Talk:Killers of the Flower Moon (film)

J. Edgar Hoover

Isn't it weird for the brief "Premise" section to prominently mention "a 29-year-old J. Edgar Hoover" when Hoover is not a character in the film? At least he's not in the "Cast" section. 199.66.14.55 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in plot summary?

Unless I missed a scene, I don't recall this part of the plot summary being in the movie: "Hale tries to have Ernest killed but fails." 67.52.175.149 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

its a little misleading in that I don't believe they actually show an attempt on ernest's life being made but the in the end of the movie, they show hale dictating a note to a stenographer (?) in his jail cell which has a plot to hire a hitman to kill Ernest. 2600:4040:AFCD:BA00:FD11:978F:39D7:DF8F (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This partially happens, but it is out of order in the plot summary, and unrelated to the stenographer. Hale dictates to the stenographer, who clearly works for a newspaper, several things he wants to be written in the papers about him that put Hale in a positive light. The next scene, there is a shot of Blackie receiving a note, and then it cuts to an interrogation between the prosecutor and Blackie. In this scene, Blackie says the note is from Hale and it instructed him to kill Ernest. Both of these scenes occur immediately before Ernest's first appearance in court, when W.S. Hamilton makes a scene and tries to make a case for why he needs to speak with Ernest as his attorney. 97.113.208.185 (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Cannes photo only includes Hollywood stars

It is notable that the placard for Chief Standing Moon is included in the photo, but the person has been cropped out, leaving mostly just the 'white' looking stars.

Can an alternative and more inclusive photo be found? Muhanned Nuaimy-Barker (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2023 (UTCM

I agree with M.alnuaimy; I watched a good part of the Cannes press conference, which is online, and Chief Standing Moon had an active role.Parkwells (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

His name is Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Standing_Bear 104.244.87.226 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Scorsese in plot section

@Douglas Firs: Scorsese being the one to divulge the ending information is not vital to make special reference to in the plot section. He isn't portraying himself, and the fact Scorsese is cameoing in his own film is already mentioned in the Cast section. Please restore to the previous version. Rusted AutoParts 23:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Douglas Firs: please also see WP:UNDUE. Rusted AutoParts 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a violation of WP:UNDUE, and why would it not be important to make reference to? (I've made it clear that Scorsese is not portraying himself in the language currently present on the page). The penultimate scene (the one in contention) emotionally turns and concludes on Scorsese's delivery of the information in question; it's what the entire scene is building towards, it's deeply moving, and it completes the journey of the film in a sense. You don't even need to take my word for it; several other journalistic outlets, including Vulture, The New Yorker, and The New York Times found his appearance notable enough to discuss the emotional weight of his appearance in print. I may be wrong, but it hardly seems undue or irrelevant to mention this detail when other journalistic and critical bodies (respected-enough ones at that) found it a highlight of the film. Douglas Firs (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We need the plot section to be baseline and concise. It's undue because we aren't also naming the actors alongside their characters in that section, so why are we focusing specifically on Scorsese, when he isn't appearing as himself? Despite it happening to be the director playing the role, the importance of the is the content itself, and not the person delivering it. As stated, it's already noted he's the one portraying the role in the cast section, and any commentary about his role can be noted in the Reception section, but in the Plot section it's inappropriate. Rusted AutoParts 00:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The focus is specifically on Scorsese because his delivery of the final lines of the film, and the fact that he specifically is delivering them, is what gives them their emotional power. The importance of the message is contained in part in who the messenger is - hence the note in the summary. Again, all this is something that the articles linked above all take time to note; the New Yorker article tells the reader that the cameo is much more important to the film than a usual directorial appearance in such a movie, and the Vulture article calls the appearance "incredibly moving" and states that it brings a close to the entire film. Why would one not want to describe the final moments of a film in a film plot summary? Douglas Firs (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We do? The issue is specifically honing in on the Scorsese end of it in the Plot section. The three sources aren't strong pieces to highlight the cameo when they're more specifically about the film itself. In addition, the NYT article is just a listicle about all the film's cameos. Should we name Lithgow and Fraser too since their appearances are being given special attention? The point remains that what's of prime importance about the sequence was delivering Mollie's life after. Whether that's done by Scorsese or not shouldn't be given special focus in this section. The role is that of a random radio producer delivering the segment. It just happens to have been played by Scorsese. That's it. I'm not against the article as a whole noting the fact Scorsese did this role and any commentary about this being included, but it to me is not appropriate to do in the Plot section. Noting one specific actor or filmmaker in a section where this doesn't occur anywhere else for anyone else in that section isn't a fair action. Rusted AutoParts 00:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair at all to say that the role "happens to have been played" by Scorsese - he's deliberately giving himself a platform as a writer/director/public figure to close the story he has just told in a manner with much broader resonance than the events of a detective story or period piece would in isolate; broader resonance that the above articles (at least the Vulture and New Yorker ones) all take pains to highlight. That's what separates his appearance from the work of any of the other actors in the film and that's why it is "fair" to note it - his presence imbues the final moments with meaning. I don't see how the "point remains" at all that the item of prime importance is the text that Scorsese reads in isolation. That's not how Bilge Ebiri or Richard Brody (pretty good authorities on the point to be certain) treat the sequence, and I genuinely think a summary would lose important descriptive detail for how the final moments impact a view if the item is not discussed. Douglas Firs (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's your opinion, but in baseline terms the core element about the scene needed for the plot section to concisely explain the scene is to just highlight what was said, not by who. If the scene was literally him, being himself, then it would be mentionable. "The film ends with director Martin Scorsese breaking the fourth wall to divulge what happened to Mollie and highlight the message of the film", if that was what happened we wouldn't be discussing this. But a radio producer, happened to be played by Scorsese, delivered those lines, so noting Scorsese in the way we are is not appropriate. And everything you mentioned about the sources is literally the commentary I mentioned that would fit better in a Reception category. Just relocate this info to a more appropriate location, like I said it's not being outright refused, but it does not fit in the plot section. Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rusted AutoParts; it is not appropriate to discuss interpretation of Scorsese's final speech in the Plot Summary. If it is to be discussed, that should be with cites to critics' reactions to the film in Reception. I think the Plot Summary is far too long and too detailed as it is; and it should not be telling readers/viewers how they are to react to the film. It should give more of an overview. The film has now been released, so maybe this section can be changed.Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki MOS:Film says:..."describe the events on screen as simply as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." Thus interpretations of Scorsese's role or influence in final scene should not be in Plot Summary.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Plot Summary is too detailed

