Talk:A Quiet Place Part II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:A Quiet Place: Part II)

References to use[edit]

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing[edit]

This marketing step is not worthy on its own to include, but if there are reliably sourced reactions to this teaser or any subsequent trailers, it can make up a "Marketing" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on[edit]

Regarding the "Based on" parameter in the film infobox, the source says, "characters created by Bryan Woods & Scott Beck". This is in line with other films that have credited creators of characters. For example, Jurassic World's credits say it is based on "characters created by Michael Crichton". There is no need to remove "created" from the official credits language. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly means the same thing. Just like how Screen Story by, and Original Story by means the same thing as just Story by. Also, the "by" already implies that they are the original creators. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Story by" and "Original story by" are clearly not the same thing. "Original story" is referring to, well, the original story that this story is based off. "Story by" could refer to episode 16, which is clearly not the original story. 58.80.201.106 (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Box office forecast[edit]

TropicAces, regarding your removal of the "Box office forecast" section here, I'm okay with that in general and for the time being. I wanted to link to the removal here in case any details could be salvaged later for a comparison of what was expected in the first place compared to new expectations and what actually happens. It should be interesting indeed... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some current box office forecast content, and it looks like another editor created a distinct section that restored the original content. I'm not really sure how I feel about restoring all of the content because it is relatively stale. Maybe the figures are worthwhile, but not so much the related commentary since the context has expired? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 or 2021?[edit]

Should this now be considered a 2021 film? It had a world premiere in early 2020, but I am not sure if world premieres are considered "public release". It was a closed event, and there were only very limited Twitter reactions. This may be a rare instance of a film's world premiere and its public release being in different years. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding using "upcoming" in the first sentence, there is nothing to require this word usage. This article had "2020" the entire time before the recent change. Furthermore, "upcoming" is context-specific. Even if it came out at a film festival, it is still "upcoming" to most moviegoers. Same if the moviegoer reading the article is from a country that gets the film later. Still, the original question needs to be answered as to whether or not "2020" is really appropriate. We have pretty much no reception-based coverage from that, so I'm hard-pressed to count it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be categorised as a 2020 film, per the Years in film articles section at the Manual of Style for films: List films by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. However, I think we should still list it as "upcoming" in the lead section instead of using the year, given Erik's reasoning: Even if it came out at a film festival, it is still "upcoming" to most moviegoers. El Millo (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a notice at WP:MOSFILMS' talk. El Millo (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the premiere was "closed" to the general public, if it were still a publicly held event I concur that our guidelines would technically have us treat it as a 2020 film because members of the public (i.e. those not involved in the creation of the film) would have still attended a viewing. The reason we do this is because it could seem a little weird to a reader if the article discusses a public showing of a 2021 film in 2020. But at the same time that is just our guideline and WP:V trumps that, and if sources/databases/catalogs consistently document it as a 2021 film then I think there is a strong policy based reason for Wikipedia not being the odd man out. So basically this: keep it as a 2020 film for the time being with a view to reviewing