Talk:Twin films

similar isnt the same as twin

Films that deal with a similar theme are not enough to be a twin. Twins deal with the same story. Rob roy and Braveheart, Tombstone and Wyett Earp or the two Robin hoods for example. Superman V Batman and Captain America are in no way twins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:CA4:9700:5868:4B6B:F546:9D1 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What about something like Jobs (2013) and Steve Jobs (2015), I feel these are twin movies. 73.92.248.227 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

On that line: The Road to El Dorado and The Emperor's New Groove have squat in common. ~ Not signed in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.14.25 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There are ones that are indeed ones telling the same story from different angles like say Tombstone and Wyatt Earp or Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun. But one like Braveheart and Rob Roy actually are not the same story per se, both are about Scottish rebels fighting the English but they were different men who lived centuries apart, and by that criteria wouldn't count in. Neither would be another famous pair looked at this light in Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. Both about World War 2, but about different characters in different theaters of the conflict. In both cases they remain similarly themed films that came out within the same years and were looked at prospectively as competitors at the time. I guess it just leads one to have to ask, just how close do they need to be to count as twins? If ones like those first two pairs are the standard than the list in general is indeed too big and should be cut down. If the latter pairs are legitimate entries, than they for the most part look fine, including Road to El Dorado and Emperor's New Groove which compare about as much as those last two pairings IMO. DarthKurgan (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiment; this doesn't feel like a wikipedia article, it feels like a tvtropes page. Unless there is a hard link like the biopic films (Capote/Infamous), adaptations of the same work (Dracula), or a stated respectable source noting the origin of the production, then the movie(s) probably shouldn't be in this list.24.80.205.96 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed a few after reading the article and this discussion because it was started over 2 years ago and hadn't gotten anywhere. Feel free to remove more or add some back but consider using more convincing language in the descriptions --69.131.3.69 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing a lot of the "examples" that were extreme stretches at best. Like An American Tail and The Great Mouse Detective. One was about Russian immigrants coming to the United States in the late 1800s and finding out that it wasn't the paradise that they expected it to be. The other was an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. The two had jack-all in common except cartoon mice, and there have probably been a hundred movies with cartoon mice, just like there have probably been hundreds of movies about robots and/or AI, and thousands of movies about World War II. I got rid of The Truman Show and Ed TV, because the premise of The Truman Show was that the main character's whole life was a lie and he had no idea that he was on a reality TV show, whereas this was completely absent from Ed TV. I got rid of Battleship and Pacific Rim because Pacific Rim was a direct homage to the giant-robots-versus-monsters shows from Japan like Power Rangers and Neon Genesis Evangelion, whereas Battleship was based on a board game; these two movies have probably never been mentioned in the same sentence outside of this Wikipedia article. Zootopia is a buddy-cop movie about racial tension; Sing is a mashup of Cats Don't Dance and American Idol.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard of most of the movies on this chart, nor do I have time to watch them all, so my pruning was probably only a fraction of what needs to be done. Please continue my work, and be merciless. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the standard for inclusion on this list isn't what you have or haven't heard of, but a plain reading of the plots, and above-all, citations. You removed a lot of cited material and as such, your large deletion was reverted. I agree the list needs to be pruned, but it needs to be done by consensus and with purpose and respect to WP guidelines, not whims. JesseRafe (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is that a reliable source would draw the conclusion that they are twin films. Anything else is WP:OR, which most of these are. Any editor suggesting that two films are twin films based on their own opinion is violating the rules. The citation for venom/upgrade is only some stupid listicle that suggests two of the actors look similar, nothing at all suggesting the films themselves are "twin films". Films like armageddon/deep impact are widely cited as being twin films and something of note. The list needs to be entirely gutted and rewritten only with good sources.--125.129.16.99 (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code

What about National Treasure / Da Vinci Code? Or are they not similiar enough to count for this list? Teelosdomain (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Both films are "treasure hunts", that is to say seeking a reward of any kind based on discovered and/or intuited clues, but that is hardly enough to call them twins. That's more a theme than a plot. (afk) Heh, just looked, they were 'born' two years apart. Twins implies a relative closeness in age, as well as reliable sources commenting on that and a resemblance in plot.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 17:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Similar list

Someone made a similar list that got deleted (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:ProhibitOnions/List_of_films_with_similar_themes_and_release_dates). It had more and older films, so the current article might be improved by adding films from there. I also think the sort order ought to be reversed, with the newest films at the top. This would have the benefit of hiding obscure older films at the bottom of the list. I may take this task upon myself at some point, but it might be better if someone more knowledgeable about films (and Wikipedia) took a shot at it first. 71.183.62.189 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

the movie that has the same plot as Saving Silverman that has Paul Mccartney playing himself and saving the day still has not happened why wont some screenwriter just write it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.36.165 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"I know, I've got it on my desk!"