The Plot Summary is too detailed, filled with spoilers about events in the film. It takes away any surprises that a viewer might encounter in seeing the film unfold and will lessen the effect of that viewing. At the same time, it does not provide much of the context of the film - early murders are shown, as are the rough edges of a town on the reservation being overrun with whites there to work for oil companies and exploit the Osage, the frontier quality of a dirt Main Street showing workers, Osage in traditional and high-style European-American dress; numerous horses, wagons, and elite cars on the streets.Parkwells (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It might be good to read WP:SPOILERS. Wikipedia does not purposefully omit information in order to enhance the effect of watching a film. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Devery Jacobs quote

Hi all, John315 and myself disagree with how to present this actress' views on the film in the "Critical response" section. This is their preferred version, and the one currently in the article:

Maureen Lee Lenky notes in Entertainment Weekly that First Nations actress "Devery Jacobs, who plays Elora Danan Postoak on Reservation Dogs" shared her "painful" reaction to the film: "Being Native, watching this movie was f---ing [sic] hellfire. ... Indig ppl exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us." Lenky also notes Jacobs believes Gladstone's performance was superb despite being non-optimally scripted: "Lily Gladstone ... carried Mollie w/ tremendous grace ... All the incredible Indigenous actors were the only redeeming factors of this film. [W]hile all of the performances were strong, ... each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.'"

And here is my preferred style:

Devery Jacobs, a First Nation actress, criticized the film for its focus on the "grief, trauma and atrocities" of Indigenous people rather than humanizing them. Jacobs also called the Osage characters "painfully underwritten" compared to white characters.

Note, I'm open to my version being expanded with more details within this format. Please weigh in on how Jacobs' opinion should be presented, whether between these styles, one which heavily quotes, and the other which summarizes, or some other alternative. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious: why should the opinion of someone who's not a critic be in the "critical reception" section? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

John315, please gain WP:CONSENSUS for your version instead of WP:EDIT-WARRING. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim to be edit-warring (nor am I saying anyone else is...), but:

Okay. As I said somewhere else, more or less: Justin Chang of the L.A. Times got to put 81 words within quotes (some in brackets, but still within quote marks), I think. To wit, "is both like and unlike anything its director has ever done" ... "The larger sphere in which [William Hale and Ernest Burkhart] and many others operate is, on one level, a familiar Scorsesean jumble of work and family, money and violence. And yet in its balance of Wild West expanses and intimate domestic spaces, and its focus on Indigenous men and women whose good fortune quickly turns ill, this world is also, for Scorsese, a fascinating new visual, dramatic and political frontier".

