# Talk:Power Rangers (film)

Has there been any announcements or rumors on whether or not Zordon will play a part in the film and who would portray Zordon? And what about Tommy Oliver?Wilson30337 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. This is the closest RS http://comicbook.com/2015/04/15/exclusive-jason-david-frank-talks-power-rangers-movie-contv-more/ 92.4.96.96 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
pr1 movie ending release date Chris Evans Tommy Oliver power rangers 2 movie LionGate ParaMount Hasbro Back together 2400:AC40:609:5310:C5DE:ECD6:DE47:7BDB (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This aims to resolve one of the edit wars that appears to be  taking place on this page.
I personally think the orders below are reasonable. They all have their own rationale, and appear more logical than the current ordering. 92.4.96.96 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There's also the order from the original opening credits intro: Jason, Trini, Zack, Kimberly and Billy. This is the current order on the article. -- Draco9904 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Has this issue been solved? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@KenYokai: Did you actually speak to Kerrigan Mahan about being Goldar? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked him about it on his public Facebook page a few moments before I made the edit & he said he wasn't aware of it, which also made me ask myself if this was real or someone added it as if they wanted it to happen KenYokai (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the addition of Kerrigan as Goldar and it seemed a bit odd considering Kerrigan also played Goldar in the original show and I saw the Citation needed tag. I went to perform this Google search and this Google News search and there's nothing to suggest Kerrigan will be playing as Golder in the new movie, let alone, anything to suggest Goldar will be in it. Until there's any verification that Kerrigan will be reprising his role as Goldar, then we cannot state as such. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well if he said he wasn't aware of it and filming has been completed I think someone just wants it to happen. Do you mind posting the permalink to the question please? I'll make a note and link to it in the article. The fact he was in the original series probably meant some nostalgic fan did it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I found the link to my post:  https://www.facebook.com/TheTrueGoldar.KerriganMahan/posts/662841160531196?comment_id=662841570531155&notif_t=feed_comment&notif_id=1474656501246370

Hey, I was just looking at the latest posters released and saw in the credit block the following: Screenplay by John Gatins and Story by Matt Sazama & Burk Sharpless and Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney. 
Do we need to update the infobox to reflect this credit? Here's the poster in question. --Jsngrwd (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That link isn't working for me can you send another copy please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Update If you change the writers in the infobox please also change it in the lead and body too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
How about this link here, the trailer. Clearly showing at the end that I was correct about the crediting. --Jsngrwd (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated link. It looks like the appropriate edits have been made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
What happened to Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz. Were they part of the screenplay team or we're they dropped out because if they are that is a huge mistake.(User talk Roguewarrior23) 11:37 october 8 2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguewarrior23 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I presume they were dropped. Read about the movies production history. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys whats with the story updates and character updates?
have they been confirmed? Jstar367 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
→I haven't heard of any of this stuff about the Zeo Crystal or Zed anywhere. I say source it or delete it.

aubery and Jacob Hogan Villain Monsters 202.165.84.240 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did this Premise come from?  The stuff about the Zeo crystal and Zordon being a past ranger is entirely unsubstantiated and nothing more than rumor.  This misinformation is not helpful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.200.165.103 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) 

