spongebob 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Spongebob 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"SpongeBob SquarePants II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect SpongeBob SquarePants II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#SpongeBob SquarePants II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"SpongeBob Squarepants 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect SpongeBob Squarepants 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#SpongeBob Squarepants 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Spongebob Squarepants 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spongebob Squarepants 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Spongebob Squarepants 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Spongebob squarepants 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spongebob squarepants 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Spongebob squarepants 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"The SpongeBob SquarePants 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The SpongeBob SquarePants 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#The SpongeBob SquarePants 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Spongebob SquarePants 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spongebob SquarePants 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Spongebob SquarePants 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"SpongeBob SquarePants 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect SpongeBob SquarePants 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#SpongeBob SquarePants 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Rodent (Spongebob)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Rodent (Spongebob) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#The Rodent (Spongebob) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Rodent (SpongeBob)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Rodent (SpongeBob) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#The Rodent (SpongeBob) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Sir Pinch-a-Lot" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sir Pinch-a-Lot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Sir Pinch-a-Lot until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Sour Note" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sour Note and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Sour Note until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Mr. Superawesomeness" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mr. Superawesomeness and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Mr. Superawesomeness until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Invincibubble" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Invincibubble and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#The Invincibubble until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)