The version some people want me to accept of the Lenker EW article has these quotes from Devery Jacobs: ""grief, trauma and atrocities" ... "painfully underwritten"". That's six words. Six. And Chang got 81. That's well over ten times as many words quoted, so, vastly disproportional, and maybe vastly unfair?

My version quoted above, has 89 words (if the [sic] isn't counted): "painful" ... "Being Native, watching this movie was f---ing [sic] hellfire. ... Indig ppl exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us."... "Lily Gladstone ... carried Mollie w/ tremendous grace ... All the incredible Indigenous actors were the only redeeming factors of this film. [W]hile all of the performances were strong, ... each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.'"

89 words isn't much off from Justin Chang's 81 words quoted. Thus, say, I'm willing to cut 8 words (or slightly more, if needed, for coherence) out of mine, so it's 81-ish words of quotes, like Chang's. What do you think? Thanks.

(Oh, and please note that I've already cut down on the quotes from Jacobs -- including the colorful "Give Lily her goddamn Oscar." --, since previously I had quoted more of her words.) John315 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, putting the Lenker article under a new heading, "Indigenous response", I am somewhat neutral on, since, 1. one could say that it gives the article the dignity of having its own heading, but 2. one could also say that it separates the article from other critical responses without an overriding reason for doing so. Thus, I am sort of neutral about it. John315 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But as mentioned before, she is not a critic. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Critical response" is ambiguous and can mean both: 1) the response of critics 2) responses that are critical. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point! John315 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

indig ppl?

w/ tremendous grace?

Censored profanities?

How and why is this edit more encyclopedic than the paraphrased version? Kire1975 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The "censored profanity" is in the EW article. If Jacobs wants to say "Indig ppl", I'm not going to *censor* her abbreviation or "tremendous grace". Encyclopedic doesn't have to be boring. Or overly shortened. (I repeat, Justin Chang gets quoted for 81 words, so I don't know if it's bad for me to quote 78.) Thanks. John315 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedic doesn't have to be boring

That's not a neutral WP:POV.

Someone is going to have to add an additional number of words to explain why "indig ppl" is being used instead of "indigenous people" if you keep it. Kire1975 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Something to consider. Thanks. John315 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

John315, you keep trying to equate the presentation of Jacobs' reception to that of Chang, but this is apples-to-oranges. The difference is that one is a professional critic, while the other reception is from an informal tweet from an actress that has not undergone peer review and whose tone and style is not suited to Wikipedia as-is. I still think her view is worthwhile to include, but it must be put into Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice rather than Tweetspeak shorthand. Opencooper (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Something to think about. -- How about this, say?

Maureen Lee Lenker notes in Entertainment Weekly that First Nations actress Devery Jacobs ("Elora Danan Postoak" on Reservation Dogs) shared her "painful" reaction to the film: "Being Native, watching this movie was f---ing [sic] hellfire. [Indigenous people] exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us."; Jacobs also believes Gladstone "carried Mollie [with] tremendous grace", and that "while all of the performances were strong[,] each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.'"

This is shorter in overall length, and also avoids some contractions that Kire1975 found objectionable, so may seem more encyclopedic now. John315 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way it is? Kire1975 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Plenty is wrong, including what I mentioned already, not to mention that the newer entry in the "Indigenous response" area has the lengthy Kate Nelson quote, "When it comes to Native representation, is Killers of the Flower Moon perfect? No. Is it progress? Yes. The film meaningfully moves the entertainment industry forward, making a strong statement that it's no longer acceptable to extract valuable assets from Indigenous communities – whether that be our stories or our natural resources – without our consent and input."

That latter quote is 56 words long. My entry, or your preferred version of it, has a whopping... 6 words of quotes, about 1/10 of the latter quote's 56-word length. That's a double standard, or close to it. (Not mentioning that my quote was the first one in the section, making it look odd that the second quote, from Nelson, is given a leniency that my version isn't.)

I see nothing wrong with my own current version, which has 76 words within quotes, less than Justin Chang's quote length. But if people want to differ, they can read everything I've written and continue debating further in a friendly fashion, as needed. Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The word count is all that's wrong with it? Kire1975 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, what else do you claim to be wrong with my version? (And the current word count it has, is no problem, I think) I got rid of the "Indig ppl" and "w/ tremendous". It's now more encyclopedic. If you have any particular complaints, let me know. Otherwise, I may assume you're fine with all of it. Thanks. John315 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, first, this is a Wikipage about Killers of the Flower Moon, not Reservation Dogs. Mentioning that is off-topic. Devery's statement is 13 tweets long, and covered in 5 lengthy paragraphs in the article. It's all pretty good. The twitterspeak abbreviations don't have anything to do with my personal preferences. If they are included, I just think they need more explanation and that any such explanation would be distracting from the topic as well.

