Talk:Soul (2020 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pixar's original film gets MPAA[edit]

Soul will be the Pixar's original film to be rated G since WALL-E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.232.135.12 (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soul has yet to be assigned a rating. GlobBETT SPLAT SHERMAN 19:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Before or You Seminar?[edit]

No sources have yet to call it The Great Before, still calling it the You Seminar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.42.194 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the movie, they admit it used to be called "The Great Before", then it went through a re-branding to become the "You Seminar". 2600:1700:C960:2270:7193:B993:9263:3C2F (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Just to clarify, Zendaya's not in this picture, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.205.203 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. From looking at the film information, she does not provide a voice for any character. 2600:1700:C960:2270:7193:B993:9263:3C2F (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a movie poster[edit]

Anyone know how to properly add a movie poster to a movie's article? The how-to articles of uploading photos is pretty confusing. - Cineplex (talk) 9:50PM - April 16, 2020

I use this link. I have it bookmarked on my computer, all you need to do is upload the image, add the source and article, and choose the poster license. BOVINEBOY2008 12:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer[edit]

Per WP:TRAILER: "Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters." This means stating that the film has a trailer, and the date the trailer was made available should not be in this article unless it has received some commentary. BOVINEBOY2008 16:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus?[edit]

If the movie delays to 2021 because of the coronavirus, this page will be moved to Soul (2021 film). Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the movie does not release anywhere this year, for whatever reason, we will need to move the article. I would not recommend moving it to 2021 unless it is also confirmed to have a release date in 2021. There are other scenarios that could happen: the film gets shelved permanently [extremely unlikely], film gets pushed back even farther to 2022 [also unlikely], or the film releases in 2020 just not to US theatres [more likely than the others]. We would not move it to 2021 in those scenarios. BOVINEBOY2008 18:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It already was moved because of coronavirus; only both the planned release and the new release were in 2020, not 2021. Georgia guy (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020[edit]

There are the words "abstract soul counselor in The Great Before" when it was supposed to say "an abstract soul counselor in The Great Before" 76.10.139.234 (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Darth Flappy «Talk» 14:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wide theatrical release?[edit]

If this movie is not premiering in theatres in North America and European countries, then that makes it the first Pixar movie not to receive a wide theatrical release, right? But somehow, that keeps getting removed even though it's true. I know it'll be in theatres in countries where Disney+ isn't available, but North America and Europe won't have a theatrical release unless we get a theatrical re-release when a vaccine is available. Do I have that right? -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 9:53PM - October 17, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there is some speculation there. Either way, it reads like trivia and needs to be covered by independent sources, not just original research. BOVINEBOY2008 11:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020[edit]

Change: That same day, it was announced the film would be the subject of a documentary chronicling Pixar's attempts to finish making the film during the pandemic. No further details were announced as to how and when it will be released.[43]

To: That same day, it was announced that Soul would be the subject of a documentary chronicling Pixar's attempts to finish making the film during the pandemic. No further details were announced as to how and when it will be released.[43]

Without this change and based upon the preceding sentence, it is unclear whether "the film" refers to the SparkShort film, Burrow, or Soul. Epsom Bunbury (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Soul (2020 film) → Soul (film) – There are only 3 articles mentioned on the disambiguation page. With the upcoming Pixar film being the more notable one. Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out thst there was similar discussion about Another Pixar film back in 2016 see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cars_3#Requested_move_13_November_2016 for that Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that was for the primary topic "Cars 3", this one is for "Soul (film)" not "Soul". Refer to WP:NCF. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCF. If this film was the primary topic, it would be at "Soul" not "Soul (film)". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and speedy close This is second RM where nom has not read the guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCF, when more than one film with an article has the same title, they all should be disambiguated by the year. See Titanic, Parasite, etc... BOVINEBOY2008 16:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCF and WP:INCDAB. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Co-director in Infobox[edit]

Hi - my edit to add Kemp Powers as a co-director to the Infobox for Soul was reverted. I understand this is because the box is for primary director only - I didn’t realise this. Is there a way we could add a co-director field to the Soul Infobox? Or find some other way to include him as co-director in the infobox? I think it’s important that it’s clear he co-directed at a glance. Who would be best to discuss this with? Thanks! SNMSB (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SNMSB:. It has been a long standing consensus not to include co- credits in the infobox, and you can see some of those discussions if you look through the talk page of Template:Infobox film. It is not feasible to add a single parameter for this film that is not used in all infoboxes, but that is something you could propose at the Template's infobox. I would recommend that if the role Powers played in the film's production was significant enough, then he could be mentioned in the lead, but I do not know enough about this particular film's production to know that. BOVINEBOY2008 02:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll try over at the Infobox talk page. Looks like Powers is already in the lead text so this is covered. I think there is grounds for his contribution is significant see here SNMSB (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 12/28[edit]

There’s a redundant ‘with’: In order to portray accurately African-American culture within the film, the filmmakers hired several consultants with whom they worked closely with through the film's development; Rawmindz (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawmindz: Fixed, thanks for spotting that! Mz7 (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Batiste infobox[edit]

As he wrote all the songs that are performed, which is a key attribute to this film I believe he should be included. The template is not always stuck to. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, Agreed. He wrote all the original songs while Reznor and Ross did the score. HeyitsBen talk 19:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree more as Batiste was nominated alongside Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for awards, including the Golden Globes. I think if we do put him in the infobox, we should at least add a note stating he only did the jazz compositions and such. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020[edit]

At the end of the summary, someone should probably add in that Terry, the accountant, breaks the fourth wall, by telling us the movie is over.

