Talk:Sully (film)

Synopsis needs expansion

There is a great deal omitted in the plot synopsis as shown, especially regarding the chronological order in which the film takes place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.29.87 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It would suffice to summarize the omissions in a paragraph: the cabin perspective, the rescue operations, the control tower, the phone calls with the restless wife at home, and the final voice recorder playback -- but it could likely be regarded as excessively detailed. Shencypeter (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Composer credit

The credits for the film list for the theme music. The actual soundtrack also lists Clint Eastwood.Depauldem (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is for the film. You need WP:CONSENSUS to agree with using your sources to overrule the billing block and the film's onscreen credits, which give Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, please point to any actual rule that supports your claim about the billing block. As for the film's onscreen credits, THEY DO LIST CLINT EASTWOOD. And this is on top of the links already provided. You can't revert valid edits with reliable sources by relying on one of the movie posters and a wikipedia rule about billing blocks that does not even seem to exist. Depauldem (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not even readable, and it doesn't include the main composer credit. Additional composers and song or theme composers are not included in the infobox. Stop WP:edit warring over this. What part of you need WP:CONSENSUS do you not understand? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to make out, but I can read it. In any event, I provided plenty of other sources, including the actual soundtrack. And the infobox rules specifically state: "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of original music. Separate multiple entries using

. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible." There is NO rule about a "main" composer and it specifically asserts that if there are "additional" composers (emphasis on the S), they ARE TO BE INCLUDED. You are now willfully misrepresenting WP policy on the infobox. Depauldem (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

All I see is Insert the name(s) of composer(s) of the original music, separated using Plain list. Link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible. Multiple previous discussions determined that "additional music" composers and song or theme composers are not to be included in the infobox. Meaning we only include those who receive single card "Music by" credit, which in this case is Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band - as your own favored source said. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you are making up WP policy. Link to one previous discussion where this actual consensus was reached. As of now, you are contradicting the infobox MOS, which is not ambiguous. As for clinging to the named people on the posters, how do you account for the example in Blackhat? More than three composers, but only two listed...including the lead composer who said he didn't do 90% of the work. Using your logic, we could not list the other composers named by the director because they are not on your cherished billing block. Depauldem (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I've protected the page due to the ANEW report; hash it out here on the talk page (as you've already started doing). Might I recommend 3O or RfC? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Already done, at Template talk:Infobox film#Composer credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

And Tierney Sutton just confirmed Eastwood is listed in the end credits for the theme. So, the band leader, the other credited composer on the record saying Eastwood composed themes for the film score and confirmation from the end credits themselves. Can we end the war with reality? Depauldem (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This was already addressed, but to repeat: Multiple previous discussions on various film pages determined that "additional music" composers and song or theme composers are not to be included in the infobox. Meaning we only include those who receive single card "Music by" credit for the score, which in this case is Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band. However I would be for including mention of a "Theme" credit for Eastwood in a Music section in the article body, preceded by text about Jacob and Sutton. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point to a single prior discussion where the consensus actually confirms your claim? If you can't, then Eastwood can and should be included. The infobox rules clearly state that composer(s) (plural) should be listed.Depauldem (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Depauldem (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I did the leg work myself. Based on the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Godfather/Archive_3#Godfather_film_credits and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_22#Composer_credit_in_infobox it's abundantly clear the consensus was to even include "additional music" in the infobox. You were a part of these discussions, which also became quite contentious, and ultimately even seemed to concede to the inclusion of "additional music". Since, in this case, Eastwood's contribution is far beyond "additional music"--as he is listed in the credits and credited with co-writing the score by the other composers--this isn't really up for debate. Depauldem (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No such general consensus was established at either of those. The Godfather was specific to that case. You were told to reach consensus on this page before resuming to put in your preferred version, not to declare that you now have it and resume your edit warring. You didn't even respond to my proposal above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No consensus? That's highly disingenuous, as the only editor arguing your side was you. Consensus did favor inclusion and that is what happened. We were told to "suss" it out, I was not told to reach consensus before editing. As for your proposal to include the mention in the article, that's fine. But it should also be in the infobox. I have provided a ridiculous amount of reliable sources confirming my edit. You have fabricated wikipedia policy and did not provide links to anything, anywhere, that backs up your multiple false remarks. You then resorted to claiming "prior discussions" supported your position and failed to offer links to those fabrications as well. I did find such discussions and the outcome of each favored what I have been saying here all along. The infobox policy, past discussions and a huge amount of reliable sources all support inclusion. If you can't offer actual consensus to the contrary or actual policy supporting you (again, both with actual links), then it is beyond me why you are continuing to edit war. Please don't make me report you again. Depauldem (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

