Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)

Typos in cast description

There are two typos in this passage: "Carrey said an intrinsic difference between Gerald and Ivo was that Ivo was from an older, tougher generation, describing him as as tough as 'the rock that he crawled out from under'." First, the word "as" is repeated. Second, Carrey said that *Gerald* is from an older, tougher generation. You can check the original source to confirm.

2600:1003:B139:8F51:18C0:9537:5DDF:70FB (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Regarding Release > Box Office Projections

This isn’t intended to be a matter of preferring my own edits over anyone else’s; the reason I have continually insisted on that particular choice of words is because

a) the film was named as Sonic 3, and not Sonic the Hedgehog 3, which as far as I am aware is improper and there is no identical colloquialism identified in the introductory section

b) While the info will probably change anyway as the film opens, it’s better to highlight the film’s box office projections on their own rather than directly comparing them to Mufasa by saying it “beats its competitor” (paraphrasing). We shouldn’t be saying it “beat” anything until the numbers come in. Thus, I sought to acknowledge the two films open on the same day while highlighting the projections for Sonic 3 (when I refer to it as such, it’s fine, because these are informal discussion pages that don’t abide by all the same rules as an article). InedibleDevon (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Info about sequel

Popcornfud, why did you remove "It is the sequel to Sonic the Hedgehog 2"? It was just fine the way it was until you just removed. That thing you removed was not an improvement. Did you unnecessary had to do that in the first place? No. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud removed it citing WP:DUH, which is the correct thing to do.
It was just fine the way it was until you just removed is not a legitimate argument for inclusion, @Mr.Shadow514. The reason this was removed is because it is glaringly obvious that 2 comes before 3, therefore cluttering up the opening paragraph with that would not be of encyclopedic value. BarntToust 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the WP:DUH guideline and it dosent say, "You can't say that it's the sequel to whatever it is". I know you guys are strict, but please. Your making it appear like where not allowed to say about being a sequel. I just hated it. Now i can't look at the article anymore thanks to you guys. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You pushed the same argument at the Sonic Adventure 2 article but it didn't get consensus there either... Popcornfud (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My other question is, why does everything have to be a rule on Wikipedia? What's the point. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh and what consensus are you talking about? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Another thing is, i removed other links, and instead keep the term "second film", and the link for the opening paragraph. So disappointed. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Another thing is that plenty of sequel articles use the term "It is the sequel to" something, but not anything about Sonic, which is just hypocrosy. You guys dont realize this huh? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about other articles. the number "2" coming before the number "3" is obvious. @Mr.Shadow514. Look, I skimmed over your personal talk page and I'm not particularly impressed by the low literacy of the english language you have been writing out, nor by the questionable contributions you are responsible for. BarntToust 00:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I get it, but it's not even a big deal to mention about being a sequel. But know you just removed it thinking it's a bad thing to say that in general and the guideline that Popcornfud sent me doesn't mention about being a sequel or that were not allowed to use that term. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And how the term about being a sequel is not an encyclopedic value? I just wanna know the whole reason. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reeves as Shadow

what does singled out as a highlight mean for the sentence, "The film received positive reviews, with critical praise to Carrey's performances, while Reeves's portrayal of Shadow was singled out as a highlight."? 64.88.88.193 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It means that Reeves as Shadow was heavily focused on and praised. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But it's definitely a word salad. Popcornfud (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

okay thanks. The way singled out as a highlight was used confused me. 64.88.88.193 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis

The movie has already been released and had Thursday pre-show screenings at basically every major theater in the US. Deleting the synopsis until tomorrow is totally unnecessary and arbitrary. MaximumMadness2 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

UK release date does not match the one cited in the reference

The article claims that the UK release date is 21st December; the citation links to the Guardian's review, which says that the UK release date is the 27th. I cannot edit this myself because the article is protected. Gormuu (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The former is correct as I went to see it myself today in the UK, so I'm not sure why that the Guardian got that wrong, being such a big news source here - mistakes happen I suppose! The source should be changed to one that is correct. BasicEdit (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

THursday

press control F and search for thursday. one of those are Thursday, the other one is THursday. fix asap :) 12.4.11.58 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2024

In the Plot you mention G.U.N extensively however G.U.N was only formed in the Sonic 2 movie. G.U.N. was not formed 50 years ago when Shadow arrived on Earth. The base he was kept at was simply a military base. 2.97.107.235 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Anne drew 04:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Notable things or not

Hello. Popcornfud. Im gonna ask you one simple question? What's with you obsession with removing stuff like being the third installment? Why because you act like it's not supposed to be in the article. Your making it look like were not allowed to say something about being a sequel or installment. What is with you and than. Just tell the whole reason. If one other specific thing can mentioned about being a sequel, but not Sonic, then it's hypocrosy. It's either that you don't understand or don't feel like it. It's notable about mentioning a sequel at the lead. Even of something was notable, why your always acting like it's not supposed to be in the lead? Just tell why are you so strict over one simple thing about being a sequel or installment? BTW Merry Christmas.Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I have to agree with Mr.Shadow514 that this should not have been removed. Per MOS:OPEN, the first paragraph "...should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". MOS:CONTEXTLINK applies too: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." The film series, in this case, is the broader topic under which this film falls. It's less about it being identifiable as a third film in general and more about a link-friendly context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

In my view, if a sentence is going to exist in a Wikipedia article, it ideally ought to add information. The sentence in question contains no information, and only wastes the reader's time by restating what's already obvious — it goes without saying that the film Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the third film in the Sonic the Hedgehog film series. It therefore doesn't serve the principle of MOS:OPEN, because "the set of circumstances or facts that surround it" are already clear.

