Talk:This Is the End

Is there a rule that movie articles shouldn't have plot until release?

Genuine question, I've never heard that but someone has been writing plot and it keeps getting reverted.--Krystaleen 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there's no rule, see Finding Dory or Monsters University. The only rule (if any) is that it must be verified by references, if possible third-party sources. Of course once the film is released WP:FILMPLOT applies, but not before. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar concern with Star Trek Into Darkness. That film had quite a few screenings before it was "officially" released, so there was a big debate on the talk page about when it is appropriate to have a full plot summary. My impression is that we want the film to be sufficiently available for moviegoing editors to be able to verify the contents of the summary. I'm not quite sure how easy it is to attend a screening at will, so I think we prefer a public (even if limited) release to permit a full summary. Usually before then, it is a synopsis (defined as a very brief plot summary). Erik (talk | contribs) 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see. So we need a source for the plot since it hasn't been released. Make sense, thank you.--Krystaleen 09:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How do we know the big demon is Satan?

I personally thought the one that raped Jonah Hill was Satan. When my girlfriend and I watched the movie yesterday, and every time new demon appeared, she would say it was Satan. Is their a reason why you concluded that the final demon was Satan? Also, I think it is notable to say that the beam killed the giant demon. TBWarrior720 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right: we don't know the demon's name. But I don't think it matters that the demon was killed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe Jay was referring to the "the dragon" (i.e. Satan) from the book of Revelations in his description of the demon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's speculative, and unnecessary. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I missed this too when watching the film, but apparently we know that the final demon is Satan is because he matches the picture in Baruchel's Bible. Ylee (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First names?

Even though it's Wikipedia policy to refer to actors by their last names, I wonder if an exception should be made in the context of the plot summary for this article, where the actors are playing characters in a movie. That is, the actors are Rogen and Baruchel, but the characters are Seth and Jay. Et cetera. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summaries aren't exempt from WP:SURNAME. Yes, there are plot summaries that don't follow this, but they are supposed to. Ylee (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it sounds more professional and consistent with last names. I like that Wiki has these standards. That the actors are playing themselves has no bearing on how they are referred to in an article. Jed 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgould (talk • contribs)

Citing

The section on sequel has a single sentence, backed up by a grand total of ten citations. Ten! Agreed, this isn't the worst case of such a point (54 citations for one statement holds that record, as far as I know), but I very much doubt all of those citations are needed. Per WP:OVERCITE, "more than three [citations] should be avoided as clutter." As I'm personally unsure of the verifiability of each individual source, I have commented out all but the first three for now. It would be very much appreciated if someone could provide a more permanent decision as to which citations can be cut. Thanks in advance!  drewmunn  talk  11:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot section is a spoiler.

The Plot section of this article is just a blatant spoiler. It should be a short description of the overall movie and not an abbreviated description of each scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.214.118 (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Plot sections *are* spoilers, that's the function of a plot. Per WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER the section is correct. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Had to add a few words

I'm aware of the request to not lengthen the plot summary, but a first reference to Emma Watson had to be added other wise "Watson returns" makes no sense. I don't believe I pushed it over the 700 word limit. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias

It reads like it was well received, but I just watched it, and this is a seriously bad film, and I am sure the critics would not have thought otherwise. Self indulgent trash. I paid per view after reading the Wiki entry. Will anyone reimburse me? My Sky+ box (like Tivo) is stopping the recording as I have two other scheduled recordings. Saved. Thanks technology. But this should not read like an advert. Awernham (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to point out the irony of your statement: you, one single person, are complaining that the film is not good and the article is therefore bias. The article, which cites multiple impartial sources, notes that the film was well-recieved by many people. Altering the article on the opinion of a single person (you), therefore omitting the content of reliable, impartial sources, would be the dictionary definition of bias. The film was generally well recieved. That's a fact. You didn't like it. That's also a fact. Nowhere in the article does it say they every person on Earth loved the film. Statistics are included that prove that a majority did like it, but not everybody. You are included in that "not everybody". The article doesn't promote unduly any view of the film, but reliably notes that it was, in general, well-recieved. Altering it to reflect your view (the view of a minority) would be giving undue weight to detractors of the film, therefore introducing the very bias you currently claim to be (but is not) present.  drewmunn  talk  08:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

HEAVEN IS WHERE YOU GET WHATEVER YOU WANT? See Twilight Zone 1.28 "A Nice Place To Visit" (1961) for a less simplistic take on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgould (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit the page

Some genius decided to destroy the page by changing jobs such as writers & directors including others, i tried to fix it up but needs more work, can someone do it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHFC1865 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Page is briefly semi-protected to prevent the current edit war over genre. This is not an endorsement of any particular outcome, but the onus is on those proposing a change to present their reliable sources for it. This talkpage is an ideal place for that presentation to occur. -- Euryalus (talk) Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/177.10.48.77|177.10.48.77]] (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting an edit request but you need to also include what edit you'd like to make to the article. Also important to make sure any reliable sources are also mentioned in the request so it can be verified. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Rogen himself said that he considers the film more of a Action-Comedy than a Horror-Comedy 2600:1006:B043:C2B9:B5F5:F3B8:3A82:15BE (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source? See above. General Ization ^Talk 22:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Real World promo

It says that the main cast of the film were in it, but Robinson and Hill were absent, should we add that? 2600:1006:B043:C2B9:B5F5:F3B8:3A82:15BE (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)