As seen here, Ks0stm said Just hash it out on the talk page (which seems to already be underway). Ping me if y'all get it resolved sooner than the three days. It was not resolved. You just declared you were right. None of those links say composers of "theme" music should be in the infobox. You are ignoring long standing principles of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as WP:CONSENSUS. You need to wait until others agree with your interpretation of sources and policy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox policy is 100% clear: "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of original music." Fact: Eastwood is a credited composer of original music in the film. Factually, I am right. Policy is clear. If I said 2+2=4, I wouldn't need to wait for you to agree with me because, factually, that's just correct. Depauldem (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Depauldem and Gothicfilm: Guys, I cannot emphasize it enough: Get outside opinions. Please, I beg of you, make use of 3O or RfC; merely discussing it between the two of you does not build a consensus. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I did that at Template talk:Infobox film#Composer credit. Locking the article means no one can update the ongoing box office for the film after the weekend or anything else. Can you restore the article to its WP:STATUSQUO? As seen directly above, it is clear Depauldem is just going to keep ignoring any need for WP:CONSENSUS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on the template talk page is also just the two of you going back and forth with no outside input. Any updates to the box office, etc, can be requested on the talk page using {{edit protected}}. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have requested others from the Film project to comment here. And what about WP:STATUSQUO? You indicated the dispute should be resolved on this Talk page, and Depauldem declared above that he has no intention of abiding by that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: Pages are protected on the current version of a page when protection is applied. Admittedly, it is usually the wrong version. As far as abiding by a resolution of the dispute, once consensus is established whether or not to include Clint Eastwood I will happily block editors who edit war against that consensus. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A week later no one has supported putting composer credits beyond the main "Music by" in the infobox, so I'm restoring it to its WP:STATUSQUO. As seen at Template talk:Infobox film#Composer credit:

• Comment First of all, I should point out that I'm not overly familiar with how music credits work, but this seems to be analogous to the situation we had with associate and executive producers. I personally would interpret the spirit of the guideline to mean the person who gets the primary music credit, whether that is credited as "Music by" or "Original score composed by" etc. The credit fields in the infobox should reflect the formal credits as much as they possibly can. So if a film has two different types of musical credit we should not be combining them and treating them as one credit. After all we wouldn't add the "assistant director" to the main "director" field. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I have experienced, we always take the official credits for the infobox, and then add any additional, noteworthy credits in prose with references and explanations further down the article. So for the Sully example, it seems logical to me to add the credited composers to the composer field, and then to discuss that Eastwood worked with them and contributed some music down in an actual music section of the article. If that isn't how the documentation reads, then I think it should be changed to reflect the common practice. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Eastwood is credited in the end credits, officially. The other composers have confirmed this. They also credit him as co-composer of the score. He is also the first named credit for the music on the motion picture soundtrack. Depauldem (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As said before, we go by the film credits, not separate soundtrack album credits. If the album gets its own article, you can use that credit there. The music on the album could be different. The film's main credit says Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band. No other name appears with it. In the film's TV commercials, no others were credited for music of any kind. It appears Eastwood wanted Jacob and Sutton to have the main music credit to themselves. Your claim is apparently referring to a separate credit of "theme" in the film's end credits for Eastwood, but it looks like he did not want a lot of attention for that or it would have been more prominent. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I said that we always go off the official credits, I was referring to the main credits and billing block, not the entire end credits, especially since, as has been pointed out here already, a lot of composers get additional music credit for films these days, and we don't want to be listing them all in the infobox if at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2016

Please do add 'co-author' before the name of Jeffrey Zaslow, this for further clarification for the readers.

84.27.11.44 (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done. That would be unnecessary. What you call "co-author" is quite common, and he is not credited as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 October 2016

The Airbus A320 is not considered a "commutter jet".

12.47.205.126 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Title of the movie

Film Fan has reverted my edit to the lead, which I propose should read "Sully (also known as Miracle on the Hudson)". S/he argues that "only titles used in the English-speaking world are of note in the lead sections". I disagree; WP is an encyclopedia of the whole world, written (here) in English, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. According to IMDb, the movie is known as 'Miracle on the Hudson' in Croatia, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, and Japan (countries where plenty of people speak English, anyway). Further, IMDb says that 'Miracle...' is the "informal title" in the US. The fact that the name Sully is not used at all in some countries is a notable fact that I believe readers are both interested and entitled to know (possibly it is actually a word in some languages?). For example here is the movie poster in Slovenia IanB2 (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Film Fan::@IanB2: Actually, IMDb is not a reliable source. See WP:USERG. We need to have [{WP:RS]] cites in order to imply the title is used anywhere outside the UK. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You have the film poster from one country cited already (kolosej is the most reputable movie cite there) IanB2 (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, as mentioned above, IMDb is not a reliable source. Secondly, only AKAs from the English-speaking world or countries of origin belong in the lead. Thirdly, the film is not known by the title you propose anywhere, anyway. Literal translations of foreign titles are of even less importance than the above. This doesn't even need a conversation. Happy Christmas! — Film Fan 10:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Dismiss the matter if you wish, but I still think there is a potentially interesting point here. There are indications that the 'miracle....' name, described by IMDb as the informal title in the US, was the originally intended name for the film ; maybe there was a copyright issue with the earlier 2009 tv programme with the same name? IanB2 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It may well have been a working title. Still, that's not important enough for the lead. — Film Fan 00:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