2. I'm uncertain why the journalist who regurgitated the tweets in the tabloidy article about it gets first billing.

C. I also would have put the Kate Nelson quote first and cut it in half. The part about "is it perfect? no. etc." adds less value than the second part if you ask me. Kire1975 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning Reservation Dogs briefly, I think is o.k., since it helps show Jacobs' expertise with Native American-related media. As for the abbreviations, I removed them, largely because you wanted them removed. I don't know if "regurgitated" is the nicest thing to say here, especially since Lenker's article was informative. As for putting the Nelson quote first, that is still possible, if people want it. Thanks. John315 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

John315 if you want more participants in order to form consensus, you could start a WP:RFC. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, for now, I'll just wait for people who were on the thread already to say something. Do you yourself have an opinion about my latest version, or not? 47.149.220.106 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, edited while logged out. (I thought I'd signed in for a year or such, not sure why logged out.) Sorry. John315 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

An IP that you edit regularly with, the last time being November 10, 2023. Also you made edits like this three different times (that prompted warnings on your IP talk page. Mike Allen 00:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I may have different computers, one in the kitchen, and one nearer the TV; the latter, I edited some without remembering to log in, I suppose, and just continued with it, mostly on different articles (largely about things I see on the TV, not in a movie theater) from the ones John315 does. (But, if I get an idea in the kitchen, should I drop what I'm doing and walk over to the TV-room computer just because of that, especially if I'm not trying to do anything nefarious?) Ironically, though, if, say, I edit every article from only one account in the future, and I had edited the same articles at some point from the other account, people could complain about *that*, e.g., they could say, "Oh, this person has edited the same article, but from two different accounts." So, it's not easy. Is there an optimal solution for that? Say, would it be better to keep two accounts, but make sure that I don't edit the same article from both accounts? But I do appreciate Mike Allen's notation. Certainly, in this "Killers" article, I've tried to avoid doing evil, e.g., if I had used the 47.-etc account for deceptive purposes, such as fake "sockpuppety" support for John315's positions, that would've been really bad. But I didn't do that. Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Osage script in lead

Should the title of the film be written in Osage script in the article's opening line? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, it seems that the film itself uses that title, cf. the Apple TV Instagram reference I put up, which helps show that the Osage title is indeed "official". Thanks. John315 (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That only makes a case for its legitimacy, not for its inclusion. We normally include foreign titles when the film itself was a foreign release with a different name in its native country. Killers of course is an American film that was released with an English title. Opencooper (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But if we consider Osage people as Americans, then it might not be considered a "foreign title". John315 (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

From a federal indian law perspective, the correct way to consider the Osage people is as dual citizens of the Osage Nation and the U.S.. Whether or not the Osage Nation is "foreign or domestic" is kinda an open question. Neil Gorsuch wrote in a dissent that tribal governments are neither foreign nor domestic and the Supreme Court's majority hasn't ruled one way or the other.

Setting that question to the side for a second though, it would seem fine to me to include the Osage name of the film considering that the film has an official Osage translation of the title and does feature the Osage language. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe this knowledgeable Tulsan has some wise points. :D John315 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning it as a note seems to be an acceptable alternative. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

While the film features the Osage language, it is primarily an English-language film (with select Osage text subtitled into English) rather than an Osage-language release. Putting the name of the film in another language in the lead gives undue weight to it.

Now that it is in a note instead of cluttering up the lead, it's more acceptable, but I still want to make the point that encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia are not indiscriminate collections of information. Information should not solely be included because it exists (e.g. "it's in the film") or one likes it (e.g. trying to increase representation of the Osage language), but rather because there is an editorial basis to do so. Opencooper (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the film's title, in whatever language(s) it's in, automatically gives an editorial basis to mention it. It's the title. John315 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The title appears first in Osage during the credits. It should be kept. Kire1975 (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of considering Osage people as Americans. It's about the movie itself: The movie itself has dialog in two languages, and the title clearly appears, in very large letters, in Osage. Yes, it has more dialog in English. I didn't count the lines, but having watched it, I think it's maybe 80% English and 20% Osage. If it was just two or three symbolic lines, I wouldn't call it "bilingual", but it's way, way more.

