Talk:Booksmart

Requested move 19 May 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's consensus for moving to the base title. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Booksmart (film) → Booksmart – Currently Booksmart is a redirect to a page that doesn't even include that word. The film should take precedence. Immigrant laborer (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Maybe the software should be mentioned at Blurb, Inc., but either way I don't see any basis for a primary redirect. PC78 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Looks pretty obvious. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I'd argue this could've worked as a technical request it's so clearly the right call. Sock (tock talk) 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• I feel like we should have an article on the concepts of being book smart versus street smart. bd2412 T 03:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Further to this, I have started a draft at Draft:Book smart and street smart, which will explore the cultural concept of this division of kinds of knowledge. I would expect that once completed, it would be the primary redirect target for all variations of both "book smart" and "street smart". bd2412 T 04:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. If you search "Booksmart" on Wikipedia with no space, the results are almost all about this film. This makes me think this is clearly the encyclopedic primary topic, compared to a dictionary definition of what it is to be "book smart". --Quiz shows 21:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The original redirect is the result of an AfD of BookSmart, which was a product developed by Blurb. The AfD, thoughtlessly, did not end with a mandate to merge any of the content of BookSmart, which is why it's not mentioned on Blurb's page. I've no opinion on the move, but if it is effected, there should be a hatnote either to Blurb or to a dab about other Booksmarts. Chubbles (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oooohhh. That makes more sense. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The information provided by User:Chubbles is a good reason to keep (film) in the title. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No need, we have {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}} for that. Paradoctor (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support I was about to perform the move when I saw the hatnote. I have mentioned the software at Blurb, Inc. § Software, so we can safely point a hatnote from here to there. Paradoctor (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Compromise I humbly suggest a disambiguation as a landing page, so it can include Book smart. The film will lose it's popularity, given enough time. BoringJim (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Compromise with what? The concern of the sole oppose is addressed. Other than that, I see only snow.

From the view stats it is clear that, for the time being, the film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by a factor of 100. I created a dab page anyway, we can easily reshuffle the pages when and if things change. Paradoctor (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Sincerely, Masum Reza^📞 08:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense. Coderzombie (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree with this. User:TreeGelbmanFan 12:13, 25 May 2019 (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.

RS for future use

Just leaving these as potential citations.

1. Stanford, Eleanor (May 16, 2019). "'Booksmart' and How Hollywood Stopped Fearing Lesbian Teens". The New York Times.
2. Blockon, Jenny (April 17, 2019). "Booksmart: Olivia Wilde's New Film Has a Sweet Lesbian Twist". AfterEllen.
3. Debruge, Peter (March 11, 2019). "Film Review: 'Booksmart'". Variety.

Pyxis Solitary yak 11:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Molly's her trip to 'Africa'

The line "Molly helps Amy prepare for her trip to Africa" shows a USA-centric view of the world. Too often US-made films/TV shows/reviews refer to "Europe" or "Africa" as amorphous places. In this context, the specific location in Africa is important to the plot line: As we learn in the film, she is going to Botswana, rather than Uganda, partly because of the latter's negative views on homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiniceguy123 (talk • contribs)

Done - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

p.s. WP:BOLD - Immigrant laborer (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Budget Incorrect possibly

Conflicting report on the movie budget is 19 million. https://bestmoviecast.com/booksmart-2019-cast-release-date-plot-budget-box-office/

Currently the article only shows one source for the budget at 6 million.

I would suggest adding a new source and possibly averaging the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.106.194.3 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that no legit or respected source has stated the budget of 'Booksmart.' I'd suggest removing any references to its budget until this amount has been officially stated. Additionally, the article currently cited - https://theplaylist.net/booksmart-box-office-debate-20190602/ - is from The Playlist, which seems to be deeply agenda driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.189.100.120 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

$19 million seems implausibly high. if you look at the budget for other Annapurna Pictures film's, and compare to the $10 million budget they gave to Richard Linklater. Also that isn't a particulaly great source, if you try and read it the article is spam overloaded with keywords to get attention from search engines.

$6 million seems low but plausible, other costs such as P&A probably bring it closer to $10 million all in. I would not want to remove this source unless we had other more reliable sources and even then we should not cherry pick. A budget figure gives context to the suggestion that the film underperformed. Scott Mendelson has a lengthy analyis but unfortunately doesn't say anything about the budget.

As it was filmed in Los Angeles we can be almost certain the film received tax rebates and the budget information will have to be disclosed eventually. -- 109.76.211.92 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

When is the film set?

Based on the images I've seen, this movie seems to be set at some point in the 1970s or '80s. True? If so, could we put that into the article, or is it never made clear in the film? Moncrief (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

At one point they watch a video on their phone. So "nowish". - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The film takes place on June 7th-8th, 2019, at the end of the film, the next day, Amy looks at her phone and it says "June 8th", which mean the film takes place on June 7th-8th (minus the final scenes). And the characters are the class of 2019. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

True dat.

The use of smartphones, social media, and Lyft mean it could not be anything other than "now-ish". (Also other references like Ruth Ginsberg.) Interesting to get specific dates though, thanks for that. The production design might still have intentional or unintentional stylistic references to others eras. You can read about the costume design which is varied, it's lived in, none of it seems overtly or glaringly contemporary. The film is now-ish but with plenty of echoes of other times. -- 109.76.211.92 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)