Talk:Chappie (film)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

The year of 2078 when robot rule the world and human force to live in hole there is one robot who will set thing right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.68.21 (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

How about a synopsis from IMDB:

Every child comes into the world full of promise, and none more so than Chappie: he is gifted, special, a prodigy. Like any child, Chappie will come under the influence of his surroundings - some good, some bad - and he will rely on his heart and soul to find his way in the world and become his own man. But there's one thing that makes Chappie different from anyone else: he is a robot. The first robot with the ability to think and feel for himself. His life, his story, will change the way the world looks at robots and humans forever.

Lganzman (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - we can't use copyright material - as it says at the bottom of the IMDb page "Copyright © 1990-2014 IMDb.com, Inc." - Arjayay (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think inclusion of this particular quote would be considered "fair use"; it's actually promotional copy from the film's official website, and the rationale for its use would be similar to that for the movie poster or its tagline (and the same rationale IMDB would be using for putting it on its site).

Whether or not the quote would improve the article, is another matter, and probably more to the point of this request. I think if the synopsis has particular relevance in relationship to how movie reviewers are reacting to the film (considering the description might color any expectations they have upon viewing it), it might improve the article; I think at least one review already mentioned in the article actually quoted the blurb itself. B7T (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

Production section should include that re-shoots for the film took place in British Columbia, Canada April 5-11, 2014 Source - Union Of BC Performers film list from that week - http://www.ubcp.com/wp-content/uploads/Apr-4-2014.pdf Canadagraphs (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reception

We must verify from secondary sources what critics thought of Chappie. A term like "mixed to negative" is not used in the sources. If we Google chappie "reviews" "critics", we can find sources that report what critics think of the film and use them as references in the article body. This from Los Angeles Times is one such example. Popcornduff, would you agree? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My main beef is that "mixed to negative" is a contradiction in terms. If it got a mixture of negative and mixed reviews, then by definition it got mixed reviews. Of course we must always report what the sources are saying and nothing else. Popcornduff (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, it is a vague term. "Mixed" is a tricky word because it can be directly synonymous with "lukewarm" or just mean that there are both positive and negative reviews. Metacritic shows more mixed reviews than negative or positive reviews, but not more than negative and positive combined. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There's been a huge debate about how we report critical reaction at the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) article. Feels maybe like we should find a consensus we can apply it across the board, as this keeps coming up. Popcornduff (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, there's a citation for "mixed-to-negative" in this article from the Los Angeles Times. I don't really know what to make of that except that the LA Times has sunk to new depths of laziness. I'm sorely tempted to click on the "contact the reporter" link and berate him for using that phrase. Well, there's some degree of hope left in the world, though: this article from Euronews describes the reception as "mixed". There's also this article from The Wrap, which is basically a rehash of Rotten Tomatoes. I dunno. Make of those what you will. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

-- Per usual Wikipedia is laughable - the film is 29% on Rottentomatoes...it's got negative reviews...highlighting one positive review from some obscure website (denofgeek?!?) is absurd...and EVERYTHING has mixed reviews...a 100% consensus almost never happens... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitrightthefirsttime (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got a point. I can add a few reviews from prominent sites. Is Den of Geek even a reliable source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another from the Los Angeles Tmes: 'Chappie': Artificial intelligence tale lacks brainpower, reviews say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Erik, Popcornduff: what do you guys think of this source from the Los Angeles Times? Penelope37 has repeatedly removed it, and I'm getting tired of restoring it. Do we have any consensus one way or the other about it? Personally, I think the opinions of the Los Angeles Times, one of the biggest US newspapers, are quite relevant to the reception of this film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That article's in Entertainment Weekly, not the LA times, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Either way I don't see why it should be removed. I suspect, going from the edit comments, that Penelope37 is confused and seems to think it has something to do the critical consensus, but the citation is only used to report the Jar Jar Binks comparison, right? Popcornduff (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. You're right, it's Entertainment Weekly. I've been editing too many articles in a short span of time, and I got this source confused with another link that I was looking at. I'm not especially concerned with where it goes, as long as it stops getting removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Jose Pablo Cantillo's character's name is not "Yankie". In the film he is always referred to as "America". This should be updated. 2606:A000:9984:F800:B14D:3A6E:E964:2390 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Apparently the nickname is Amerika I have added it to the first instance. Thank you Mlpearc (open channel) 03:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