Yes, it's a bit unusual for a movie to have a bilingual title. Usually, movies have one title in one language. But this is an exception. To be honest, I cannot think of another example, but it's possible that they exist.

This is the English Wikipedia here, so the title of the page should be in English, of course. I don't think anyone disputes that. But the lead section should clear mention the Osage title in parentheses immediately after the English title, and not in a footnote. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Oklahoma House Bill 1775

Why is this section here? Shouldn't it be moved to the page for the book of the same name? I propose moving it. Kire1975 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to moving it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Kire1975 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

bad redirect

"Molly Burkhart," the name of a real person, should definitely not redirect to a fictional film. Ideally I think she ought to have her own article like the other major players in the case; failing that, it should at least redirect to the real Osage murders article, not this one. 128.114.255.157 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree. Should we do the same with Acie Kirby and Byron Burkhart? They're both mentioned in the Osage Indian murders.

Do we need to do anything with the other real people redirects not mentioned in the murders article like David Shoun, James Shoun, W. S. Hamilton, and Peter Leaward? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would think they should all redirect to the real article. Otherwise a mistaken impression that they aren't real figures could be created in glancing readers.

And if there are sources for it (which I would assume there are, since the movie got them from somewhere), maybe they should be added to that article? I don't have the case expertise to do that though. 128.114.255.157 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Shoun's could probably be added to the Osage murders article (they are real brothers who were doctors in Osage County after all) if the sourcing is found. I think they get some mention in Grann's book.

Less sure about Hamilton and Leaward, they're just attorneys who represented parts of the case during their legal careers. I don't know enough about either to know where the best redirect location would be. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

Hello, I write to request that this page edit the summary of leading actors: please edit the list of the three main actors so that Lily Gladstone is at the top, or second from the top, as she is the lead actress.

De Niro, as a supporting actor, should not receive billing above a lead.

Please change this:

Leonardo DiCaprio Robert De Niro Lily Gladstone

to this

Lily Gladstone Leonardo DiCaprio Robert De Niro

173.21.181.186 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We go by the billing block of the poster according to Wikipedia policy. The posters have DeNiro billed second over Gladstone.$chnauzer 17:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

So the movie released digitally

Hi! I’m on mobile right now and I can’t quite add references properly. To anyone who can, here’s the link: https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/news/2023/12/apple-original-films-award-winning-feature-killers-of-the-flower-moon-from-martin-scorsese-to-debut-on-premium-video-on-demand-and-electronic-sell-through-beginning-december-5-2023-in-collaboration-with-paramount/

Thanks in advance! Nicole. Oh, she's elegantly clandestine... ✨ 05:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

do infoboxes get updated with digital releases? Pdubs.94 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope. As far as I know, only theatrical releases (premiere and wide) are listed. Nicole. Oh, she's elegantly clandestine... ✨ 07:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

How long until we considered it a Box-office bomb?

I mean 154 million on a 200 million budget and it's already going to streaming. Yeah this movie lost some money. 2806:108E:13:72BB:AD21:2FC5:F2ED:B972 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Until we have enough WP:RS to back it up. Kire1975 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Understandable but if Napoleon is also considered a box-office bomb then so is this too 2806:108E:13:72BB:94D0:5E43:81B6:1CF2 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Kire1975 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia only allows (well, editors and admins do) the claim of a bomb if some "reliable source" (eff that, and I'm serious) "reports" it. None has, so it's not a bomb. According to WP "logic". jae (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like how an encyclopedia is supposed to be written. Not from the editor's point of view. Mike Allen 00:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Writing quality

"whacking his own hitmen,?"

Who writes this shit? 2601:154:8300:34E:8ECD:20D9:17B1:A382 (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

People (and at this point AI) from all around the world. Mike Allen 00:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article if they believe they can improve the quality of the writing Jameson Nightowl (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Effects

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jactagon (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Section on Lily Gladstone "snub" controversey

While the film was nominated for a variety of awards and won none at the 96th Academy Awards, Lily Gladstone's loss to Emma Stone in the Best Actress category attracted significant attention due to Gladstone's history-making status as the first Native American person to be nominated for an Oscar and Emma Stone's previous win for her performance in La La Land. Jactagon (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTGOSSIP. Kire1975 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It is covered in the second paragraph of the "Accolades" section. I think that scope is appropriate. If more relevant detail can be added to that paragraph, that would be fine by me. I don't think it warrants its own section heading. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)