It's a small scene, but it is no less important the other details of the movie summary 2601:644:8900:A88:5C8C:33E6:7CB1:E7C0 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important for the plot whatsoever. If it's even worth a mention, it isn't in the Plot summary section. It's equivalent to the "bloopers" during the credits of Toy Story 2 and Monsters, Inc. El Millo (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be included. It's not important to the plot at all in my opinion. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soul reviews[edit]

I don't believe we should include reviews from critics who do not appear to have seen the film. Or are trying to distort characters basic inherit essence to fit a narrative. One inexperienced editor continues to add a review that does just this. It assigns a gender and race to the character, 22, that are both inaccurate. This is the crux of their critique. There is a scene in the film where 22 illustrates that it can speak in any human voice. It has no gender, race, or physical form. It is an astral being. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is very clearly the fact that 22 is voiced by a white woman, not that she literally is one, as this review and pretty much any of the others criticizing the movie on these grounds has made abundantly clear. Stop assuming anyone who has an issue with the movie you enjoy simply hasn't seen it, and anyone deleting disruptive edits is "an inexperienced editor." Got2Hands (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The review states that the character is a white woman and that it's problematic because of this that the soul inhabit Joe. It clearly is not very clear as I am not the only one who deleted it for this reason. 22 is not a she. You referring to 22 as a she further illustrates your personal misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the character. Which may explain why you're not aware of how the critic misrepresents the film and character. The critic does not refer to Tina Fey, the actor but rather, 22, the character. And yes. You're inexperienced. You have less than a 100 edits. This gives clarity to the issue, as it may help to explain why you would add such a review to a Wikipedia page. Also why you misrepresented a student publication as the post. This isn't about whether or not I like the film. It's about the accuracy of the critique in evaluating the film and the characters portrayed. Please have a civil, grounded conversation about this. This has nothing to do with personal taste. Based on this, it appears you do not understand the review or the character. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you can find a quote by an established critic that says Tina Fey should not have been cast because of her gender and race, then you may be able to include that if it states why but that is not what the quote you have now added four times states. It states that the character of Joe takes a backseat to a white woman searching for her purpose. It is referring to the character, 22. Not the actor, Tina Fey. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If my referring to the character as she -- along with published articles that do the same -- negates all criticism of the movie's handling of race in your eyes, that's on you. Got2Hands (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've warned both Samurai Kung fu Cowboy and Got2Hands to cease edit warring. (Sorry if I templated any regulars). But 3RR is long gone so please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:I will. Thank you. I am not the only editor who deleted the review and I started this talk page and messaged the other editor about it before this point. But you're right. I hope we can resolve this issue diplomatically on here. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir:The problem, with this particular user and with the other whose revert I deleted, is that people who like this movie are deleting reference to the article on the same paper-thin grounds: "The article refers to 22 as a woman because she's voiced by one, and 22 is technically genderless, entire review is null and void", even though the Wiki synopsis itself uses female pronouns for 22. It's completely ridiculous and a little troubling, seeing as how the real issue that matters here is the movie's controversial handling of racial issues. Got2Hands (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not the critique of race relations. I even added something from the critique of it still included. As I've stated my issue is the misrepresentation of the character to fit a critique. And if 22 is refered to as she elsewhere then clearly that's incorrect. But the character is clearly a spiritual or astral being who has no human form or skin color or ancestry. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look for an article that critiques Tina Fey's casting rather than the non-existant race of the character? That would be representative of the accuracy of what you're referring to I believe. Personal attacks against me or adding critiques that misrepresent the facts won't help us resolve anything. However, if you feel strongly subjective towards this issue it may be better to take a minute. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that I'm not the one who's made personal attacks or needs to take a minute, considering you've accused me of being inexperienced, of not seeing the movie, and that you've even accused the author of the article of not seeing the movie. The article talks about Tina Fey, the problems with her casting, the fact that 22's role in the movie is what it is while she's voiced by a white woman. The Wikipedia entry contains numerous citations referring to 22 as female, refers to 22 with she/her pronouns in its synopsis, and yet somehow the problem is this article specifically, which by sheer coincidence is negative.Got2Hands (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any perceived personal attacks. That was not my intention. Regardless of who has seen this film, 22 does not have a race or racial identity ever stated in the film. Which is the issue here. It sounds like the critique you're attempting to present is in the casting of Tina Fey, not the prevelance of 22 in the story. Is that correct? And you are inexperienced. You have less than 100 edits. That wasn't meant to be an insult. Sorry if you took it as one.Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I've spent over a decade editing wikis, including this one, whenever I feel I have a reason to. Regardless, the article cites several issues with Tina Fey's casting, including the 30 Rock blackface controversy, but mostly boils down to the fact that Joe, a black man, spends much of the movie possessed by and nearly dies permanently so the dreams of 22, a character voiced by a white woman, can be fulfilled. 22 could have been voiced by any white woman and the crux of this author's problem would be the same. It seems like you object to the mischaracterization of 22 as white and female, but this very article, on this very website, refers to 22 as female. My solution would be to cite the article, but avoid quoting the "white woman" line, since that seems to be the one that's causing problems. Got2Hands (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read that review and I don't agree with you. It sounds like what the quote represented. That the critic projected the voice actor on to the cartoon, non-human character. I am convinced that she was not able to differentiate between the two. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the issue that Joe's struggles to learn the value in life are linked to helping an unborn soul find its purpose? Or is it that the soul is voiced by a white woman? If it's the former, than making it about race is not rooted in the film, as the soul does not have a race. If it's the latter, then I think another source is needed that doesn't conflate the two and makes clear that it's about the actor.Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is casting a white actor to play a character the author feels comes at the expense of Joe and Joe's story. That's it, that's the problem, that's the critical response offered by this critic. The author also refers to Joe as "Foxx's animated body", but I notice you're not claiming the author is unable to differentiate Foxx from Joe. Got2Hands (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is another problem. If the critic can't differentiate between Joe and Foxx that's certainly problematic. For one, they look nothing alike. For two, any good critic should be able to differentiate a character from the actor. Joe's body is most definitely not Foxx's. However, until you brought it up there was no reason for me to mention it. You never added it to the Wikipedia page and so it wasn't relevant. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously think authors who when discussing meta refer to characters as "so-and-so's animated body" literally can't distinguish the actors from the characters, I think we have a bigger problem and need to bring in someone else on this. Got2Hands (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the problem isn't that it's about the two characters destinies being intertwined, or even about one taking a "backseat," if that's the crtic's perception, then it shouldn't be included. It should be that one of the two main characters in Pixar's first predominantly black film was voiced by a white person. If that was added, without conflating the two issues that would make sense. However, the source you've used does not do that. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nothing should be added on this unless we get other opinions one way or another. Just remember not to solicit. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that one of the two main characters in Pixar's first predominantly black film was white. The issue is that said main character, voiced by a white actor, spends most of the film in Joe's body, and that in the end, Joe very nearly dies so that this character can have something they want. That's what the article is about. And since we're reminding each other not to solicit, I'll remind you to do the same. Got2Hands (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you added quotes from the source you never added anything about 22, and the fact it's voiced by a white woman, inhabiting Joe's body. If that's what this was really about, why didn't you use that? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're even talking about. Got2Hands (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The review in question is https://www.insider.com/pixar-soul-movie-review-2020-12 and the edit in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soul_(2020_film)&diff=997913891&oldid=997913736 (It is now far enough back in the edit history that it takes a bit of time to find. Jrincayc (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a different review that has some bearing on this discussion: https://io9.gizmodo.com/soul-feels-like-pixars-first-black-movie-made-with-whit-1845956107 Jrincayc (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 02 Februari 2021[edit]