The bomb is not in the robot's side. The bomb is pretty much dead-center on the front of the robot. 138.162.0.41 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

appleseed alpha

When I first saw the trailer for chappie, it reminded me of the japanese manga "Appleseed", and I noticed there are a wholes series of films, with the latest one a film called Appleseed Alpha, anybody else noticed the resemblance, especially the "antenna ears"? In any case they could have find worse inspiration, I like chappie. Mahjongg (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015

please change

language       = English, Afrikaner

to

language       = English, Afrikaans

154.66.251.251 (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 12:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Please change language : Afrikaner to Afrikaans. Afrikaner is the word used to describe the ethnic group. Afrikaans is the name of the language Afrikaners speak. 105.225.48.49 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Not sure why this keeps being reverted. Thank you for pointing it out! Sock (tock talk) 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Method of motion capture

The character of Chappie is performed via motion capture, but I've been confused as to whether the medium used is CGI animation or an animatronic puppet. Some things I've read seem to assert the former, but there seems to be too much interaction between the robot and the environment in some scenes, for this always to be the case. Also, I recall an animatronics unit listed in the credits. B7T (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015

I would like to add one line to the "Production" section of the article - simply stating the following:

The name "Tetra Vaal" is also a reference to Blomkamp's 2009 film, District 9. The company name is visible as Wikus and Christopher Johnson enter MNU's biological research laboratory, here shown as "Tetra Vaal Biosecurity"

Thank you Eleihtg (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Requests for edits must be accompanied by reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015

Domonica (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Director Jessica McPherson

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sourced Edit?

@Sock: Sir, care to explain what was wrong with a sourced edit and how it was not much neutral than any other info mention in the same section? I will ask you to go through the source. Thanks.—TripWire ^talk 17:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the edit was your phrasing. The entire review is stated as fact. You wrote "The film also disregards logic" as a statement of fact, not something like "Sameen Amer, writing for The Express Tribune, opined that the film disregards logic" or something similar. I admit that I should not have removed the content, but it is your responsibility to make sure that the content you add remains neutral. Regardless, I apologize for removing the content. I encourage you to add it back, but make sure you add it as an opinion of an individual, not a fact. Sock (tock talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that I am a new user, I apologize if I couldnt understand what you meant in your comments when you rv the edit. I will re-add the edit while keeping in view your guidance. Thanks.—TripWire ^talk 18:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries! If I came off harsh, that was not my intention. I'll be sure to help you work on it if it still has any issues. And again, sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. Sock (tock talk) 18:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This movie is not "American"

It's written, produced and directed by a South African person. I know it's been sold to an American distribution company but that doesn't make the movie 100% American. I think it's fair to say it's at least partly South African, and it should be mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.116.151 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't base this information on the nationality of the crew. We go by what the reliable sources say, and, so far, what we've found is that sources call it an American film. If you can point us to an article in Variety that says it's a South African film, that would be helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Which are the "reliable" sources may i ask? You don't need other people telling you what nationality a movie is if you know who made it. And this movie is made by South African people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.116.151 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As I explained above, the nationality of the crew does not matter. Sources such as Allmovie, Variety, and The New York Times are commonly used to determine a film's national origin. Frequently, they choose it based on the production company. Other times it seems a bit random. But it's not our job to decide. Because this is an encyclopedia, we just go by what the sources say, not our original analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur with NinjaRobotPirate. It looks like sources identify the production country as the United States. This classification is based on the funding. This is explained at The Martian (film)#Notes. This does not mean we cannot report South African elements in the lead section. We can identify Blomkamp as a South African director and so forth. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a WP:SURPRISE-ing use of the word "American". Why not say it was produced by an American company so we know what you mean. And also mention where it's set it in the lead, which is something more people will care about. Siuenti (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's already clear what is meant. "An American film" already implies that it was an American production, and to state it any more explicitly would be needlessly verbose. When we say that Star Wars is an American film, we don't mean that it's set in America. The lead could be improved with more detail about the plot. Currently, it seems a bit barren even by my minimalist standards. I guess I can try to flesh it out a bit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So if Star Wars was funded by a Japanese company it would be a Japanese film? Siuenti (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If that was the case, and reliable sources do identify Japan as the only production country, then yes. Here, it could have been that Chappie could have been an American-South African co-production, but there's nothing in the sources that say that South Africa was involved in that sense to make the film more than just "American" under the way nationality is identified. Again, it does not mean we cannot state the clear cultural elements of a given film, such as the director's nationality, the setting of the film, the shooting location of the film, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case your statement that "it's already clear what is meant" is blatantly false. Siuenti (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

