Talk:Trolls (film)

WP:NFF is secondary to WP:GNG and does nor supplant it. In this instance, there are many sources available to establish general notability. This serves the project and the readers well. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

A film that's still over 2 years from hitting the theaters? Whatever...your right to contest though I guess. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure is :) But if you like, you can take it to AfD Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do know the process. Thanks. I'm still looking for sources. I don't think what is currently present is enough to satisfy GNG. --Onorem♠Dil 14:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Considering both that Anand Tucker had originally been going to direct DreamWorks Animation's adaptation of Truckers, which is a Terry Pratchett novel, and that he is now directing this film (which is apparently partially based on a Terry Pratchett novel), is it possible that the two projects were merged? Alphius (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is referenced on the Wikipedia page for that trilogy, and it does have a source on that page. Whether that is enough to warant its inclusion here is something I am unsure of. QueenAfyn (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can the fact JT's contributing music to the film be added? The source here states: "Justin Timberlake has signed on to write and perform new music for the upcoming DreamWorks Animation movie Trolls, based on the iconic toy franchise, according to The Hollywood Reporter. In addition, Timberlake will also serve as the film's executive music producer – and voice one of the film's troll protagonists." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've redirected Trolls (soundtrack) to this article for now, but given the artists involved, a standalone article is highly likely. Feel free to expand the redirect whenever appropriate! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think this soundtrack is amazing Trollsmryoungbroppy (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

should this film be considered a jukebox musical? I mean, it incorporates myriad public domain songs (I even spotted Gorillaz' "Clint Eastwood" in one scene). Visokor (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That section is not fully updated because 46.5 million and 104.8 million do not add up to 162.3 million. --97.113.114.59 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani OpedalReply

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

The Rotten Tomatoes Score For Trolls Has Gone up To 75% With 114 Reviews 207.172.180.75 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why are we saying that the film received positive reviews when Metacrtic indicated mixed or average reviews (56 out of 100), and Rotten Tomatoes indicates very lukewarm reviews (6.2/10)--Joef1234 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've removed that synthesis since it should not be there.--Carniolus (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

On December 30, Trolls did not make $332 yet. It says on box office mojo. 75.172.36.110 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani OpedalReply

Is there a way to add a section to talk about the McElroy Brothers petitioning to be in the sequel in a way that doesn't disrupt the normal flow of the page? A constant edit war over the casting seems unreasonable, and there's no reason to assume one way or the other about speculative casting. Alphabagel (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

So, Justin Timberlake played Artie in Shrek 3 (and was supposed to do so again in Shrek 4, but was unavailable). And also, Trolls director Mike Mitchell directed Shrek 4. Did Mike Mitchell sign on to direct Shrek 4 before or after Justin Timberlake was deemed unavailable? Is Justin one of Mike's favorite singers? Someone do some research on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77A0:90:1808:5C9C:FCA8:2F2F (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Someone keeps removing sourced information about upcoming TV show. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I blocked them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trolls (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://archive.is/20130506030237/http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=756128 to http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=756128
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130629021843/http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=767658 to http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=767658
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/news/767635/teen-choice-awards-2016-nominations-announced-see-the-first-wave-of-potential-winners

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) 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trolls (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/20160107083613/http://blog.bcdb.com/dreamworks-announces-a-cast-of-trolls-9414/ to http://blog.bcdb.com/dreamworks-announces-a-cast-of-trolls-9414/