The floating quote anecdote is an editor's abridgement of the quoted lines in an excerpt from New Yorker piece:

“Good news,” said McGrath, who also co-wrote “Bullets Over Broadway” with Woody Allen, and adapted and directed “Emma.” “I finished my script!”

“I know,” Ray said. “I’ve got it on my desk!”

“And I paused,” McGrath recalled the other day, over lunch at La Grenouille, “and I said, ‘Uh, no you don’t, because I have it on my desk.’”

“No, it’s right here,” Ray insisted. “‘Capote,’ by Dan—” There followed, McGrath said, “what is known in the Wasp community as a polite pause.”

Which seems like a story which works well as an anecdote over lunch, but is a bit flat and misrepresentative when reduced to two-part dialogue suggesting that the conversation had been carefully transcribed by a neutral party. I don't think it adds anything to put it in a floating box as "a 2003 conversation". --McGeddon (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Table vs sections

Any input on this? I'm not convinced the decade sections is better. For one thing, the table could easily be organized anyway the reader wants by clicking the sort buttons in at the top of the columns. It is also much easier to follow. The bullet point sections really seems to hurt readability by comparison. --Wikisian (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on the talk page. I decided to "be bold" and just make the change, but I probably should have discussed it here first. The sortability is not really an issue, I think - it seems to me that the only order that makes sense for this list is chronological. I can't imagine that anyone would want to see this set of "twin films" ordered alphabetically based on whichever film came in the set came out the earliest. Readability is a valid concern - I think it's still readable, but others may disagree. But I think the big improvement is that the display of sets of more than two films is much more normal now. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't thinking so much that anyone would want them ordered alphabetically, but rather chronological or reverse chronological, with the newest films at the top, as suggested in one of the sections above. With the table, people can easily sort it however they want and readers are not forced into one-size-fits-all. I can understand the interest in wanting to be able to have more than two films equally represented (instead of having only two main ones and any others shoved into the description box), but I didn't find it very distracting at all. It even seemed kind of appropriate because it is rare that there would be more than two prominent twin films. Others are often low-budget pictures that no one has ever heard of. I do like that the sections offers a distinct separation of decades, but the biggest thing for me is it was so much easier to quickly read everything with the table. Everything is now so scrunched together, it appears so messy and difficult to catch everything. Would it be possible to create a table with decade headers? --Wikisian (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be possible, but then you couldn't really do reverse-chronological sorting either - unless someone specifically wants to see movies from 2017 before movies from 2010 but after movies from 2009. I think your strongest argument here is readability. Personally, I think the current formatting is readable too, but it would be good to hear other people's opinions. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant...possible to do a table with decade headers that would maintain a logical order even if resorted. I'm not sure it wouldn't take some clever coding. As for input, I'm not sure how much we might get. It's not a popular page. Might just be you and me ;) Perhaps we could post in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and ask for input. "Hey what do you guys think is most appealing and easiest to follow?" --Wikisian (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I pretty strongly feel this format is much less readable and the table was significantly better. The spacing allows scanning to be done easier, especially if some cells were empty and the surfeit of blue links and walls of text in general don't lend themselves well to the bullet list format at all. I also see nothing gained by organizing them arbitrarily into decades, as what, just a schema to make them sections? Is there some implicit argument about the decades the films were released being made? Are 1971 films more like 1979 films than 1968 ones? One big table for every entry is neutral in presentation. JesseRafe (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't really like the table format, in large part because it's awkward for film sets that have more than two films, which is a good number of them. As a test, I put the descriptions of the films on a separate line for the "1970s" section - see here if my edit gets reverted. This seems to improve readability - what do you all think? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that worrying about film sets where n>2 should be a chief concern. In those cases the third (and subsequent) films are much less notable/smaller productions or more tenuous than the chief two. Look at the article title, twin films... = two. If this were really that much of a problem we'd have a third column and a different article title. As it stands now the notes section is perfectly adequate. As to the 1970s section, I stand by my view that this negatively affects readability and the tables are much better than the sections. Further you have not presented an argument why decades are a significant reason to separate them into these sections, seems capricious. JesseRafe (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad that you don't like the version with more spacing; I thought it might be a way out of this impasse. It's true that separating by decade is somewhat arbitrary, but decades (and sometimes centuries) are used throughout Wikipedia to break up content into more manageable sections. In this case, having separate sections is meant to make both reading and editing easier. (I think Wikisian agrees with me on this one.) I think someone trying to look up - or edit - information on a film from, say, 1995 would have an easier time with a list split into sections than one big table - and that's even more true if they're on a mobile device.