Sources state that Zordon was the original Red Ranger and page 17 states about the Zeo Cystal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Digifiend: As per MOS:PLOT no citations are required for a plot summary. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, once a film is released. Then it can be verified simply by watching the film. Obviously we need a source for plot details before the film has actually come out. - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, right now WP:CRYSTAL trumps MOS:PLOT, because we don't know that the plot summary is actually correct. Digifiend (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you think including the information that Amy Jo Johnson and Jason David Frank having cameos is a spoiler? [1] Sb1990 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Almost every plot summary here in Wikipedia spoil the film in its entirety.  I went to films that has a cameo, such as The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, and Vin Diesel's cameo toward the end of the film is revealed in the plot. SO I guess you could add it.  Bluesphere 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The source calls Trini queer and not lesbian or gay. Which term should we use? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This is rather confusing as "Queer" has been applied on either terms since they both mean "gay", whether male or female. Does a gay woman referred to as "lesbian" or a "gay woman"? Bluesphere 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia and Bluesphere: Hi all. I'm here because at least two readers emailed OTRS about this issue. I may be missing something, but Becky G's character, Trini Kwan / Yellow Ranger, does not appear to be described as "queer" in any of the three sources that are cited: [2][3][4]. The Variety source has one paragraph which actually seems to indicate that her sexuality is mentioned only briefly in the film: "Becky G portrays the Yellow Ranger, Trini, a teen who questions her sexuality in a brief and slightly opaque reference in the film." (emphasis mine). I think we should remove the term "queer" or, barring that, find a better source that explicitly calls the character "queer". Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: At the time this was the source. As you can see the term is used in this source, but I would be open to hearing if you have anymore to share on this matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Ah, thanks for that link. The readers' objections were more against the term "queer" itself, since, as you know, it was once considered derogatory. The Hollywood Reporter article only seems to refer to the character as "queer" in the article's title. I think the more relevant point that all of the sources are focusing on is the fact that the character questions her sexual orientation during one brief scene in the film, not having "figured it out yet". Perhaps we could rewrite the character description to something along the lines of: Becky G as Trini Kwan / Yellow Ranger, a Power Ranger who questions her sexual orientation during one scene in the film. I am personally not against using the term "queer", but I think this is a more accurate representation of the sources. Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I can accept a rewrite along those lines. Please don't remove any of the other sources used there there though as they are used elsewhere in the article. Thanks for your cooperation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for your quick responsiveness. Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.thewrap.com/can-power-rangers-slay-disneys-beast-box-office/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC) 

http://deadline.com/2017/03/power-rangers-chips-a-deep-space-alien-wont-take-this-beauty-and-the-beast-down-weekend-box-office-preview-1202048509/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B002:A57A:84F:3F9D:B0BD:CF21 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC) 

For those that have watched the film: is it explicitly said in the film that the opening sequence takes place in the "Cenozoic Era"? Furthermore, is the fact that it takes place in the Cenozoic Era of any particular relevance to the plot? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: This has been restored it looks like. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment@BeardedDog7: The opening scene does not take place in the Cenozoic Era, the Power Rangers actually come to earth at the end of the Mesozoic Era. The reason that the subtitle is labeled Cenozoic Era is because the audience witnesses the birth of the Cenozoic Era. Scientists differentiate between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras because a mass extinction of land animals occurred at the end of the Mesozoic Era. Scientists believe that this was due to a meteor collision (possibly the Yucatan Penninsula crash site) which prompted the extinction. In the movie, viewers see why the meteor collision happened and literally watch the birth of the Cenozoic Era.BeardedDog7 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@BeardedDog7: Sorry, that makes no sense. The Cenozoic is defined as beginning immediately after the K-Pg boundary. You still haven't addressed my points:
Does the datestamp of "Cenozoic Era" literally appear on screen?
Is this particularly pertinent to the plot?
I see that it's been changed to "Mesozoic", but please do not engage in an edit-war until you have answered these questions (or, preferably, don't engage in an edit war at all). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes: Yes it literally appears on screen and no it is not pertinent to the plot.
In that case, I see no reason why just "prehistoric Earth" would not suffice. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that myself and Dtravis30 are at a disagreement about the plot section. WP:FILMPLOT states that Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words., but he has reinserted an excessively long plot section multiple times. Can we please gain consensus about whether we feel this plot is exceptional or if it should follow the standard? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As WP:FILMPLOT clearly states, the plot should not be more than 700 words. It is currently 1281 words, almost double the limit. There is no reason to have the plot this long for a film that's 2 hours long. - Brojam (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Brojam: Thanks for weighing on this. Would you be willing to revert back to this shorter version? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It is in fact true that plot summary sections are suggested to be kept 400-700 words in length. However, the vast majority of films on this site have a complete synopsis (examples include The Dark Knight Rises, Batman (film) etc. , and this one should be no different. If you want to be a stickler for rules, then go through and change the plot section of every film on this site.  Dtravis30  —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 