Jon Batiste wrote the original songs for the soundtrack on Soul and is named as such on the Soul soundtrack. Shouldn't he be added in the infobox under 'music', similar to the request on december 29, 2020? 2A02:A445:6632:1:2E:3246:3A92:76F9 (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included." (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should as Batiste is getting nominated for awards alongside Reznor and Ross. Moana has done the same thing, but at least they mention who does the songs and whatnot so I think it should be ok if we make this exception. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratzenburger has a voice role[edit]

I heard on easter egg channels that Ratzenburger has a voice that is off to the side in the Hall of You, where he rejects Joe23.241.15.1 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021[edit]

Hello! In the sub-section of Accolades under Reception, please add Soul's nomination for Best Direction - International at the 10th AACTA International Awards 103.21.184.194 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimba the white Pixar lion king...[edit]

Is this Soul movie an officially licensed americanization of Angel Beats anime? 94.21.160.121 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a forum and also a ridiculous theory. There are few similarities between the two. In any case, @Tbhotch: you may want to keep an eye out - we had someone posting ridiculous theories, fanfiction, and other content that violates Wikipedia talk page guidelines to the Wolfwalkers article's talk page. I have a strong feeling that this is likely the same person, given what they're posting here. It got so bad at the Wolfwalkers article that I had to semi-protect the page and then re-protect it since it seems like the vandal returned, so let me know if it becomes necessary here. (I see that you removed the pp template but can't remember if you were familiar with the shenanigans going on there.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually looks like this has already been protected, as it's had its own share of shenanigans. Offer still stands if there's need for future protection. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are gross box office earnings calculated?[edit]

If I sum the values in the gross column on Box Office Mojo, I get closer to $135 million. Can anyone shed light on how the value of $119 million was calculated?

Story and Screenplay[edit]

So should the writers be listed with separate Story and Screenplay credits? The film's credits use "Story and Screenplay by..." But the writers for "Story and Screenplay" are the three same people. Some IP is raising that issue on the main page. Crboyer (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Written by covers them both. No need for redundancy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soul_(2020_film)&oldid=1208268644"