It's also true that sets of more than two films don't fit into the title of this article, although they were all there even before I started making edits; and in a few cases, there are really are three or more notable films - like that period in 1987-88 which saw four Hollywood films about boys turning magically into men and/or the other way around. Maybe there's a better title for this article, like "List of similar films released around the same time", or some such. "Twin films" is not necessarily a common term for these anyway, and as the article notes, "twin films" can have other meanings as well. But that's another topic.

Anyway, that's my view. If I'm outnumbered on this, feel free to revert back to when the article was a big table. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The separate line for descriptions is an improvement, but I still find the table superior in terms of readability. And of course it's common and useful practice to separate things by decade, but I do have to agree with JesseRafe that it does seem arbitrary for this particular subject. As I mentioned initially (and as seems to be echoed by JesseRafe), having third and subsequent films in the description box doesn't really create a problem because it's rare there's more than two prominent films. (I'll grant the 1987-88 body switch plot as an exception.) I do agree the sections may make it easier to look up and edit for a specific time period. However, while someone looking to add to the list might be able to find the right spot for their edit quicker, I think it's rare that a reader would be specifically looking for a specific year or decade. On top of that, I think it's more advantageous to have better overall readability than to make things harder to follow at a glance, but with slightly quicker decade navigation. It really wasn't difficult or cumbersome at all to get to a specific year just by scrolling the list and watching the years increase or decrease.

That being said, I think it'd be nice to get at least one or two more opinions on this. But if Korny's okay with it, I suppose we could switch back to the table while waiting on that input. --Wikisian (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We can add this to the Film WikiProject's attention, but FYI, expect the article to be significantly trimmed if that happens. I'm going to go ahead and restore the tables, it will take me a couple of edits because there's been other changes as well. As a side note, please make sure to internalize that public-facing edits should never be made for the ease of editors, it's always for the readers. Obviously having sections would be easier to edit, but adds no value to the reader. When I edit huge tables (or sections of prose) I simply Ctrl+F for the year or unique word in or near what I want to edit, saves so much more than time! JesseRafe (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkest Hour and Dunkirk

Besides being a film about Churchill, Darkest Hour is about deliberations over the evacuation of Dunkirk. What's a good way to add this to the list? Praxeolitic (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You could make that argument and some have, but I would not, having watched both films both are very different (if you'll forgive the reductive summary one is a a biopic, the other an action film) .

[1] Indiewire calls them a "a pair of complementary" war films, but also "the editorial demands couldn’t be more different" ... Dunkirk "an overlapping actioner covering land, sea, and air" whereas "Darkest Hour" "delivered a more psychological approach to his claustrophobic pressure cooker."

I do not think this pair of films meets the requirements and would recommend removing "Darkest Hour and Dunkirk" from the list unless suitable sources can be found saying otherwise. -- 109.78.193.115 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Flushed Away & Ratatouille ?

@JesseRafe: Please discuss on talk page, article is behind a paywall, but this goes against the spirit of the use of the term in the article, this is a very superficial similarity, and not strictly true, as one is anthropomorphic and the other not, these films' plots and themes are not at all the same to my understanding, compared to two films about a Truman Capote or a volcano destroying a town released at the same time, just being "rats" is not enough even i…[2](the rest of your text was clipped by WP) A version of the WSJ article can be found here. The article is about twin films, but in this case they call it "cartoon collision" between DreamWorks and Pixar. It compares them as "an uptown rat living in comfortable captivity gets washed down a toilet and finds there is more to life, in a sewer" and "a rat with a taste for the finer things in life who discovers his destiny in a sewer." Another source.[3] StrayBolt (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't read either of these refs either, sorry (the latter may just be at work). I guess, based on those blurbs, but it seems to me that there would need to be closer plot elements, not just themes/morals. This list is stronger with the fewer and the clearest/cleanest examples of it, otherwise it quickly becomes a wikia fandom article. I think Antz-A Bug's Life is a good example of the article and Zootopia-Sing to be a superficial similarity and not a good example, recently Ratatouille and Bee Movie were also spuriously added and removed. I think these two fit in closer to the Zootopia-Sing group than Antz and A Bug's Life. Will try to access the gamesradar source when I can. JesseRafe (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You can read the newspaper one by clicking on OCR. StrayBolt (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If anything, they're opposite films. Flushed Away is about a house rat finding his place in the sewer, while Ratatouille is about a sewer rat finding his place in the human world. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So they are both Fish out of water stories. StrayBolt (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I was skeptical and thought it pure coincidence, but since we are supposed to go with reliable sources and you presented not one but two references, which I read and I think you have made a much more compelling case to include Flushed Away and Rattouille as twin films, than many of the other films on the list that fail to provide any references at all. I think your suggestion is not only a twin film but also a notable case of twin film and if it is not included on the list then there are plenty of other examples without good references that should be removed as soon as possible. -- 109.76.131.91 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added/restored Flushed Away and Ratatouille using gamesrader and wsj as sources. These two have a better claim than most to be included on the list. I don't think anything new should be added to the list without including sources. -- 109.78.193.115 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