The fact that other articles follow a precedent it does not mean that you can overrule the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. Another editor has shared my view that this plot is not exceptional and should follow the standard limit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia:I shortened the plot by removing a great deal of the minutia that I had in it before. If it's that important to you, than I don't have an issue with that. It's not exactly 700 words but it does carry the essence of the film and the edits made by myself and other editors. And it also makes sense. Dtravis30(talk) 15:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for shortening the plot; a summary doesn't need a great deal of the minutia. It really should be close to 700 words, but it does not need to carry the "essence" of the film". It does not matter if the edits are made by yourself or others as longs as it meets the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. I agree that it making sense is important. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dtravis30: You have been warned, you were bold and were reverted. If you would like to have the plot longer than the limit per WP:FILMPLOT, please get a consensus from other editors. Also, the examples you have provided are almost all respecting the 700 words limit and those that are not are due to the fact that they were changed and no one reverted them (you can see the comment at the start of the plot section of The Dark Knight, indicating the proper word count). - Brojam (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
We've gone back and forth over this article. The biggest issue being that you think my initial synopsis was too long in length. My issue is that you essentially gloss over important details just to shorten the post. You want it short, I want it informative and cohesive. The difference between the two really coming down to one paragraph. One. Single. Paragraph. Your edit works under the assumption that everyone who reads it knows about Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and mine covers essential plot details for those who have never seen the show, and therefore don't know who's who. After the opening paragraph, you put a single sentence that says "In modern Angel Grove, five teens find the Power Coins and become super powered." Then you jump to Jason's father finding Rita's body, but you never once explain or mention who Jason even is, or who Billy is. That's incomprehensible and it makes an incoherent article. 400-700 words is a guideline, not a strict frame to adhere to. I have shortened the initial article down to 940 words as opposed to the 1240 it was before. That eliminates a lot of minutia that was there before and it keeps the article down to essential plot info. Now let's leave this behind us and move on to better things. >Dtravis30 (talk) 21:13 26 March 2017  —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 
I managed to trim it down so that both of you win; my version has the word count at 726, and the first half hour is not skipped. Right here for your reading pleasure. Infernape612 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Infernape612: Thank you! Now I can enjoy my birthday in peace without being aggravated by the Word Count Nazi.Dtravis30
The guy named Emir wanted me to update this area informing of my plot edits. Generally it was removing a lot of "..., and this, and that..."  and making it "..., this, and that...".  So removing all these extra ANDS and making words into contractions when able allowed me to even elaborate a bit on a couple of points in the plot and it still sits at 700 words on the dot.  Reads just fine and gets the entire plot across.  No worries or so called plot wars should occur from anything.  Tobiasthered (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tobiasthered: Thanks for your work trimming the plot section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you change "Kimberly, a power ranger, who is a cyberbully" to "Kimberly, a power ranger, who was a former cheerleader who passed a private sexual image of her friend throughout Angel Grove?" The article talking about cyberbullying was obviously biased and doesn't show a sense of neutrality. WordWrit3r (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Change mixed to average as per review aggregator's. Also in the cast section is it encyclopedic to label each characters per their shown identity, like bilingual, white red ranger isn't given any such distinguish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.199.75 (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 