the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: what are your thoughts on describing this film as "upcoming", given that its premiere was already held but that it's hasn't been properly released yet? El Millo (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are very unusual times and we must be more open-minded about deviating from our guidelines, which are essentially designed to take the thinking out of normal situations. Given the fact that nobody can actually go and buy a ticket yet for this film I am certainly receptive to keeping it in the category for now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a while, editors have been changing the release year back and forth between 2020 and 2021. I haven't touched it because I can see either working, depending on context. But now JDDJS thinks there should be no year at all in the opening sentence. Removing the year entirely is simply not done. Do others agree or not? Pinging Facu-el Millo, Betty Logan, Bovineboy2008. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is technically a 2020 film because it had its premiere in 2020, but it'll be theatrically released worldwide in 2021. The thing is, I've seen many films that were screened at some festival and weren't released in theaters until a year later, and the year used is the one from its premiere at the festival, so perhaps we should apply that here. See Babyteeth and Nine Days as examples. —El Millo (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's better to just removed the year from the lead sentence as it's debatable what year it's truly from. As far as I know, there's no policy that you have to include in the lead sentence. It's also extremely weird to see Erik to say "[it] is simply not done", when he previously said "argument that it 'just isn't done' is a meaningless reason to oppose" in another discussion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, we have many examples of films that premiered in one year and were released in a different year. We can just not include the year but, as that has never been done (or at least I haven't seen it, please provide an example if you can find one), it stands to reason that we try to figure it out a different way first, before we have to come to do something a way we never have. —El Millo (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 2020 moive, according to Wikipidea's Manaul of Style. [1] Also, look at films such as Fantasia 2000 which has 1999. ScottSullivan1 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScottSullivan1, your MOS link is about year in film articles. For the lead sentence of a film article, the MOS guideline is to use the public release date. See WP:FILMLEAD: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." This is also the same release date used in every source. Can you find sources since the final release date was announced that classify this as a 2020 film? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wallyfromdilbert Yes. Look on the side bar. Look at the FIRST release date. March 8, 2020 in New York City. IMDb has the same date. THIS is when it was FIRST shown. Also, refer to WP:FILMLEAD, as mentioned. It had a PUBLIC RELEASE in New York. ScottSullivan1 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what is the purpose behind user @Wallyfromdilbert to get incorrect data on a Wikipedia page. This movie is a 100% a 2020 movie, there is not any reason it should be treated as a 2021 film. As I said in my edit on the main page, there is no reason to put it as a 2021 film, since many movies with limited release in December and wide on January, are considered films from the previous year (December in this case). This is not even the case with A Quiet Place Part II, since it had its WORLD PREMIERE on 2020, hence making it a 2020 movie.Pinnkerton (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not the personal opinion of individual editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A 2020 world premiere in New York City is a personal opinion? Did not know that. Also, the largest online database about films is not a reliable source? Pinnkerton (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the issue is the different criteria between lead sections and list articles at MOS:FILM. But to your second question, no, IMDb generally isn’t a reliable source because much of the content is user generated. You can see the full rationale at WP:IMDB. Politanvm talk 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting[edit]

