Talk:Spice World (film)

message: The title for the movie is debated. On the IMDb the film is entitled "Spiceworld" - as it is in their official biography (Real Life: Real Spice) (1997). On various posters the film is also called "Spiceworld". However the movie is also called "Spiceworld: The Movie" on the UK DVD cover as well as on on Amazon and HMV. Its also called "Spiceworld: The Movie" on the girls official world tour programme.
As the group's second album and their world tour are both called "Spiceworld", I named the article "Spiceworld: The Movie" to avoid confussion. Rimmers 04.44 Mar 2006 (UTC)
*Should probably be moved to Spiceworld (movie) to make it more consistant with naming conventions on wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I disagree because the movie is called Spiceworld: The Movie... Rimmers 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved per  and IMDB profile showing movie title as only "Spiceworld" Batman2005 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the article because Wikipedia's naming conventions for films is to use 'film' and not movie'. The JPStalk to me 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think this article should be called Spiceworld: The Movie as that was its original title when released and is also on the DVD cover and on the new "10th Anniversary Edition" version of the DVD.  - ǀ Mikay ǀ 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that! Well, third it! It should be called Spiceworld: The Movie like on the 10th Anniversary DVD!!!--DoctorStrange (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie title

message: Here's a list of additions I'm going to be making in the near future:
*Plot
*Awards
*DVD/VHS releases
*Reviews
Rimmers 04.46 Mar 2006 (UTC)
::Sounds like a plan--hottie 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: Yeah, really. Like, before anything else. I particularly enjoy that we've got an uber-complete cast and crew listing, and not a word about what the hell actually happens in the movie -- information which, not having seen it, I'd especially appreciate.20:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PLOT?!

message: Can anyone tell me where he is in the movie???71.9.38.84 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugh Laurie??? 

message: that Spiceworld now redirects to Spice World, which is a disambig of 4 choices. The album is now in Spiceworld (album). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that a lot of sources use either form to refer to the album or the movie (or the video game). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120185/releaseinfo#akas includes alternate titles for the movie as "Spiceworld" (Spain / UK) and "Spiceworld: The Movie" (Finland). Some sources also use "Spice World" for the album e.g. here and here. Maybe what's really needed at Spice World is a disambiguation page? Ewlyahoocom 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That solution would also be amenable to me. - Revolving Bugbear 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Some wrote: Spice World took in US$75 million dollars at the worldwide box office. Where does that figure comes from? Not from the references.--Ezzex (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: World Wide box office ??

message: Didn't that movie get an award for something like "best practical special effect of 1997" for that scene where their bus jumped the Tower Bridge (which was lifted at the time)? I'm pretty sure I can remember that. GMRE (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: With the 20th anniversary/2017 re-release, there have been some new generally positive reviews, compared to the negative reviews when the movie was first released. If anyone wants to make something out of these...
The Telegraph
The Guardian Bennv3771 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 2017 reviews 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Spice World (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BPI":
From British Phonographic Industry: 
From Spice Girls: UK Sales certificates database. British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 13 February 2017.
Reference named "uk":
From Wannabe: 
From Mel B discography: 
From Spice Girls discography: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Spice World (film)]] 

message: As Icon Productions is an American production company, a source should be inserted to showcase that the film was produced solely by the UK division as opposed to sheer assumption. As for the cast names' phrasing in the infobox, MOS:FILMCAST asserts "All names should be referred to as credited,  by common name supported by a reliable source;" and Template:Infobox film states "in general," and "an alternative approach may be determined by local consensus;" whence it is not obligatory to strictly go by the exact wording used in the billing block. The poster also has "The Spice Girls" prior to the names and not just "Victoria, Emma, etc." Listing the actors' full names is again more helpful accessibility-wise to the reader. QuestFour (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster billing block states , not . Unless you can provide a reliable source that describes the film as a British-American co-production, most sources I've seen list the UK as the film's sole country of production. As for the cast listing, I see no valid reason to deviate from the billing block, and I fail to see how this is an accessibility issue. snapsnap (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The company being listed as Icon Entertainment International does not evince that the film was produced by the UK division, we have sources for Icon being an American production company but none for the film solely being produced by a UK division. Having the common names of the actors is far more helpful to readers, familiar with the Spice Girls or not, than generic first names. I understand the disagreement however, so as the poster has "Spice Girls" before listing the individual members, maybe having simply that instead is a good compromise? Also, do kindly see WP:DRNC. QuestFour (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Cineuropa, Icon Entertainment International is based in London. Besides, the vast majority of sources (such as the BFI, which I've added to the article, yet you keep removing it) describe the film as a UK production. Can you provide a reliable source that explicitly lists the US as a production country? When listing a film's cast, the norm on Wikipedia is to stick to the billing block credits as determined by the production/distribution companies, not one's personal preferences. In the billing block, "The Spice Girls" appears immediately before the productions companies, so it's not actually part of the cast listing. snapsnap (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still an American film production company regardless of where it's based; I'll see if I can find a source with a more clear-cut wording. QuestFour (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering there are no sources for the film having been produced by a UK sector or division of Icon and there is of the production company itself, a source like Letterboxd in addition to that should be sufficient. QuestFour (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Letterboxd is not a reliable source, and you're wrong about Icon Entertainment International being an American company, since it's clearly a British subsidiary of Icon Productions, per the Cineuropa source I provided above. There are also tons of Screen Daily articles mentioning Icon's UK division, such as this one. A British subsidiary/division/branch of a foreign company is a British company after all. For instance, StudioCanal UK and Lionsgate UK are both British companies, not French or Canadian-American, respectively. snapsnap (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cineuropa does not directly clarify or state weather IEI itself is UK-based or a sub-division of it is based there; as for the latter, a UK branch existing is not the issue here, it instead concerns it having been produced the film. Letterboxd is used in addition to the film being sourced to be produced by an American production company and, as stated prior, not by a British division; though nothing seems wrong with letterboxd and is sufficient considering the former, nonetheless, I inserted a different source. QuestFour (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where's the explicit evidence that Icon Entertainment International (emphasis on the word "International") is an American company? Or that the IEI company that produced the film is American? That's beside the point as most actual reliable sources – such as the BPI, Variety, Lumiere and the CNC – list the United Kingdom as the film's sole country of production. Letterboxd is not reliable since its metadata is supplied by The Movie Database. PlayPilot, too, uses data from TMDB, according to its "About" page. snapsnap (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries of production and wording