I agree that if people want to break out character information regarding the characters then they should add it to their character pages.  The cast section is to list the cast.  It's not a characters section as well.  Tobiasthered (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have retitled it to characters. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I have edited the descriptions of the characters into neutral readings that explain the character better and doesn't get too graphic or wordy (as the Kimberly one was needlessly doing graphic-wise, and the alpha, putty, and Jason ones were doing wordy-wise).  Heck, the Jason one before I edited it made no sense and yet my edits got reverted back to that monstrosity by Emir.  Seriously, the Zach one simply said a bilingual ranger.  That's just sad.  The only background of the character someone wanted us to know was that he was bilingual.  Yeesh!!!  Also, you don't have to continually spell out football when mentioning quarterback.  Football is the only sport that has a quarterback and thus it's implied. Tobiasthered (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why EMIR keeps picking and choosing what of my character descriptions to keep.  Essentially each character description for the main ones have who they're playing, mentions they're a Power Ranger (which is the foremost important thing of the movie), a brief character tidbit, and then an extra single line of description to set it up for the reader prior to either reading the plot of the film on wiki or seeing the movie.  So essentially a line that tells you about the character right before you meet them.  Okay, so I tried to make these read eloquently and flow well.  They do.  But again, EMIR keeps picking and choosing and deleting for no reason.  I essentially bettered what was in each spot by 10X.  So lets break all this down.
1.  He kept my Jason description but insists on saying SCOTT.  Each other "single extra line of description" mentions the character by first name except for this one.  No reason for that so for continuity's sake I made it say Jason.  Also, he didn't QB for just Angel Grove.  He QB'd for Angel Grove High.
2.  For some reason does not want to mention that Kimberly is a Power Ranger.  The extra line from EMIR's reads "She spread a private sexual image of her friend, an example of cyberbullying."  The entire line of "an example of cyberbullying" is clunky as heck.  Mine reads "Kimberly was involved in a form of cyberbullying by spreading a private image of her friend around school."  Private covers it completely because every person understands what that means.  The words sexual really doesn't need to be involved, as the image was said in the film to be a nude pic anyway, not indicating it was exactly sexual in nature.  Could've been modeling.
3.  So one thing I tried to do with each Ranger was first and foremost start their extra tidbits off with the fact that they're a Power Ranger.  The film is about including all kinds of people in this world and showing that anyone can be a hero.  So I slightly reworded it to say a Power Ranger with autism instead of an autistic power ranger for continuity.  Then EMIR liked my description of Billy, but decided to add "until befriending Jason".  This line reads awkwardly here since the extra line is generally setting up the reader with a bit of background on the character to know who they are before seeing or reading about the movie.  For example, if you were about to meet say Billy in the movie, you'd know he has autism and it has led to him becoming a bully magnet and a lack of friends.  We don't need to know it was a "lack of friends until befriending Jason".  We'll find that out as we move forward.
4.  Again, EMIR liked my description but decided to just leave a snippet of it.  He didn't  like the fact that I mentioned she was a new girl in Angel Grove (established in movie) or the fact that I mentioned she has an internal struggle going on regarding her sexual orientation.  She plays her character in the movie as very indecisive and pensive.  Essentially, as I took it, like she's having an internal struggle to just be herself in the world.
5.  Seriously before I typed anything all Zack's said was that he was a bilingual ranger.  That should make anyone face-palm.   So I added in a line that is essentially what he said to the other ranger's when they were having their campfire bonding moment, that he has a sick mother and keeps away from home (I put it as seeks escape) because he's worried that one day he'll come home to find his mother dead.  Again, EMIR liked my description but had to again try to reword it.  I just don't understand the urge to reword it into lesser sounding sentences.  But I don't know if he has any reason because he never leaves any info about his changes.
6.  The putties.  The original description reads that they are stone golems that can be made from rocks, gold, concrete, and anything of the Earth element.  Okay.  Well, anything of the Earth element covers the rocks, gold, and concrete statement.  So I removed those excess words.  If at any point anyone had mentioned why they wanted it to stay a discussion could be had.  But no one says a word before reverting any of these characterizations.  Yeesh!
Tobiasthered (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
So EMIR read my piece here and then edited again, but at least in a much nicer way this time (still no summary of why changed).  He showed his desire to use last names over first names in the "extra line of info" portion, so no biggie.  We can go with that.  He then reworded a few of my descriptions.  Not in an overtly big way as before, and so no big deal except for that by doing so it made some lines and words repetitive.  I fixed them.  Examples:  When he added "loner" to describe Billy, we then have no reason to further state that he suffered from a lack of friends because it's completely covered under the loner description.  Trini's part got too wordy with "...led her to also suffer from a lack...".  This is covered by simply stating "...led to a lack...".  And for Zack -- by rolling with your wording of the sentence, we then don't need to repeat "find his mother dead", as we've already established the mother, so we can simply say "find her dead". Tobiasthered (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements, and I am happy to here any more suggestions you have for the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've some concerns about the text for Trini. At the moment the text is "Becky G as Trini / Yellow Ranger, a girl who is questioning her sexual orientation. Her off-putting nature has led to a lack of friends.[5][6][14][15]"
I think this it a strange thing to say she has an "off-putting nature" when the film clearly explains that she has been in 3 schools in 3 years, and the problem if any is that she is the new girl in town so I agree with what User:Tobiasthered was saying.
Furthermore I think it puts WP:UNDUE weight to mention her sexuality first and foremost, when I think being the new girl in town, and not being able to relate to her family are important to mention first then going on to explain she is questioning her sexuality but has noone to talk to about it.
The text I would suggest would be "Becky G as Trini / Yellow Ranger, a new girl in town who is struggling make friends and having difficulty relating to her family. She is also questioning her sexual orientation."
Something like that, because even though the filmmakers made a big deal about including her sexuality in the film, in the end it was a real softball and only got a single line mention in the whole film and she didn't even say it. -- 109.78.200.153 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
So basically you just want to switch the order around? That seems like a reasonable request, and so you can it yourself. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Trini's mother wakes up hearing what's going on in Trini's room.
Trini's mother takes a punishment for her daughter to fix her room.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.93.115 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I notice it's mentioned in the article that the movie is considered a box office bomb. But... how? Wikipedia's own description of a box office bomb is: "Generally, any film for which the production and marketing costs exceed the combined revenue recovered after release is considered to have "bombed"."
Now, considering the movie made a 40% profit on its initial investment, can someone explain to me how it's a bomb? The two sources linked for it do not mention it being a bomb either. Just that it didn't make enough profit that *most* movie studios wouldn't consider a sequel. 99.162.156.37 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree and have removed the mention of it being a bomb, if any editors disagree they can feel free to revert me. Bakilas (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Films have to exceed TWICE their budget to break even. Profit is split between theaters and studios. Here's an article about what makes a [break even film.]Crboyer (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this question comes up over and over I again, I direct your attention to a New York Times article from 1987 that explains "WHERE MOVIE TICKET INCOME GOES". In short: "the studio that releases a film to theaters - usually ends up with less than 50 percent of the money paid for tickets" hence the rule of thumb that the box office gross needs to be at least DOUBLE before suggesting a film is profitable, and that doesn't include other costs such as millions more spent on advertising. -- 109.79.161.241 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

