Talk:Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Typo needs correcting.

The release date is shown as " on on September 18th ", there's one too many ons.

193.164.120.250 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done and thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015 - Add Official Site Link

Please add the Official Site to the External Links section - Official Site is http://mazerunnermovies.com http://http://mazerunnermovies.com Greencmg (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - McAfee identifies it as a dangerous site - Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

Please change Release Dates to September 11th 2015 (Australia) Zooferret (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please change release date, it started screening in Australia on 11-Sep-2015. Source: http://villagecinemas.com.au/movies/maze_runner__the_scorch_trials Ahmadmuj (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Source said Sept 10. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials

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 Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials'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 "BOM":

• From Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation: "Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)". Box Office Mojo (Amazon.com). Retrieved September 18, 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• From Pitch Perfect 2: "Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 27, 2015.
• From Fantastic Four (2015 film): "Fantastic Four (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved September 19, 2015.
• From The Maze Runner (film): "The Maze Runner (2014)". Box Office Mojo. September 19, 2014. Retrieved February 3, 2015.

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⚡ 14:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2015

". Augustine Quindaúla of EMIS SA ANGOLA said I've read all the books of The Maze Runner trilogy and sincerely speaking, the films lacked a lot of content. The book 2 that on which this film is based, is full of more drama, suspense, horror not to mention the action sequences that James Dashner, even in terms writings he took great care to illustrate us. I give 2 of 5 stars and 20Th Century Fox should hire Mr. Dashner which is the book writer, as Writer or split the adaptation of books in 6 movies, not just 3 because there is a lot of material stuff in the books that the present writer's cutting"

Xhiyssuez (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2015 (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. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot - saving civilisation?

I'm talking about the line, "determined to take them down to save his friends and save civilization". They aren't saving civilisation by taking down WICKED - if anything, they're destroying it, considering that they're the only means for WICKED to find a cure for the Flare, save the world. Doesn't this line warrant correction? 203.188.228.239 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Onscreen stylisation

When one watches the film that this article is about, one first sees the 20th Century Fox logo and hear the accompanying theme.  That lasts from 0:00:00 to 0:00:19.

For the next three minutes and thirty three seconds (i.e., from 0:00:19 to 0:3:52), one sees scenes from the film.  One sees particles of something floating in the air, people with breathing masks, and Thomas's mother handing young Thomas over to some armed gunmen.  One sees young Thomas and other children on a train with armed gunmen.  Then one sees present-day Thomas rising on an elevator and being "rescued," along with other characters his age, by people who are shooting firearms at creatures.  Thomas and the other characters his age make it safely into a huge, mechanical bunker.

Then, for the next eight seconds, a title appears on screen.  The title, as it appears onscreen from 0:03:52 to 0:04:00, is The Scorch Trials.

Many articles note when an onscreen stylisation differs from other stylisations.  Take, e.g., Iron Man 3 (stylised onscreen as Iron Man Three) or Chosen (TV series) (stylised onscreen as CH:OS:EN).  I could provide more examples, but I think this sufficiently illustrates my point that it is common practice on Wikipedia to note alternative onscreen stylisations.

Why am I saying all this?

On 1 July 2016, the opening line read,

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (also known simply as The Scorch Trials) is a 2015 American dystopian science fiction action thriller film…

True enough.  But, given that the film is not simply "also known" as The Scorch Trials, given that the film was actually depicted with this title onscreen, I thought it merited notation in the article.

Thus, on 1 July 2016, I edited the opening line to read,

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (also known simply as The Scorch Trials, which is how the film was stylised onscreen) is a 2015 American dystopian science fiction action thriller film…

Thirty-nine minutes later (still 1 July 2016), Bice24 undid my edit, returning the appearance of the opening line to

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (also known simply as The Scorch Trials) is a 2015 American dystopian science fiction action thriller film…

Bice24 provided the following edit summary when she or he reverted my edit:

Irrelevant and, as you can see on the official poster, not true.

I wish to respond to both allegations.

First, my claim is not untrue.  Anyone who watches the film can verifying that the title, as it appears onscreen, does simply read "The Scorch Trials."  Anyone who doubts the veracity of this claim regarding onscreen stylisation is invited to check out the film for her- or himself.  I have provided the exact time that the title appears onscreen (0:03:52) as well as the exact time it fades from the screen (0:04:00) to aid those sceptics who wish to verify the matter for themselves.

Moreover, the "official poster" cannot in any way prove that the title does not appear onscreen as The Scorch Trials because the "official poster" does not display the onscreen stylisation.  Only the film itself displays the onscreen stylisation.  If Ms. or Mr. Bice24 wishes to prove that my edit was "not true," she or he is behoved to watch the film (or at least the first four minutes thereof).

Second, my claim is not "irrelevant" to the present article.  Claims made about a topic are ipso facto relevant to the topic about which the claim is being made.  (If one wishes to say that my claim about the film title's onscreen stylisation is "irrelevant" to the question of how to make mac & cheese, I would concede that it indeed is irrelevant to that concern.  But, the claim is, by definition, relevant to this article.)

Moreover, not only is the claim relevant, but it is common practice, as I mentioned above, to note onscreen alternatives to stylisation.  (Again, more examples can be provided if needed.)

In light of all of this, I have decided to edit this article a second time.  In order to avoid an edit war, I wanted to announce my actions and reasons here.  Although this is my second edit in this article, I am not editing the article in precisely the same manner as I edited it two days ago.  Instead, I am editing the opening line to simply read,

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (stylised onscreen simply as The Scorch Trials) is a 2015 American dystopian science fiction action thriller film…

This language is more precise than the present language, and more concise than my previous edit.  Given that this edit is

1. completely relevant to the topic of the article,
2. in line with common Wikipedia practices, and
3. completely true,

I have no doubt the Wikipedia community, including Ms. or Mr. Bice24, will find this edit acceptable.

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

P. S.  For those desiring a link directly to the new edit, you may find that here.  21:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


In an edit to Americanise the spelling (changing "stylised" to "stylized"), Bice24 writes,

Also, shouldn't [The Death Cure] have this note as well, in this case? Seems random.

Valid question.  The answer is this:

If the third film is stylised onscreen simply as The Death Cure, then yes.  But, since the film has not yet been released, we do not yet know how the film is going to be stylised onscreen.  When 2018 rolls around, someone should watch the film in order to see how it is stylised onscreen, and then act accordingly.  Until then, third film's onscreen stylisation is entirely speculative.

Regards,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

query

What were those monsters that were seen in Thomas' hallucination (I don't mean the Crank forms of his comrades)? They kind of looked like Grievers to me... Visokor (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think they were..................... Wordsighn (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)