FA+R have reliable sources saying they are twin films, unlike many films on the list which fail to meet that even that low standard. I don't see what the problem is here, or why their inclusion was rejected.[4] -- 109.77.209.168 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources aren't necessarily using the same criteria as this article, there's solid rationale given that these films are too dissimilar to be included. They merely both have animated rats. JesseRafe (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm made edits based on sources, sources that call these "twin films". Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources, I don't even necessarily agree with the opinion of the sources, or disagree that the films were in the end quite different stories, just that the circumstances of the production mean that these films were perceived to be "twin films" and that sources, not me or my opinion, said so.

I'm seeing (above in this discussion) subjective opinions based on original research, not the "solid rationale" you seem to see. With so many other films on the list with such weak justification and no sources at all, I don't see convincing reasons to ignore the sources and not include these films on the list.

Also there's an odd "TODO list" template at the top of this page and it might be past time to remove it. -- 109.77.209.168 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Do these films count?

Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941), A Matter of Life and Death (1946), Heaven Can Wait (1978) (there are probably more, and maybe they're only partially twins) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy... (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If you aren't sure if they count then you shouldn't be trying to add them to the list. The films you suggest might have similar plot lines but it seem as if they would fail to meet the "around the same time" requirement. -- 109.78.193.115 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941), Heaven Can Wait (1978) and Down to Earth (2001) are all film adaptations of the same Harry Segall stage play. Also as mentioned, they are not contemporary. Maybe the first two you mentioned, if you find sources. StrayBolt (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How about all the films about the Titanic? I don't have time to research them right now, but as I recall -- in addition to the blockbuster historical fiction film -- weren't there two biographies of the captain, unfortunately released at about the same time? Tina Kimmel (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Do these films count? 2

Hi! Would also like to discuss if the following films count:

• Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960), reasoning:
  • Both the Spartacus Wiki page and the Ben-Hur production section IMDB trivia mention that Kirk Douglas developed Spartacus as a response to not winning the lead role in Ben-Hur.
  • About year difference in production/release date.
  • Some similar themes: Romans are the villains, protagonist is enslaved, epics retelling same time in history.

• Battle: Los Angeles (2011) and Skyline (2010), reasoning:
  • Both are disaster/sci-fi/apocalyptic action alien attacks on Los Angeles.
  • About year difference in production/release date.

Thanks for reading! Awake7two (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome! The first one, definitely not, they're completely different films and there were thousands of sword and sandal epics made in that era, all with fairly similar setups as is the case with any genre picture, a buddy-cop or private eye, or any similar trope-laden genre is going to have similarities across the films, to be a twin film is far more involved than that.

The second pair are pretty similar and I think were on this page once or twice before. A sourced comparison would go a long way. However, a big issue is the legal suit between the productions and the fact that some of the same people were involved in both pictures. That might make it a little murky as to whether they were two competing productions or what. But again, sources are key here.

One final note, IMDb (and especially its trivia pages) are not accepted as reliable sources here. IMDb is user-generated and not considered reliable. Cheers, ;::JesseRafe (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Skyline and Battle:Los Angeles are currently already in the list. JesseRafe (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply and noted on IMDB! Awake7two (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bambi

Could somebody please explain how Bambi and Fox and the Hound made it to the list? Not only are the two films produced by the same studio and are more dissimilar than similar, the first film came out around 40 years before the other, making Bambi, if anything, a much older sibling rather than a twin. Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jostiel (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It was added, it was removed. People adding bullshit to Wikipedia isn't that big of a deal, if you see something that obvious, just fix it yourself. JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"All are apocalyptic science fiction films."

> All are apocalyptic science fiction films.

This seems like a terrible, overbroad description of the commonality of the 2011-2012 films in question. My understanding is that all of these films concern the pre-apocalypse - characters who cope and struggle to cope with an imminent apocalypse - feigning normalcy, getting caught up in minor errands, and developing connections before the end.

