Talk:Zathura: A Space Adventure

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;

"Jumanji in space, without Robin Williams"[edit]

It seems that that comment comes from this review ( http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-7926-black-hole-fun.html ).

I've added it, and replaced the "citation needed" with the appropriate tags.

--Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 19:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Lumenick of the New York Post said much the same thing. https://nypost.com/2005/11/11/bored-by-game/ -- 109.79.69.160 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Lumenick reference removed by non-constructive editor[1] who persistently removes opinions from film critics, yet somehow has not been sanctioned for this behavior that makes this encyclopedia worse. -- 109.76.198.112 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot trim[edit]

An editor trimmed the plot section[2] and although the bit about the pilot light might seem unimportant in the story it is a specific recent example of why the older brother was so annoyed and unwilling to forgive his younger brother. A plot section needs to explain what happened, but a better plot section can also incude some of why things are happening. It would be better if some of that could be restored so it doesn't seem like Danny is an unforgiving jerk for no reason, that he is annoyed at his little brother sometimes is justifiable. Also it explains why the Zorgans come back.

It is also unclear why an editor repeatedly insists on restored the word "cantankerous"[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] to describe the teenage sister. It seems overcomplicated and out of place with the reading level of the rest of the plot section. Simpler words such as grumpy or surly might be better, or maybe not including an extra adjective there at all because when describing a teenager those words are practically redundant.

When the bicycle falls from the sky seemed like the final point that punctuated the very end of the film, the last beat of the drum. On one level, for the sake of brevity, I can understand removing it[8] but it shows how the unreality of the game isn't entirely separate, and encroaches on the real part of the world in story, it wasn't "all a dream" type story. If editors really feel brevity is more important you could cut the paragraph back even further to be more concise and end with "to back in the house as it was before the brothers started the game." -- 109.79.75.196 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the plot section, please replace X "cantankerous teenage sister" with Y "teenage sister". -- 109.79.73.37 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly this has some resistance, so it will need consensus. I'm pinging Pborri, who has been restoring that term, so it can be discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At no point has Pborri even attempted to explain their changes with even so much as an edit summary, Pborri keeps making the same change over and over without any explanation, so I think your being highly optimistic expecting any reply at all. Anyone editing as long as they have _must know_ that repeating the same change over and over again without any explanation is not constructive.

As for gaining consensus for a simple copyedit and brevity, I don't see how I am actually supposed to achieve that on a low activity article like this short of requesting a WP:3RD opinion. -- 109.77.198.153 (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted, this change has been reverted in the past, so there's clearly no consensus for it. I feel that waiting a few days for Pborri to respond isn't too much to ask at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Previous behavior showed Pborri was unwilling to explain and edit collaboratively and nothing has changed. Please revert their unhelpful insertion of the word "cantankerous". I would also recommend reverting all the recent edits by banned sock puppet User:Decodingw. -- 109.79.73.1 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got a good laugh out of this. Something about the clash of personalities, and a long-term user with a simple "I'm Pborri." in their profile. Anyway, while I'm here, someone please italicize Variety and The Hollywood Reporter under "Critical response". Or not, I don't much care this instance. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done and

Done Mike Allen 20:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not sure what the second "Done" was referring to as the changes by banned sock-puppet User:Decodingw were not reverted ... his changes are debatable mostly but in particular his habit of repeating the film title over and over again is not an improvement. -- 109.79.78.194 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection I see the second "Done" was probably referring to the requests by IP user 70.163.208.142 but I'd still like to see the sock-puppet edits reverted if it is not too much trouble. -- 109.79.78.194 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of their edits and performed a few tweaks. Mike Allen 16:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- 109.76.202.219 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the plot section please replace X "When Danny finally wins the game" with "When Danny wins the game," (because later in the paragraph "finally the boys bond" and it reads poorly to repeat the word finally twice in close succession). Presented in this format because the guidelines require it but editors are welcome copyedit the Plot section as they see fit to address poor phrasing and repetition in general. -- 109.78.193.90 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for flagging - I've copy-edited the "Plot" section. Please give it a read-over and be sure to let me know if I've missed anything! EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[9] Personally (as I know I have a tendency to be overly verbose and make side comments that ultimately aren't that important) I would not have used a parenthetical, I would either try to summarize and omit the extra information or include it directly. It's fine though. -- 109.78.196.114 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
1