We go by sources, sources say it is American, therefore, we list it that way. I don't see why this is even remotely an issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me a source which says it's American in the first sentence? Or any sentence? Siuenti (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Why in the first sentence? Anyway, the New York Times, which is an RS [1] calls it American. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps going to the film project might clarify things some? Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I, too, am confused as to why we need a source that labels it in the first sentence. We've got several high quality sources that have identified it as American, thus we report what they say. This is how Wikipedia works, per WP:V. I don't understand this resistance to verifiability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually. What are the sources that state this is an American production? Looking at the production companies I can see from research that Columbia Pictures, Media Rights Capital/MRC, LStar Capital, Simon Kinberg Productions/Genre Films are American, Alpha Core is apparently American, Ollin Studio is headquartered in Mexico but their phone contact # is in California, and Sony Pictures Entertainment/SPE is an American subsidiary of the Japanese company SONY. All that being said, however, what do the sources say? Do they state this was an American film or a South African film? I haven't been able to find a source that states "Chappie" is unequivocally an American film. If someone could post a link/reference stating the country that would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be two sources in the infobox beside 'Country' Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Every reliable source that I've checked has said the same thing.

• British Film Institute: US ([2])
• The New York Times: US ([3])
• Screen International: US ([4])
• Allmovie: US ([5])

Neither the American Film Institute nor European Audiovisual Observatory have the film indexed yet. If anyone brings a reliable source, we can discuss that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

See, that is what I am talking about...I was looking within the text of the article and didn't see whichever country sourced. I was wondering about the matter on more on an existential-level...what exactly delineates making a movie from one country or another? The IMDb listing - which in the case of DGA credits I think comes from the filmmakers, does state the movie is American/Mexican (yes, yes, I know all about the hazards of using IMDb as a reference, but still...there is a Mexican studio listed as being one of the production entities). Shearonink (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If it doesn't occur at all in the text of these sources, it implies that they don't consider it a very important or useful fact. In contrast it is almost the first thing Wikipedia says about the film. Why not leave it in the infobox the way the sources do? Siuenti (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty standard around here to do that. Look at most TV shows and movies, 'X is an American TV show' 'Y is a Canadian movie' etc. As I suspected, it is in the MOS, see WP:FILMLEAD ' If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section.' Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In most cases the financial interests and the cultural ones coincide, so stating the nationality upfront is informative rather than confusing. Siuenti (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Calling this an American movie, when it's done by South Africans, acted by SouthAfricans, is staged in South Africa, and sounds South African. Might as well call the pope an Italian because he happens to be in Rome, But really, he's an Argentinian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgonzo (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "American" again

This is getting rather tedious. What do others think of this? Is it redundant to list it in the opening sentence? MOS:FILM says: If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. I think this means that we should reinstate the description of it as an American film. If it's redundant to say that it's American three times, then the following mention ("it is classified as...") in the lead should be removed, not the one in the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been 11 days, there's been no dissent, and MOS:FILM specifically tells us what to do in this situation, so I've restored it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It says US right after it 3 times. America and US are not equivalent. Canada and Mexico are also part of America. US = United States = Clarification. Again. No need to repeat it 3 times. No other film does this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs)