Let's be clear. The actual function is to provide a wikilink to the page on the Sonic film series. That makes MOS:CONTEXTLINK the more convincing argument IMO, but if we're going to follow it to the letter and get that clunky "the film Sonic 3 is the third film blah blah" wording into the lead sentence, then let's at least accept that it comes at a cost: it's making our prose worse.

For a comparison, look at the way the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (game) page does it: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is a 1994 platform game developed and published by Sega for the Sega Genesis. Like previous Sonic games, players traverse side-scrolling levels while collecting rings and defeating enemies. That link to the Sonic game franchise has a prose reason to exist and isn't just dumped in there. Popcornfud (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We understand that. But still, mentioning about being a sequel is considered notable no matter what. Why do you have to be strict over every single thing? And why the term "It is the second installment or it is the sequel" provides no info? It should. It's not a rule. So please. Also, what Wikilink are your referring to? Just a question. Mentioning about being a sequel is not clunky. In your opinion, it is. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a waste of time. MOS:OPEN also says earlier, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic..." and it is only incidental that the title is obvious. We have to write such articles from an enduring perspective, not just today where everything is "obvious" from the ads and social media chatter. So to define the film's place in the film series and in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise does that. MOS:FIRST says, "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." I get the "duh" angle, but we have to write for the layperson. Maybe they learn about this film first and are curious about the whole series before going any further and click that series link. Maybe they don't. I don't care as much about how it's written as to provide access to the broader topics that are part of the interconnected whole of Wikipedia per MOS:BTW. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Erik is right, Popcornfud. You need to understand that. That's how the world works. You can't be strict over every single thing about mentioning installments or sequels even if Wikipedia isn't reliable. I know it's your view, but still. It's not a big deal. Like i said, if other any sequel articles can mentioned that it's a sequel to whatever something, but not about Sonic, then that’s the sign of hypocrosy. You should understand the whole thing about that. This is not how Wikipedia works. Even when I'm honest and when i'm telling the truth, your always with that strictness and disagreement into thinking everything should be a no, when clearly, it's not. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgable on Wikipedia's policies but I don't see how big a deal it is whether or not the lede prose mentions this sequel as a sequel. Neither have I ever heard some specific criteria where the predecessor to the sequel has to be mentioned. If anything, this lede was developed the way it is naturally. I guess there's value in a line like "the third installment in the Sonic the Hedgehog film series" but at the same time it's important the lede remains concise and not repeat too many subjects or the related.

Also Mr.Shadow514, Popcornfud has been editing since at least March 2011, and is following not their policy, but Wikipedia's policy. Their experience isn't to be taken for granted, and you shouldn't disrespect them calling them a hypocrite and all. Neither is making an argument like "That's how the world works." Not really any more constructive than accusing them of being strict just for a couple of slightly unimportant lines in the lede.

Lastly, this is the second section you opened over this matter, and it isn't any better in tone compared to the previous section. It's not a big deal to not mention this as a sequel to what either, so long as it doesn't bloat or repeat anything. Pinging previous user BarntToust, if she's interested in commenting here. Carlinal (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand you Carlinal, i didn't know calling a hypocrite was disrespectful. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, for uniquely titled films it's worth a mention in the opener. Like for the case of Across the Spider-Verse. "The sequel to Into the Spider-Verse, it is..."

For films in a series labeled simply as #1, #2, #3, it's sort of obvious that it is a sequel to the prior number. But links like that can provide directory to the related topic. Eh, I think it clutters up the opener and someone interested in #1 or #2 can type in the search box. BarntToust 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reinstated a link to the film franchise article using as few words as possible. Hopefully this is acceptable as a compromise. Barry Wom (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Colleen O'Shaughnessy

Why is everybody so hellbent on removing O'Shaughnessy's name from being listed in the lead section? There is literally no reason to do so other than what I assume is typical Wikipedia editors micro-managing everything.