I have not seen any of these films, so I don't have the confidence to update the entry, but I would suggest replacing the similarities description there with "All concern coping with an imminent apocalypse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:400:80C9:9189:3C9E:BD47:A7B5 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Find sources that more clearly state your position if you think a change is in order, or maybe revise your request, it's hard to follow what you want done. JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reason for the removal of these movies

"Die Hard with a Vengeance" and "12 Rounds" are identical movies given that:

- There is a series of challenges that the main character must solve to stop the bad guy.

- A bomb is involved in quite a few, if not all the challenges, that must be solved.

- Both movies involve the bad guy orchestrating a diversion to distract the main character while the antagonist escapes with money.

- The director of "12 Rounds" also directed "Speed", which has a similar premise.

If anybody has any disputes, please post them here.

These 2 movies will be listed unless there is a good reason to exclude them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ft763 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

They came out like 15 years apart, if it was the same year, slam dunk, but as it is, it's more likely the one was based on the other. JesseRafe (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

How much OR is in this list?

I believe something like this list is appropriate under Wikipedia's guidelines, but I sense too much original research with the inclusion of some of the films. Particularly with "A-Team"/"Losers" and "Upgrade"/"Venom". The former pair have their own respective prior IPs, while the latter pair have contrasting framing devices (software AI vs. alien parasite) and entirely different endings. I'm sure there are other arguable differences, but those are the ones that just slapped me in the face. I'm not sure my assessment is actually correct, so I'm interested in other thoughts. Xaxafrad (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Be bold, remove them. I think this list is stronger when only the clearest exemplars are given. JesseRafe (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

New films

Don’t look up vs moonfall 2600:6C60:4A00:8E:690B:8FB1:D82A:AB9 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Don’t look up vs moonfall

Please add 2600:6C60:4A00:8E:690B:8FB1:D82A:AB9 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Documentaries and non-documentaries

Are documentaries too different from other films to count for this list? For example, RBG and On the Basis of Sex came out in the same year, and are about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but one is a documentary and the other a biopic. There are currently a few such examples included in the table. Lingmar (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Speed (1994) and Blown Away (1994) and Specialist (1994)

All three films about explosives experts (terrorists / maniacs). What do you think?

I think you'd have to find some reference for this. The article for The Specialist includes this review of the film, which notes that "given the releases of Speed and Blown Away this summer, there's no dearth of explosion-based motion pictures." So that's something. On the other hand, is there ever a dearth of explosion-based motion pictures? It's not exactly a niche genre, like, say, movies about Steve Prefontaine. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, would definitely need a reference. Rray (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bombs detonate, debris raining down on streets as fireballs explode skyward. A cop who makes a habit out of playing the hero prepares for his latest mission, this one far more dangerous than anything in his past. A woman, sitting in the driver's seat of a speeding vehicle, can't put her foot on the brakes for fear of the explosion that action might cause.

This may sound like the storyline for Speed, but it's really a thumbnail sketch of some of the highlights of Blown Away... and that's the problem. It's unfortunate that two movies with so much in common have been released within a month of each other.

https://preview.reelviews.net/movies/b/blown_away.html

I think it sounds convincing enough. What do you think? Evgeniy Nefyodov (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That sounds nothing like Speed prior to the third sentence. Perhaps you should find another outlet for your collection of "similar films" than this list? I'm glad you came to the Talk page prior to editing for feedback, but this is for TWINS. These three movies have huge, crucial plot differences, it's almost trolling to suggest including them, especially given your low conversion rate of proposed entries. JesseRafe (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

JesseRafe - that was unnecessarily harsh. You may not have realized it because of the strange formatting, but that whole "Bombs detonate..." thing was a quote he found from this review of Blown Away, by James Berardinelli - who, coincidentally (or maybe not) was also the author of that The Specialist review I found. So, for what it's worth, at least one notable critic thinks at least two of these films, maybe all three, fit the definition of "twin films". Whether or not we think these fillms are similar hardly matters. I'm not sure whether one critic's views are enough to qualify for inclusion in this case, though I'm leaning toward yes - at least for Speed and Blown Away. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a quote from a review by James Berardinelli, below is a link to the source (sorry for inaccurate formatting). And this is definitely not trolling, but a question on the merits.

These two films ("Speed" and "Blown Away"), as noted by Berardinelli, have a lot of identical plot elements. And the films were released almost simultaneously.

Don't these films fit the definition?

Twin films are films with the same, or a very similar, plot produced or released at the same time by two different film studios.

What solution? Evgeniy Nefyodov (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That critic noted a similarity, but they are not the same or even "very similar" plots. Plot elements are not plots. Blown Away, from what I recall not having seen it in years, was more detective/procedural/mystery in terms of the type of police film it was vs a complete action-oriented thriller that Speed was. Procedurals can have action scenes etc of course, and the converse, but Blown Away had all sorts of geo-political intrigue and, as the review notes, the cop/hero was "preparing" for a mission, but Reeves's character literally jumps into the mission without a moment's preparation. To suggest these two, along with The Specialist to boot reeked of bad faith to me. The latter is even more different than these two. Examples like this are prime What Wikipedia Is Not fodder, and this article will be deleted if it becomes a storehouse for "lists of films that contain explosions". One very common thing critics do is compare films, even if they're not related. It's how they fill space and also how they interact with their audience knowing they may have limited time and budget, it's a regular function in film/music/book criticism, many columns are published to compare them. Versus a distinct finding of similarity, so it's not ipso facto notable or a twin if a reviewer mentions two movies if common sense tells you that the sentence "this summer, there's no dearth of explosion-based motion pictures" can be published in earnest every single year. It may have seemed harsh, but this user seems to spend a significant amount of their editing time and effort adding spurious examples to this list and doing little else on Wikipedia, so both the fact that few of their examples end up being included and the fact that trying to add those examples make up the preponderance of their edit history, I stand by my assertion that this isn't the place for that and that other options exist for this hobby, and other articles on Wikipedia could use help. JesseRafe (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, these two films have differences in the plot, this is not a remake. In any of the "twin movies" on the list, you can optionally find differences, even if they are biopics about the same celebrity. But both films ("Speed" and "Blown Away") tell the story of a brilliant criminal-explosive, who is opposed by the guardian of the law. There aren't many movies with this kind of plot. Here is what another critic wrote (Desson Howe, in a Washington Post review, July 01, 1994):

"In this listless movie summer, anything with a modicum of fun is welcome. "Blown Away" isn't much to savor -- it's about a Dixie cup's worth of relief -- but it goes down easily.

Just like "Speed," the recent flick about a bus wired to explode if it drives less than 50 mph, the film isn't a story. It's a series of suspense ordeals, with booby-traps to be defused, the usual clump of fragile lives at stake and that inevitable, time-running-out, sweat-glistening question: DO I CUT THE RED WIRE OR THE GREEN?" Evgeniy Nefyodov (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point, thank you. The critic is assessing the summer as a slate of pictures, and comparing which one to see, amongst films of similar genres. That's what they do. The movies are not twins. JesseRafe (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Critic Desson Howe writes not about "similar genres" but about very similar key plot elements: "It's a series of suspense ordeals, with booby-traps to be defused, the usual clump of fragile lives at stake and that inevitable, time-running- out, sweat-glistening question: DO I CUT THE RED WIRE OR THE GREEN?".

Berardinelli (link above) also writes about this: "This may sound like the storyline for Speed, but it's really a thumbnail sketch of some of the highlights of Blown Away... and that's the problem."

Here's what another critic writes: "While Speed was in theaters only a month before Blown Away, it sure seems that someone must have seen that script and thought, hey, we can do that, and more of it. Without a bus. Or Sandra Bullock".

How many more external links do you need to bring? Evgeniy Nefyodov (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced examples as Original Synthesis

There are a lot of unsourced examples listed in this article. The justification for this seems to be that "the film acts as a source". This cannot be true, unless one film makes reference to the other. Otherwise we have a case of a Wikipedia editors taking the plot/scenario of one film as a source, the plot/scenario of another film as a source, comparing them, and reaching a conclusion that they are twins. Something that neither source does. This is the very definition of original synthesis and is not permitted.

These examples need reliable sources where the comparison has already been done. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I would take that "justification" with a grain of salt, as the quick revert with that edit summary was not from a regular contributor to the page, and I wouldn't suggest speaks for the page watchers or reflects a consensus of long-time contributors. I agree the entries should be cited, and cited explicitly with regards to them being twinned as two studios releasing two films under production at the same time, not just the films are similar or merely just compared to each other. However, I do think a modicum of very obvious synth is allowed per WP:BLUE for things like the biopics. Truman Capote, Steve Prefontaine, Catherine the Great, Wyatt Earp - these are very specific topics and movies don't regularly come out about them, as opposed to the regular "animated talking animals", "explosions and a cop stops a bad guy", or "a cop infiltrates a gang undercover and faces a moral dilemma" which come out all the time. I don't think two movies from say 1961 should be removed because we can't find adequate online sources about their similarity when a reasonable person can see how similar they are prima facie, but I do think that should be the expected standard for two films from 2015 for example. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Broadly agree. However this article needs to decide if it is about explaining the concept of Twin films, or attempting to be a list article of all Twin films. The latter is often the kind of article that gathers cruft and original research unless a strong criteria for inclusion is defined. It is also often impossible, or ridiculous, to attempt an all-inclusive list. So a reliable source that effectively says "these are twins" should be the minimum threshold. Yes, per WP:BLUE, others may seem obvious, but is their inclusion needed? How does the article, and therefore reader, benefit from them being there? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bodyguard 1992 and In the Line of Fire 1993

Hello, when looking up one of these films recently, I mixed it up with the other. What do you think about similarities? Bodyguard theme, older agent and younger female colleague/protectee, working for or having worked for the president, killer/stalker. Ziko (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Very different. I'll give you that they're both protection films with a current/former Secret Service agent, but really, ITLOF isn't properly a bodyguard, it's a security detail. Next, there's not a notable age difference between Costner and Houston nor do I recall it being played as an age gap for the characters on par with Eastwood and Rene Russo (I assume you're referring to?) Bill Cobbs to Whitney Houston is more comparable, Costner is only 5-8 years older, I'd guess but age wasn't a story factor -- besides, combining a protege role with a protectee role is not thematically similar, and Eastwood doesn't fall in love with the President. Lastly, killer/stalker films are generic. Just a single similarity in broadly different plots, not a twin. Romantic thriller vs political intrigue thriller. JesseRafe (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Woodstock 99 documentaries

HBO made a documentary film about Woodstock 99 in July 2021, while Netflix released its own documentary on the same subject a year later in August 2022. A major difference between the two projects is that Netflix's version is a three-part docuseries and not a singular documentary film like HBO's version. Should these docs still be added onto the list? LouisVuittonDevil17 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

These sound very similar, but I'd say the Netflix documentary being a series disqualifies it from this article. (There is one miniseries mentioned here, but it's a "see also" - and maybe it should be removed anyway.) Korny O'Near (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave

Shouldn't Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave be on this list because they are both about slavery and were released at the same time, and also were both made by different companies. 2.25.253.203 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources considering these to be "twin films"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

A sticky situation. You could say that the production of 12 Years Slave, which is based off of a well known book of real events, inspired Quentin Tarantino to direct Django Unchained. Like Johnny English to James Bond, that would make Django Unchained the unhinged action comedy version of 12 Years a Slave. I don't think that counts because, once again, Django Unchained is very different in tone. 2600:1012:B15F:28E5:0:57:EFBF:4901 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well both films have many similarities between them such as they are both about slavery and racism and they are both set in the Antebellum South. The main antagonists (Calvin Candie and Edwin Epps) are very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.104.3 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That's it, they're both broadly about slavery in the US. They're completely different plotwise, antagonists' similarities are... being slavers? JesseRafe (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well the antagonists are more similar than you think because they are both sadistic, ruthless, threatening, and cruel. They use they're slaves for more than work. Calvin Candie forces his slaves to fight to the death while Edwin Epps forces his slaves to dance for him late at night. The two characters completely don't care about their slaves and they even look alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.104.3 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I only created this topic just to compare the similarities and differences between the two films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.250.239 (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The 4 Pinocchio films of 2022-23

The other entry for 2022 lists 3 films and there were almost 4 Pinocchio films in 2022. The Disney and Netflix releases would have been joined by Pinocchio and the Water Of Life but it was pushed into 2023: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6986324/

2022 also saw the release of Pinocchio: A True Story in most regions, including the US: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6986324/ These 2 should also be acknowledged and I can list multiple websites and professional YouTubers that made articles/videos about this phenomenon. Guillermo del Toro himself addressed this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.180 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Shrek and Ice Age

I always thought Ice Age was similar to Shrek, it may not have anything to do with it, but think with me. Shrek is similar to Manny Both are lonely, grumpy brute-hills, both have sad pasts, but deep down they are good, Donkey is similar to Sid, Both love to talk, sing and annoy Shrek and Manny, Puss in Boots is similar to Diego, Both are feline and brave, and always seek to protect their friends, in the beginning they both tried to kill the main characters, but over time they became loyal friends, Do you guys think we should put this on the page? 170.239.69.233 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Please don't. Those are common character tropes, not twin films. If it were one story with a Mastodon and one with a Woolly Mammoth, and the similar plot and character arcs, that's a twin, and that's the standard we're going for here. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for giving your opinion, But what are common character tropes? (Just to know) 170.239.69.233 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Anastasia

Anastasia (1956 film) and The Story of Anastasia seem twins. The Problem of Anastasia: Two films on a single pitiful theme", The Times (February 20, 1957), p. 11 is a possible reference, but I don't have access to Times Machine. -- Error (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

TV Films?

