Talk:Baby Driver

Potential COI issue?

Noting that the user name of the page creator seems to be tied to the film project. Page neutrality appears neutral tho, no template placed. @Baby Driver 1980: are you directly involved with the production? If so, might want to review WP:COI just to make sure there're no issues. JamesG5 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Baby Driver (film) → Baby Driver – The film is the primary topic. Currently the target is an unrelated non-notable novel. A hatnote works fine. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, I created Baby Driver (disambiguation) earlier today.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing comment: Yes, and it was then moved over the base name redirect while this discussion was in progress. So I've just moved it back. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and move dab to baseline Given the amount of coverage for the novel and the two songs, might be best to wait for the film to be released. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Per the film being the primary topic. Right now, the search term "Baby driver" redirects to Jan Kerouac. On Baby Driver (disambiguation), the following topics are presented: this film, a novel by Kerouac, a song by Simon and Garfunkel, and a song by KISS. The main articles for each of the other three topics are Jan Kerouac, Bridge over Troubled Water, and Rock and Roll Over, so only one with its own article is the film, thereby making it the primary topic. –Matthew - (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. No other topic with this name is sufficiently notable to even have its own article on WP. This film already dominates the Google results when searching for "baby driver". Clearly already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the relatively obscure other uses. --В²C ☎ 19:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose... for now. Please see WP:ONLYONE: just because an article is the only one of that name does not automatically make it the primary topic. I think there's every chance the movie will quickly establish notability in terms of both usage and long-term significance -- but that's WP:CRYSTAL, isn't it? Right now it's notable for usage, but not necessarily for significance. And again: not every ambiguous name has a primary topic.

I suggest redirecting Baby Driver to the dab page for now, and re-addressing once the movie is actually released.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• NapoliRoma, Perhaps you're unaware, but until a few years ago usage was the only criteria considered when determining primary topic. Long-term significance was added to provide a basis for those occasional situations where some topic had exceptional long-term significance and editors want to treat it like the primary topic because of that even though usage stats did not warrant it. That situation is not present here; not even close. It was never supposed to be a requirement for a topic to meet both criteria in order to be considered primary, a requirement you seem to be imposing in this case. The only criteria that is relevant here is usage and this film is clearly primary for Baby Driver on that basis. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I hesitate to get all crystal bally, but if this isn't moved now due to recentism, I really see no way this film won't be the primary topic in the future (very notable director, very notable cast, no other Baby Driver has an article...). Might as well save some time. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes and recentism is meant to address news events that are briefly popular (measured in days or weeks) - that is never the case for films. Recentism should never apply to something obviously lasting like a film. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The only topic of this name with an article or more than a mention at any other article. All evidence suggests it's the primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inaccuracy in Cast Section

I work for Rubenstein on behalf of Media Rights Capital. Meryl Streep is not a cast member of this film. The CinemaBlend article used as the citation does not support the claim that Streep is a cast member and she is not listed as a cast member on IMDB [1]. Would an editor mind removing her name from the cast section? NinaSpezz (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting the character's true names in the cast section constitutes spoilers and as such has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.231.89 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a Musical

While music is an extremely important factor in the film, it's not a musical. The characters don't sing any of the songs, which is what defines a musical. JDDJS (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does not describe the musical aspect of the movie

The film is based around the way it syncs to the soundtracks. I can't think of a good way to integrate this into the article, but it's clearly a major aspect of the movie, if not the primary aspect, and is notable enough that it must be mentioned. cnte ^(talk) 03:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

American Sign Language

Take a look at the info block for the page for There Will Be Blood; it includes American Sign Language as one of the languages, mainly towards the end of that film.

Since there is sign language used throughout the film (despite there being subtitles unlike in TWBB), shouldn't it be included in the info block next to language for Baby Driver? If not, then why is it listed in language for TWBB anyways? - Theironminer (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox film language guideline, only the primary language should be listed. Both films primarily use spoken English. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Speculation over ending in plot summary

"The final shot of the movie shows Baby being released from prison with Debora waiting for him on the other side of the gate as the two embrace, leaving the audience to decide if this happy ending is a figment of Baby's imagination, or Baby actually being released after serving a short prison sentence."

Er, is that a thing? Because I think that's the writer's interpretation rather than a concrete fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.85.122 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone has removed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely speculation that the ending is real and not a dream. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.57.174 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not speculation, the dream is clearly in black-and-white earlier in the movie. It turning into color and revealing the prison in the background is supposed to show it's real. 81.233.184.201 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is "action comedy" the right description?

Baby Driver is a 2017 action comedy film... There's certainly a lot of witty dialogue, but I'd call it an action film rather than an action comedy film. JH (talk page) 21:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)