This is one of the main issues with Wikipedia, the fact that the editors are triggered by something so incredibly petty as adding an important cast member's name to a list, when it was perfectly fine in the beginning. There's no rule against a name being added there but because editors wanna uphold their egos and think they NEED to remove it, they do. I'm sure the responses to this will be nothing short of stretches and reaches soooo feel free to fire away with that. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Listing the minor actors in full is what the Cast section is for. There's already eleven actors listed in the lede which is more than enough. Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

She's literally one of the main characters in the fi--- you know what never mind, why do I even bother trying? 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST, we have to follow a rule of thumb to draw the line somewhere between listing "Starring" actors and the full list of names in the "Cast" section. It appears that the "Starring" names are based on the billing block, and O'Shaughnessy is not part of that for whatever reason. We need rules of thumb because otherwise adding or removing names can seem based on personal preferences. Other rules of thumb can be sought, but it should not be done in favor of a certain outcome. Simply review how other sources draw the cutoff and follow that. If there are differences in the cutoff, we can discuss to form a consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that secondary sources Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen Daily have a different set of names than the billing block, for example. (Found these without looking for a specific name.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what, fine, I'll bite, even though this is pointless is given what the outcome will likely be.

The sources you mentioned have Colleen's name there, and just because she was omitted from ONE POSTER (her name is literally on other posters) doesn't mean she can't be included in the lead list on Wikipedia. Her role is just as important if not more important than the other main characters, there is no reason for the omission other than pettiness, and using a rule that literally does not bar me or anyone from adding her name. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement with you here, seeing Colleen O'Shaughnessy named in all three. The billing block is a rule of thumb, and usually a decent starting point, but it is also a primary source. Secondary sources are more appropriate for Wikipedia to use, and that's what these reviews are. So I would support including that names and/or adding/removing other names depending on how the different sets of names compare. Like is there anyone else mentioned? Or in "Starring" that is not mentioned in these sources? I hope you can understand that film articles have a long, long history of editors wanting to add or remove or reorder names because of how they want to see it. You had a good point in the actor voicing one of the main characters, and the reviews bear that out. But if they didn't, then there would not be real-world grounds for inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS says we list the cast members as they are listed on the theatrical release poster's billing block.

As this is a live-action–animated hybrid, local consensus has developed to do the cast section in the body of the article in a different way (voice actors separated from live action actors, for clarity's sake) than the MOS would have us do.

I don't see any reason to deviate from using the listed names on the billing block for the lede and the infobox. to break from the MOS, a good reason needs to be explained as to why that should happen. BarntToust 19:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"...a good reason needs to be explained as to why that should happen."

Did you even read anything that was written above? 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

why do we deviate from the MOS other than the fact that we like a voice actress who reprised her role from video games since 2010? What great revelation does knowing that O'Shaughnessey has been listed on a billing block do for the reader? BarntToust 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

oh wait, she wasn't. BarntToust 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't read the discussion I just had with Erik, got it. Thank you for confirming what I've always known about Wikipedia and its editors. Have a good day/night. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

yay, the fox is back in the film. It's cool to know the character was in all 3. But is deviating from the MOS going to help the reader understand the film better? We can talk about the film in a general sense without mentioning a voice actress is back. Sure, the character is in all 3, but why do we need to break MOS? BarntToust 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a "why shouldn't we break MOS" question to me. BarntToust 22:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, the billing block is a primary source and a good starting point. Usually, secondary sources will tend to match it. For whatever reason, O'Shaughnessy is not in it, but we see from at least three secondary sources (which are the more important sources on Wikipedia, per WP:PSTS) that O'Shaughnessy is named among the set of names. Not to mention that at least three so far indicates some WP:DUE weight (again, more relevant from secondary sources) to list her. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith in editors, it will not help your case here in the long run. Carlinal (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Plot bloat removed

Over the past day or two, the "Plot" section has become very bloated, increasing the length to 1,075 words, which well exceeds "400 to 700" (MOS:FILMPLOT). I reverted the section to the version in revision 1265415191, which consists of 608 words; if there are any details editors since then believe are very important, feel free to add them back, but keep the word limit in mind. For future editors, please keep in mind that a plot summary is not supposed to cover every detail of the film; Agent Stone's arc, for example, is largely inconsequential, so details like Robotnik firing him, ignoring him, addressing him, etc. are not especially important. The fact that Sonic lands in New York in the mid-credits scene is also not plot-relevant. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It is plot-relevant. That is where the next movie will take place. GuyUser81 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@GuyUser81 First, that's speculation, since the significance of the New York setting in the next film has not been proven by sources or the next film itself. Second, if it's later shown that it is plot-relevant then, maybe it can be added back here, but as of now it's not an important detail. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 16:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the Plot section, "Green Hills" is hyperlinked to the Wiki page for the location in the Sonic game series (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Green_Hill_Zone). However, in the film continuity, this is not the same Green Hill Zone. It's simply a name reference on Earth, in the film universe. Green Hill Zone does exist, as shown in a flashback in the first movie, but this Green Hill on Earth is not the same Green Hill Zone as the game, therefore, the hyperlink should be removed. TLDR: "Green Hill" in the movie is just an easter egg name. VanDerBeek123 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Anne drew 06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)