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) 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Um....Wikipedia....it seemed like MakesTheWikiBetter was right about this film's origin. United Kingdom: The film features British actors – Denmark: The film is based on another toy called a troll doll link here. WikiWorldOne (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you have yet to answer any messages on your own talk page, User:Mr. Doggy Dog, you are being advised here as well that the edits you keep repeatedly inserting (i.e. edit warring) in this article are redundant and bloat the plot uselessly. Redundant means saying the same thing two different ways, and this includes implications. There is no need to say Creek is a fraud when obviously he's a fraud if he (quote) "in exchange for his own survival, has betrayed them all". Also, though less important, we do not need to say Poppy is "Heartbroken" when we already clarify she and the other trolls "Fall into despair". It essentially means the same thing and is just an extra detail. Regardless whether you agree with this or not, please respond so we can get this sorted. You should not edit war by just re-adding the same deleted info over and over, the talk pages are here to discuss things. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Doggy Dog "King Peppy is the king" and "Princess Poppy is the Princess" and "King Gristle is the King" also count as redundant by the way, since that is quite literally saying the same thing twice. Also the extra sentences about Creek when no other character's summary is more than a sentence long makes the article look clunky and they also contain redundancies and unnecessary info since almost all of it can be seen in the plot summary. Cast lists tell who the characters are, not what they do. That's in the plot. EEBuchanan (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Mr. Doggy Dog, Your repeated edits/reverts to Trolls, while they may have been in good faith, are becoming very difficult to distinguish from willful disruption. To help other editors understand the reason for these changes, please start using edit summaries for your contributions or explain on the talk page why you want to keep adding the information. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please respond. I will not revert the plot if there is a good reason given but I did go ahead and tidy up the cast list. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Mr. Doggy Dog I waited several days and heard nothing from you/no explanation or reasonable argument for the repeated insertion of the redundant information so once again I have deleted it since you never responded with any convincing argument as to why it should be there. If you wish to discuss this I am open to discussion before either of us makes any more edits here, but please do not simply re-insert the information without discussing first. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Mr. Doggy Dog if you could please give SOME explanation as to why you insist upon adding redundant sentences/phrases to this article I would appreciate it. I have patiently refrained from reporting you for this behavior, and tried to wait several days to hear from you each time you do it, but I really would like an explanation. No one is trying to insult or attack you. Correct you, help you, yes, but not insult or attack. If the other party has good reason/logical reason/explanations I will usually leave their edits alone. However, your behavior makes no sense in that you never explain and continue doing the same thing over and over. I've already seen by your talk page (on which I also posted this message, so you can see it in two places) this is not the first article you've done this sort of thing on. Many people have tried to help you understand how to better edit articles, and you never respond or pay attention. You would do well to heed their messages to avoid issues in the future. Please respond. If I do not get a response in a few days I will revert your edits again for the reasons outlined in previous edit summaries/messages. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding! I am far from upset. I was a newer user myself once and am still learning and have made mistakes. I was simply trying to explain to you something that had to once be explained to me, before someone reports and blocks you (I have refrained from doing so because I think that was a bad way to settle things with someone who isn't a vandal). IMPORTANT INFO YOU SHOULD KNOW:

• On sites like a fandom wiki, or an IMDB website, you want to put every last detail in plot summaries. However, Wikipedia is not a fansite but an Encyclopedia, for informational purposes. Plot summaries here also are for encyclopedic purposes, and therefore the rules are different. You have to keep it under 700 words and be VERY selective and only put the most basic/"High points of the story" information, omitting any side details (See WP:FILMPLOT).
• When I use the word "redundant", that's a grammar term that means you can only say something once, implications included. For instance, in any dictionary, the definitions of "despair" and "heartbreak" and "Destroyed happiness" are so similar, you don't need to use more than one of these terms in the article to explain the same event.
• We don't add implications that we drew on our own (see WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH). You say it's implied that his captivity in the jewel was a trap - that is your opinion/what you got from it, but some could argue that it couldn't possibly be a deliberate trap if Chef didn't know the other trolls were in Bridget's hair, or that Bridget was Lady Glittersparkles, and Creek didn't see Poppy until afterwards. Others could edit that that was a film editing error. Therefore, this isn't a point that can be considered "Encyclopedic fact".
• There is a WP:MANUAL OF STYLE for article rules, and then we use basic "good english"/"good grammar" rules here so things look professional. For instance, keeping everything the same verb tense. What's more, the article looks unprofessional if we add lots of extra details about only one character in their character description, when other characters just have a brief precis of information.
• Edit warring is also a no-no here, which means if you add info and it is removed, you repeatedly re-add it instead of discussing it with other users first to see if there could be a compromise reached (see WP:EDIT WAR).
• We sign all talk page posts by putting four tildes, (four of these guys ~ ) which will automatically turn into a signature when saved.

I understand this must be important to you or a favorite part of the film. If you want to go to IMDB and edit the plot summary there, or the fandom wiki for Trolls or some other fansite, that would be the place to add what you are trying to add, though I'd try to correct the grammar a little even then. I hope this helps so you can make good article contributions in the future! :-) EEBuchanan (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC) (Putting this on my talk page as well)Reply

Whoever keeps insisting on adding extra commentary about Creek in the plot and the character description (it's multiple IPS at this point), please stop adding redundant/unhelpful information to this article. According to WP:FILMPLOT, we have to keep the plots of films as concise as we can. Redundancy - i.e. stating the same thing more than once in different ways, or over-explaining obvious fact, does nothing but bloat the plot, and is something to be avoided in any article but especially in film plots. In Trolls (film)s case, it's redundant to say Creek "reveals himself as a fraud" and "betrays them all to chef". If he betrayed them to save his own skin, obviously he's a traitor/fraud/whatever villainous term you want to use. And, for conciseness' sake, it's the ACTION we want, not side notes, anyway. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In the Home media subsection of the section Release, it says that the film is to return to Netflix (probably US date) on 7 December 2022. I’m not really sure if that’s the exact date, at least for the US. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Poppy(Anna Kendrick) and branch (Justin Timberlake) save the other trolls from the bergens, creatures that eat trolls for happiness, maybe except for Bridget(Zooey Deschanel). 220.158.190.42 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply