Talk:Assassin's Creed (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (9 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

production

is the film stop filming yet? CB2014 21:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, the end of filming hasn't been announced. This is only the 11th week of filming (oddly specific, I know, but they began filming on Day 1 of this semester of school for me, so I've been able to keep track pretty easily), so I'd imagine that they're probably not finished yet.Rmaynardjr (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be soon though. Films take about 12-16 weeks to film, obviously depending on different circumstances. I'm sure the social media of AC will make mention of something, or a third party source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how many weeks was the film cinematographed? CB2014 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There's filming for this film being done just 100 yards from where I currently work. (On the edge of Slough, UK). Work is still definitely going on at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfiend (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on the other Ubisoft films? CB2014 16:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed sequel

Press Trust of India (via The Indian Express) is reporting information on the sequel's production without referencing Tracking Board. Does that still make it reliable or a poisoned fruit? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still possible consider it WP:FRUIT because the only info we got regarding it came from Tracking Board. I didn't see any reports (say from Variety) saying the sequel is happening, with original reports by Press Trust of India. They all went back to Tracking Board. WP:NORUSH too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duration

We got a source that lists the duration as 140 minutes, not sure if it's reliable given the source also states, "Rating & Running Time TBC." Should we remove? -RM (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I can't comment on whether the source can be considered "reliable" or not, in a general sense, given the source provided doesn't actually state the film duration as 140 minutes, it should definitely be removed. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source said 140 min yesterday, 120 today. My guess is that it's not confirmed and 120 min (exactly 2 hours) is probably a placeholder duration until an actual duration is confirmed. I'll remove it for now. -RM (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says it's 116 minutes, but - original research, I know - I saw it and it wasn't longer than 100 minutes. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The end credits sequence is very long — it took nearly 15 minutes to end. This should be mentioned in article, probably. --XXN, 19:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time Period

The lead and the 'plot' section say that the historical parts take place during the Spanish Inquisition. While that is true, it is not very specific (the Inquisition was active for over 300 years) and after having watched the film I can say that it takes place entirely (the historical parts only) during the last year of the Granada War, which is important to the plot. Wouldn't it be good to change those few instances of 'Spanish Inquisition' to 'Granada War'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.136.48 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it will be a lot more specific if we change it to the Granada War. I will change it right away. --The dutch mentor (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a question?

uh? earlier, on the top of the movie/film article? wasn't there another 2 or 3 sentence part there? then the "total gross." before someone from this edit [1] changed it? and is it put back or? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the second paragraph back in now. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Box Office Bomb

Seriously, the Movie was Good and it Wasn't that Bad. Also, if a any Movie makes it over $100 Million or even makes more money overseas than Domestic, then it is not considered a bomb. Yeah plus people enjoyed it. And there are considering a Sequel and Netflix TV Series.

Citation Error 61

Hello there, I am currently new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to find errors to practice my editing. I have noticed an error in citation 61. The citation states that the site CinemaScore is a permanent dead link. The site however is operational in present time. Please Fix. :) --SH3RIFFO (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SH3RIFFO: I have fixed this. Grateful for your assistance. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to fix the problem would have been by adding a good quality reference to a reliable source. The link may not have been technically dead but it was nonetheless garbage and little better than a dead link.[2] Some editors think linking to an empty search box is an acceptable reference. An empty search box is a terrible refence for many reasons, but more importantly better sources (such as The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood) are usually available.[3] If you see editors trying to link to an empty search box, instead please try to replace it with a better reference. -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN IT RECEIVED MIXED TO NEGATIVE REVIEWS

IT DIDN'T ONLY RECEIVE NEGATIVE REVIEWS! It good some positive reviews and others are mixed, NOT ALL NEGATIVE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:8003:C987:F7E1:2E9D:D67 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some people might have left a positive review, that doesn't change the review aggregators' rating schemes that gave it "generally negative reviews". That's where the article is getting the "negative reviews" bit, from my quick skim. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited says: "Critics pan Michael Fassbender's action flick" and "despite the film’s star power, critics are so far unimpressed". The word "mixed" does not appear in the source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 5:09 pm, 31 December 2017, last Sunday (5 days ago) (UTC−5)

HOW WAS IT PANNED! ALSO, UM JUST BECAUSE IT LEFT SOME POSITIVE REVIEWS? Um hello that means some people liked it dummy! Plus it made more money.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:8003:c197:9449:4310:d8da (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

@Parttime18: you can't cite Wikipedia for your statement. See WP:CIRCULAR. Do you have a reliable source that this film received "mixed-to-negative" reviews? Right now, we have a source that it received negative reviews, and your statement is unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I have added a positive and negative review to make it "Mixed", so It should stay as "Mixed to negative". Parttime18 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2018 (BST)

That's not how it works. We need a citation to a reliable source that says "it received mixed to negative reviews". We have a source that says it received negative reviews, and you seem to be changing it merely because you disagree with the source's analysis. That's original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed to negative" is poor writing and should be avoided on that basis alone. There have been many past discussions at Wikipedia: Project Film that have been strongly against using that sort of wording, here is one such past discussion: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_/_Mixed_to_negative

In addition, the scores RT 18% and MC 36% do not support any claims that the review were mixed. Generally negative is an accurate summary of the many reviews counted by the review aggregators. -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels

Please do not add unsourced claims of a reboot without any sources. I tried to confirm any of this but I only found vague talk from Sony that they were exploring all kinds of film and television projects based on their video games but that is not quite the same thing as a film being actively in development.

Also in the meantime the announcement of a tv show for Netflix would seem to suggest that a sequels or film reboot is not happening any time soon. -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]