Talk:1917 (2019 film)

Why no “critical acclaim”?

There is an invisible comment on the page telling editors not to use “critical acclaim” to describe the critical response, could somebody explain why this is the case? Many other film pages use this, I don’t see why this one can’t? Fobz12345 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

it’s awards season and competition for them is huge right now. I’d say just go ahead and use the phrase. Boscaswell talk 09:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reception section: undue weight to negative review

Rotten Tomatoes has 89% positive reviews, but 1 of the section’s 3 paras, taking up nearly 1/3rd of the section, is given over to a negative review. This is WP:UNDUE. Boscaswell talk 09:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I've dealt with it.Boscaswell talk 00:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Two editors added a whole new paragraph critical if the continuous takes. Criticism of that had already been given space and again following WP:UNDUE I deleted the whole paragraph. Boscaswell talk 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Quad Trench-CMYK-Jan-10-AW 1917-scaled.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

English or British

An editor today changed the lead from saying "British...film" to "English...film". I can understand the description English for places, and for individuals who identify explicitly as such, but for such a large cooperative project as this film, where the co-writer is clearly Scottish, and much filming was done in Scotland, British seems more appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2020

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.

Speedy close. Page already moved to the title per guidelines: 1917 (1970 film) and 1917 (2019 film). (non-admin closure) Hddty (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• 1917 (Sam Mendes film) → 1917 (film)
• 1917 (Stephen Weeks film) → 1917 (short film)

– Can "film" accurately describe a short film? I don't think so. Unreal7 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move of the Mendes film... is the short film even notable enough to have it's own article? There is very little content. Plus I don't recall any instances where films have been disambiguated by the director's name should at least be by year. Also support restoring original titles as outlined below. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Restore previous titles which were moved by Crookesmoor without a discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The previous titles should be restored immediately. It’s outrageous that Crookesmoor changes them without any discussion, seemingly on a whim. Sorry, but I don’t know whether this is an oppose or a support. Boscaswell talk 21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, revert to prior titles (1917 (2019 film) and 1917 (1970 film)), and speedy close - this was an undiscussed move. The current and proposed names fail WP:NCFILM which gives preference to year disambiguation above other methods. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have moved both articles back to the titles they previously had. No idea why they were changed in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2020 (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.

Country?

Seems like there's something of a contradiction now, with the lede reading "British film" and the IB/categories saying it is a British–American co-production. Can't find any source to back up either, and to confuse matters further, the first source I could find regarding this is the BFI database, which lists four countries: US, UK, Spain, and India. What should the article say?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Good luck getting responses on this matter. I tried up above three days ago, and got nothing. I still believe British would be most appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As per the MoS, the article’s lead sentence should say what the reliable sources say. That there were elements of co-production doesn’t prevent the artistic product being seen as British, if that’s what other sources are reporting. In such a case, the article body and infobox can set out the details of the various national involvements. Do a check and you will find sources from across the world that describe 1917 as a British movie or film - the UK ones are a given since 1917 just won “best British film” at BAFTA - but you will find references from the US, Ireland, Australia and South Africa. For example from the US, Variety.com (US edition),[1], Forbes,[2] AVclub,[3] and Hollywood Reporter.[4] (“home soil”). MapReader (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48 (talk · contribs) I’d say a response within two minutes is pretty lucky ;) MapReader (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Very true, but now I'm jealous. What have you got that I haven't got?  ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

At the same time, I wouldn't say that a movie winning the British Film BAFTA means that it is indisputably a solely British production; last year's winner, The Favourite, for one, is listed on its article as a British–American–Irish production, and the winner the year before that, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, is listed as a British–American production (and neither movie is called "British" in its lede sentence). What I guess I'm getting at here is that if there are multiple countries sourced/cited as being part of the production, calling it "British" in the lede seems somewhat oversimplified, and I wonder if it's necessary to specify a nationality in the first sentence at all.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Secondary note: The article for The Favourite cites the film's entry on AllMovie, which lists its countries as the UK, US, and Ireland. AllMovie's entry for 1917 lists the US and UK, which is what the infobox says right now.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

With respect, you are missing the key point. Left to their own devices, WP film and TV article editors love constricting their own arguments as to the nationality of particular films or series. All of these are OR. And, if I may be so bold, a recurring theme is of American editors often insisting that American $ can somehow override the creative input of other countries to deny the nationality of those creative products, despite this being recognised by multiple RS. Yet WP is an online encyclopaedia - not a forum for online original research - and the job of editors (note, not ‘writers’ or ‘researchers’) is to report things as others (provided they are reputable and reliable) see them. With a British Director, British writers, British storyline, British filming locations, British cast, and 1,200 British crew members, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that this film is widely seen as a British artistic creation. That some US money helped its production and US companies helped with the marketing and distribution doesn’t change this essential reality. MapReader (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I have no agenda to push in terms of arguing whether films “should” or shouldn’t be marked as being of particular nationalities. But it does seem, again, that to argue that discussion should not occur for any particular reason doesn’t seem encompassing of the actual information at hand. I have no particular opinion of how this should be resolved (or if there is anything to even resolve in the first place, if that’s what the consensus is!), but I’ve personally never been clear how one reconciles between the “nationality” of a film and the countries that funded it (for example, should the James Bond films be called British? No real feeling either way, just wondering!) Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-reviewing MOS:Film is a good place to start. MapReader (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

Enhancing wayfaring Stranger