Do these count? There was a made for TV movie version of Titanic that came out in 1996 just before James Cameron’s 97 film, and a made for TV Helen of Troy that premiered before 2004’s Troy. Piratesswoop (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Similarities between Back to the Outback (2021) with Madagascar (2005) and The Wild (2006)

In addition to Madagascar and The Wild being twin films, the 2021 Netflix movie Back to the Outback also has similarities to Madagascar and The Wild as well (Being that Back to the Outback is more like The Wild than Madagascar. Because both are movies about animals wanting to escape from a place, (which is a zoo and the park), Both have a Koala, which serves as comic relief in the film, Both are about a father and son relationship,(Which is Samson and Ryan and the Huntsman and his son), Both sons find out their dads were lying about their past, And both animals manage to escape into the wild in the end, Do you think I should put something about this on the page? 187.108.21.39 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No. JesseRafe (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Adventures of Milo & Otis and Homeward Bound?

Both are animal adventure movies. LemonPumpkin (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

And both are years apart (1986/1989 and 1993, respectively).$chnauzer 14:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Arrival (1996) and Contact (1997)

I haven't seen either of these movies in full but the poster and plot summaries make them seem like twin films. I've seen clips of Contact. Both feature a radio transmission leading to the discovery of aliens. In The Arrival, it's found that the aliens have already been in Earth for decades in disguise and are trying to "terraform" the planet with climate change. In Contact, it's a more straightforward story about communication with an alien race and the international impact, and said aliens are not antagonists.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Arrival_(1996_film) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Contact_(1997_American_film)

The poster of The Arrival features satellite dishes, which made me think it was a ripoff of Contact, then I found Contact came out later. 2600:1012:B15F:28E5:0:57:EFBF:4901 (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The Matrix

Also Open your Eyes (Spanish: Abre los ojos) (1997) is another film about people in Virtual Reality thinking the world is real. -- Resuna (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Weak connections between topics

Some comparisons in the list are tenuous at best, even fitting the definition presented in the article of “Similar plots”. In addition, because of the amount of original research, I’m unsure of this list’s place on Wikipedia.

When stories are distilled you can pretend they are extremely similar while ignoring broader details. I.f. and Imaginary are both about imaginary friends, but the latter is a horror movie. Dreamscape and a Nightmare on Elm Street both involve entering dreams with dire consequences, but one involves saving the president, and the other revolves around killing teenagers. And the Road to El Dorado and Emperor’s New Groove both take are animated films that take place in Latin America, and that’s about it. Huskago (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How about "Primary colors" and "Wag the dog"?

Both are satires about political campaigns, only one year apart. Ziko (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You could also add Bulworth to that list, but I think that's more of a "same genre" thing than a "twin films" thing. It's not surprising to get a bunch of politics-based movies in 1997/98, when the US was being gripped by the first presidential impeachment trial in over a hundred years. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Wag the Dog is a high concept black comedy. Primary Colors is a Bill Clinton biopic. Lifterus (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad Boys: Ride or Die and Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F(2024)

Disregarding the fact that I disagree with those two being listed as twin films, the description of their similarities doesn't make a good case either. "Both films are Africa American Cop taking shooting.", isn't a very clear description. I wanted to edit it to at least make it clearer, but I genuinely don't know what the editor tried to say here. Wanted to bring attention to this. Flzrian (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. It's almost comical how much this doesn't belong. They're both decades old franchises. Lifterus (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Independence Day and The Arrival

The Arrival is the twin film of Independence Day. There was tremendous hype leading up to ID4 that started with a 1/28 Super Bowl ad. Even though The Arrival was not an action movie but about a covert alien invasion, it was clearly released and heavily marketed just before ID4 in order to capitalize on the hype. Studios appearing to produce and release movies based on awareness of a competing similar scripts (usually the lower budget one trying to leech onto the hype of the bigger budget one) is the most important component of what makes movies twins.

Mars Attacks, conversely, was just a coincidence. It was a big budget Tim Burton comedy. It had been in production for years and was a follow-up to his Ed Wood film which inspired the idea. It had no connection to ID4 other than coincidentally being released 6 months later. If there was any connection it could be considered a spoof of it. You certainly wouldn't call Scream and Scary Movie twins, right? Lifterus (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

FairyTale: A True Story (1997) and Photographing Fairies (1997)

Both films are based on the same story (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies) about two supposedly photographed fairies by two girls. Both films (as in life) feature Arthur Conan Doyle. KinoIstorik (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)