Talk:Malignant (2021 film)

Merger proposal

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.

---

I propose to merge Malignant Man into Malignant (2020 film). The graphic novel article consists of a single sentence about the novel, and the rest of the article is about the film. Every source in the graphic novel article is for the film. The only information about the novel that would be added to the film article is that it was published in 2011. Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. They’re different formats. One is a graphic novel and the other is a film. Simple as that. In fact, I don’t even know why the article contains ‘based on Malignant Man’ as there are zero sources to confirm this. Plot details are being kept confidential so I’m not sure how “Based on Malignant Man” managed to make it into this article in the first place. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kaito Nakamura, this source states that the movie is based on the graphic novel; also this one and this one. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, either way, they’re two different formats, and when the film releases, the plots would differ. So we can’t have a merge of these articles. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Kaito Nakamura, thanks for your comments, I'll withdraw the proposal. Schazjmd (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2019 (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.

Change name from Malignant (upcoming film) to Malignant (unreleased film)

As of now, there are currently no plans for a new release date from Warner Bros. for the foreseeable future, so its best we change the title from upcoming to unreleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.238.1 (talk • contribs) 15:18, July 2, 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your post after leaving a message on the talk page. The film is “upcoming”, not unreleased. There are no sources that point to the film being cancelled/unreleased. Warner. Bros have not stated a release date, however, the film is scheduled to release sometime in the future without cancellation. KaitoNkmra23 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur that "upcoming" is fine. "Unreleased" is more appropriate for a film that was produced but never got released (which is pretty rare). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Upcoming" is the more appropriate choice, unless there is news that this project has been abandoned. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

While I agree, we need to consider the case where this film is never heard of again. There are cases where the last thing we hear about a film is that it is pulled from schedule and then no reputable source talks of it again. At what point then would it be best to change our language about this film? BOVINEBOY2008 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't, because we know there's a very clear reason this was pulled from the schedule: COVID-19. Until RS state there's anything else involved in the decision, this is a total red herring and non-issue. Or to be super-specific, it can be revisited once COVID-19 is over, aka at least a year from now, barring some kind of shocking development. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree. I was just posing a hypothetical. 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

way too early for move to "(2021 film)"

Given the film still has no specific release date and the impact of COVID-19 on cinema in general, it was way premature to move the article title to "(2021 film)", Bovineboy2008. "(upcoming film)" was fine. I suggest reverting the move. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Per this article, it is part of the WB/HBO 2021 release schedule. I think it is safe for us to use the year since a reliable, independent source uses the date. BOVINEBOY2008 10:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Mixed

In the into the reference to Looper.com says "currently getting mixed reviews from critics". [1] Metacritic says reviews were mixed.[2] The score stands at 50% based on 22 reviews. The 22 reviews break down as 6 positive, 11 mixed and 5 negative, mostly in the middle. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 76%. Some critics had different opinions, they usually do.

None of those say "polarized" it should not have been added to the intro as it is not sourced and it is not an accurate summary. Please do not add it to the intro. -- 109.79.168.88 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "positive but polarized" is applicable either[3] but that change was soon reverted. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Some editors have a weird love for the word "polarized" even if the sources do not support any such claims. Based on the sources available it was reasonable to say that reviews were mixed, which is why that was the wording being used. Some other editors want to have it both ways and try to say the reviews are "mixed to positive".[4] There have been many past discussion and there is a clear consensus against this sort of wording: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_/_Mixed_to_negative

If editors want to argue that "mixed" is not the best summary of reviews, and maybe they want to argue that based on the score from Rotten Tomatoes that it would be more accurate to say the reviews were "generally positive" then go ahead and make that argument. As more and more reviews come in it might be appropriate give more weight to Rotten Tomatoes score over the Metacritic score. But please don't try and claim that the reviews are both mixed and also positive at the same time. Please pick one or the other and show sources to support your point. -- 109.79.166.207 (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)