I am pretty sure in this case, as in most cases of nationality of things, American pretty clearly means USAian. Other films do do this, plus, see WP:MOSFILM and stop the edit warring, it is tiresome. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It says it three times, so it's redundant. It says US 2 times right after. Why the need for 3 times? I agree the edit warring is getting tiresome. NinjaRobotPirate should really stop. And no, American does not = USAian. Try telling that to a Canadian or Mexican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs)

I am Canadian actually. I've never called myself American, what with being Canadian and all. I suppose now you will go change say Terminator 2: Judgment Day or Gone with the Wind (film) as they both say American. Move on, you have been warned about this many many times. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither say it three times in a row. And your ignorance of the matter does not make the term true. I suggest you drop it. There is zero reason to say it three times in a row. It's redundancy. If you have beef with other pages, by all means change it. Most however do not say this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How can you still not understand why having "American" as the first thing you say is a problem? Siuenti (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a problem and incorrect. All of the cast and crew are South African yet it's labeled a solely American film which is incorrect. BoxRox (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Important to add is that Neil Blomkamp is one of the film's Producers. (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia needs to be verified through reliable sources. If the sources said South Africa, then we would include it. However, as NinjaRobotPirate showed, the British Film Institute, The New York Times, Screen International, and Allmovie show "United States". Compare this to District 9, which the BFI says here is a co-production between New Zealand, USA, and South Africa. However, I do notice that the Lumiere database shows US / MX, though I cannot find the Mexico connection stated anywhere else. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting; I don't think the film was listed yet in the Lumiere database the last time this debate came up. Well, it's worth considering, though the template documentation seems to discourage the inclusion of one-off data points. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, while the upfront label should be "American", this does not preclude discussion of the South African production element in the film. This can be reflected in the article body, and if substantial enough, summarized in the lead section. For example, this is a good article for doing this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked on the BFI bit, although this is original research, and not me finding any page that states that they do this, tends to include any contributing production company. Fore example, when films list production companies such as "____, ____, and _____" BFI, would include the countries of ones that state "____, ____, and ____, in association with _____, and _____". They would tag the extra ones in on the end. They certainly do this here, with "Production Company: Wingnut Films, South African production services by Kalahari Pictures, Produced with the assistance of Department of Trade and Industry". Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't be adopting a nationalist tone. If it was filmed in South Africa than that will be expanded on in the production section but we don't need to actively work our way through the article labeling all the American and South African elements. It's a shame the AFI doesn't have an entry for it yet but credible sources all tend to say it is an American film. Lumiere is interesting, but unless another credible source comes along and backs it up I think we should not consider Mexico for now, because every source has produced outliers at one time or another. Ultimately editors disagreeing with what reliable sources overwhelmingly say is not a valid poistion for altering an article. For the record I think "Chappie was produced and distributed by US-based companies and is classified as an American film" is redundant if the nationality is included in the first line. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the last bit, I agree, but that's what the compromise was last time this came up. If someone wants to remove it, they can, but it could trigger yet another edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Neil Blomkamp is the producer also. Not just the director. User:BoxRox (BoxRox) 21:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the key question is who owns the movie. Here, it's Sony Pictures, which is incorporated in the US (California specifically). Therefore, it's an American film. Foodles42 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016

Neill Blomkamp messaged me telling me that Chappie 2 is in production. Meaning that it is happening. And he was serious. Sethstewart2 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Personal messages are not reliable sources. Wikipedia standards require us to wait until something has been published (newspaper, magazine, etc.) before it's admissible. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

Neill Blomkamp sent me an email saying that production of Chappie 2 would end in January 2017. 2601:646:8103:881E:6550:FAF:B7D8:22EF (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chappie (film). 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/20150713044920/http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/i-robot/page-4 to http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/i-robot/page-4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717102202/http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/i-robot/page-2 to http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/i-robot/page-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712074604/http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/i-robot/page-3 to http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/i-robot/page-3

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) 23:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Link 37 goes to malware website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.81.123 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. I streamlined the section to remove the undue emphasis on the false rumors. The whole thing was written by a vandal, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Chappie

Who voices chappie because robots are not real or aliens nor sea monsters 41.116.16.167 (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)