NeoBatfreak you changed the pronoun from "their" to "his" with this edit. It is not confirmed that the character is male, the name is somewhat gender ambiguous, and the cast have expressed interest in a female green ranger. Could you please revert? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to edit the article for potential sequels because it is not just Denofgeek that says the sequels can still be made thanks to toy sales. As such, there are multiple sources that can be cited. 
I know the movie didn't do well at the box office, but as I've been saying, again and again, the chances for a sequel are NOT determined by box office numbers alone. There are multiple sources that say that the sequel could still happen thanks to toy sales. Plus, it hasn't opened in Japan yet and there's a chance for good home media sales. So please, please, PLEASE, do not jump to conclusions until we hear from someone who worked on the film. Aualga94 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aualga94: Do you have other Wikipedia:reliable sources that you can provide? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Xochitl Gomez As Tommy Oliver  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:AC40:610:D408:8090:6BDA:8DDF:8E42 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 

I'd like to fix some grammar mistakes. 2605:6000:7980:3500:2572:8A8B:7616:3E02 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to share these grammar mistakes please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[5] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Power Rangers (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kevin Dewitt (talk · contribs) 21:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hello Kevin Dewitt I am the nominator. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: This article passes, upgrading to GA status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Dewitt (talk • contribs) 
@Kevin Dewitt: I see you are new here. You can ask for a second opinion if you want help, otherwise we'll stick with your pass. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: i think it's good enough.--Kevin Dewitt (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why that line is present at the start of the article. Deadpool was released in 2016 and Deadpool is widely recognised as LGBT. Savager (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention of LGBT at Deadpool, and even still the source given states this claim so you would have to explain why it is wrong. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

The page is locked so I can't fix the mistake in the second graph of the lede: "It wet with mixed reviews..." Thanks. 60.248.185.19 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The section "Future" states that "Brian Goldner announced [...] that Hasbro was in talks with Paramount Pictures to produce the sequel". But this does not match the specified source, which says that "[we] don't know if it will be a reboot of the previous reboot or a sequel to it". So it should be specified that this announcement refers to some new Power Rangers movie which may or may not a sequel to this one. 95.157.57.49 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick search came up empty, but … I can't be the only one to have noticed that Rita looks an awful lot like Tom Hiddlestone's Loki, and I wonder if they got into any trouble with Marvel for that? --2003:C4:DF04:B220:BDF9:CDF9:5841:E5F1 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)