Talk:Rise of the Guardians

Dreamworks open sourced toolkit used to make Guardians

They open sourced the OpenVDB toolkit used to make the Guardians. As covered in articles at The Verge[1] and the Wall Street Journal [2] --Special:Contributions/Thanksanon (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Added in the article. Thank you for your contribution.--Carniolus (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

This happens every time a fantasy, superhero or animated movie is released: Fans of the film only want this section to say "positive reviews" no matter what the aggregates and such say. Rotten Tomatoes says, "wonderfully animated and briskly paced, but it's only so-so in the storytelling department." That's not entirely positive. And Metacritic's weighted average was 57. That is decidedly middling. Given these two facts alone, it is inaccurate to say "positive reviews" and accurate to say "mixed to positive."

We're supposed to discuss these things on Wikipedia and provide rationales for our edits. That last part is a requirement. Reverting to "positive" without discussion and without providing a rationale breaches that guideline and could conceivably be considered vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously if the aggregators themselves don't agree then describing the reception as "positive" is not neutral. I have to admit I'm not a fan of the "mixed to positive" phrasing, but it's much more representative in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting - The phrase "mixed to positive" is not encyclopedic, and more-so, isn't grammatically correct. "Mixed" in this context means "some positive some negative", right? A movie having "some positive some negative" to positive reviews makes no sense. Seeing as the film is definitely in favour of positive, the phrase "generally positive" should be the phrase used. Sorry to revisit this, it just makes my skin crawl to see "mixed to ___". If not this, make it just "mixed". Simpler that way too. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an elegant phrase, but I'd disagree that it's not encyclopedic. The reason I say it's inelegant is that "mixed" in this context can have two meanings: That (as you not above) the sum of the aggregated reviews is "some negative, some positive." But the vast majority of movies receive "some negative, some positive" reviews (few receive total, unqualified praise or universal pans), so we'd have to say "mixed" for that vast majority of movies. This suggests to me that what we're saying when we use the phrase "mixed to positive" is the second meaning of "mixed," which is that individual reviews were ambivalent — neither strongly negative nor strongly positive, but, rather mixed.

So in this context, the phrase means "ambivalent to positive" reviews. Maybe that would be more specific. I think, though, given the widespread use of "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" in film articles, that most editors take it to mean that. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Ramsey

There's no WP page for Director Peter Ramsey. He's the first African-American director of an animated feature, so perhaps that is worth mentioning, if not giving good grounds for starting his own page?

[[3]]

[[4]]

--Davoloid (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Have added a page here: Peter Ramsey --Davoloid (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible

I don't think the mods should remove the sequel tab just because it seems unlikely. There's still a small chance as they haven't outright denied it yet.

Plus, removing the sequel tab, when there is no absolute evidence of no seque, where in fact there have been talks, by the mods, kind of just shows that its just plain cynical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.149.80 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)