Here, Wallyfromdilbert changed the film's year in the opening sentence from 2020 to 2021. The issue of a film's year has been discussed in part at WT:MOSFILM here. Reviewing the page history, the editor has made the same change multiple times in the past:

While it is understandable that passerby editors vary in their understanding of whether a film's world premiere, film festival premiere, or commercial premiere determines a film's "year", the above editor appears to insist on a consensus as well as sources in their favor. My sense from the WT:MOSFILM discussion is that this is incorrect, and the new change seems to ignore that general consensus.

Pinging Some Dude From North Carolina since I see that they have disputed Wallyfromdilbert's edit in the past. Pinging editors who had been involved in the discussion above: Politanvm, Pinnkerton, Fladoodle, Facu-el Millo, Betty Logan, JDDJS. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the editor keeps changing it back. If the film had a premiere in 2020, it is a 2020 film. This film had a premiere in 2020, so it is a 2020 film. Report them, change it to "2020", get it over with. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by not using any year in the opening sentence. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier date is consistent with the MOS and the discussion at WT:MOSFILM did not establish a consensus to deviate from it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there currently is no consensus to remove the date from the lead. But it is still my opinion that is the best option due to the ambiguity around the date and the fact that really neither year is more defining for the film than the other. This isn't an issue I have very strong feelings about, but I got a ping asking for my opinion, so I'm saying it. Obviously, as always, the page should reflect whatever consensus is agreed here. An RFC might be appropriate so that we can get an official consensus on the matter and put the debate to rest. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JDDJS: It may be perhaps ambiguous, but the film was able to be watched in 2020. It's a 2020 film - if a film was first released in 1940 and then re-released widely in 2021 to much bigger impact, there would be no argument it was a 2021 film. To exclude a simple fact like the release year just because more people watched it in a different year just seems bizarre, and surely goes against the "lead states the basic facts" rule. Like if we know a person's birth date but decided to not put it in the lead for no good reason... Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Some Dude From North Carolina: it premiered in 2020, therefore it is a 2020 film. Slap an {{efn}} onto the year in the first sentence, if necessary. Full disclosure: was pinged after participating in a related discussion at WT:FILM last month. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a 2020 film, and nobody really seems to think otherwise, but if it could confuse some casual readers, and since the disparity is quite wide, perhaps we can use touch text (like used in {{abbr}}) so that when users hover over the year in the lead, it says "Wikipedia uses year of first release." or something. It would be more standard than efn's. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen {{abbr}} used for this purpose, only {{efn}} (see: Han Solo (film) infobox). The documentation for abbr emphatically discourages using abbr in this case, and it feels most appropriate to me to use an efn noting something similar to what Erik observes below. Something to the effect that it was released to more attention in 2021 but it first debuted in 2020, blah blah blah. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would make it 2020, and leave a note explaining it was delayed afterward because of COVID, which is what happened.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had been somewhat ambivalent in the past about which year to use, considering the world premiere that didn't have any reviews come out of it. However, this would have been due to a review embargo. In March 2020, we had the following sources talk about early reactions to the film: Rotten Tomatoes, IndieWire, ComingSoon.net, NME, Entertainment Weekly, Syfy Wire, CNet. So while "2021" is a valid year of focus because of actual public access and box office engagement and the availability of published reviews, "2020" is more appropriate because it is in line with Wikipedia's film articles using the earliest year of a product being delivered. A film making a low-key but still reliably-covered appearance at a film festival a year before a 2,000-theater commercial release the next year would still be using the film-festival year. "2021" pops up for some sources not because "2020" is rejected as invalid, but because the sources' scope may focus on when public access, box office numbers, or reviews became available. Wikipedia's scope is broader than these sources' and goes with the earliest on-record year. So I find "2020" suitable for the opening sentence here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release section[edit]

I thought that context was needed to explain the second postponement, but found that hard to cover in the "Release" section since it did not have subsections. I have now introduced subsections so we could have a straightforward overview of the changes, as well as context and related commentary behind each postponement. Since the second postponement had commentary mentioning Labor Day, I restored mention of this US holiday in coverage of the initial postponement. I think this reorganization introduces structure where the overview can focus on the basic facts, and we can add related commentary to either postponement-related section. I also did remove producer Fuller's comment about the rating since I did not see a good place for it at the time. It can be found in the last paragraph here and could perhaps be reintroduced later. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for a "Theatrical run" subsection to be outside the "Release" section. It is unnecessary to separate when a film is released in theaters from how much it makes in theaters. This structuring is part of a cookie-cutter approach that violates WP:OWN with one editor forcing the same structure across multiple film articles with no guideline requiring that the structure has to look exactly the same. To claim "most every film article" has a particular structure is ridiculous because that same editor has perpetuated that structure across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sections to their current layout [2], and I did not realize it was similar to the layout that had been added by someone else and reverted by Erik. I don't have any opinion on whether the box office or theatrical run sections should be under the same "Reception" section. I think Erik makes a good point about not separating when a film is released from how much it makes, and I personally usually prefer layouts that present information more chronologically connected than the current format does (and adding a "home release" to the section will make it even less chronological). My concern when I restructured the page was that there was too much information in the "Release" section at the time because so much of it dealt with the postponements, and so separating out the box office made the most sense to me, although I think there are multiple layouts that could work. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Move 2021 to 2020 Permanent[edit]

Socks talking to each other. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScottSullivan1. --Blablubbs|talk 18:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Due to the various edits comitted by wallyfromdilbert, we need to start an official support/oppose convesation on this. In the opening line, we should vote on moving from 2021, to 2020.

Support A Quiet Place Part II had its premiere in New York City on March 8, 2020. As per, WP:YEARSINFILM, we should list films by their earliest release date. This is how IMDb goes about labeling thier films as well. ScottSullivan1 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per WP:YEARSINFILM mentioned above. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Does make a point. They even mentioned Fantasia 2000 as being a 1999 film. I can find lots of other examples such as Minari too. TheEditorWithTheEdits (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Quiet_Place_Part_II&oldid=1206830326"