User:Presearch has begun edit-warring to restore a WP:FRINGE opinion that another editor removed earlier this month for good reason, and that I removed today when Presearch put it back in. Two editors have removed it, and one editor is now edit-warring to restore it.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I included considerable reasoning in my change-log. I have never edit-warred in my life, and your accusation of it is the first time I ever recall being so accused. You said you were initiating a WP:BRD process in your change log, so let that also be noted on this talk page. Your accusation of "edit warring" appears designed to place your opinions in a favorable light versus mine, and may (?) show an attitude of WP:OWN; Whether or not it is forthcoming, I believe you owe me an apology. Now to get to the point, in the next subsection is an expansion of the reasoning that I put in my change log (unconstricted by character length) --Presearch (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You were edit-warring the moment you reinserted a contentious edit after another editor had removed it. Please read WP:BRD, which specifies that after you make a bold edit and are reverted that you discuss the issue on the talk page. And it's hardly WP:OWN when another editor, User:Jeandré du Toit, was first to make the same edit as I. And since I made exactly three edits to this article before this, your accusation rests on very weak ice. I believe you owe me an apology for making unfounded allegations.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD process for restoring deletion of Cass' Guardian opinion

Here is an expansion of the reasoning that I put in my change log when I restored the Cass material:

Restore material deleted for invalid reason - [Cass' opinion is] not "fringe" as ([it is] like Benzon [opinion also quoted in the page, an]) opinion that merely elaborates consequences of a criticism lodged by many othrs; no evidence is given on the page of any published disagrment with [the Cass opinions main novel] material much less evidence of any consensus that would demonstrate a claim that Cass' opinion is "fringe". Also, in case this is relevant to some involved editors, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no grounds to suppress an opinion about a film that is published in a major world newspaper.

It would not be unlikely that there would be many editors contributing to this page who are fans of Eastwood and of action movies. I have greatly appreciated some of his previous work. However, in this particular case, the change-log arguments were either nonexistent (Jan 5 removal) or invalid and refutable (Jan 25 removal). I've seen no prior discussion of Cass' opinion removal on this talk page - if there was, please alert me to it. BTW, my time is very limited. If there are others who watch page and feel capable of asserting the validity of including Cass' material, please feel encouraged to do so. --Presearch (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "I don't like it". It's a matter of it being one British journalist's political opinion. Anyone can have an opinion on anything, but that doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. Even if it were, there's the undue weight issue, where you're only presenting one side of the story. And, yes, it's WP:FRINGE since a quick Google jaunt found essentially no one else making the accusations he makes. User:Jeandré du Toit was exactly right when he used an NTSB investigator to balance Eastwood's claim ... an expert opinion, not a personal one. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Cass' "film trumpets a libertarian worldview at the expense of passenger safety" is a pretty strong allegation, and eventho The Guardian is considered a reliable source for information on WP, this particular sentence seems like it fits more in an opinion editorial, and doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. According to WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

While the danger to passenger safety is also mentioned by Benzon (who is a vastly better source than Cass for this), blaming Eastwood's libertarian position for this would need more good refs to be encyclopedic. -- Jeandré, 2017-01-26t10:26z

Surely the logic of your argument would direct towards the quote being included under 'controversy' rather than 'critical response'? A controversial view does not have to be widely held to make it relevant IanB2 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It was under "Controversy": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sully_(film)&oldid=761846323#Controversy

What I'm asking for are "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting" (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) that it was done because of Eastwood's libertarian worldview. Cass' article is 1 - now because its inclusion was challenged, we need at minimum one more good, verifiable, 3rd-party source making the same allegation. I don't think a single (even when under a heading of "Controversy") allegation is enough for something touching on WP:BLP to be considered encyclopedic. -- Jeandré, 2017-01-27t12:09z

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/passengers-crew-safe-air-niugini-crashes-lagoon-180928055238347.html

81.147.189.19 (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Fortune cookie fortune

In the hotel room when 'Sully' lays his wet wallet on the dresser, he pulls out what appears to be a fortune cookie fortune that the camera 'focusses' on.

Obviously, this is supposed to be an 'important' moment. However, even with my big screen TV, I've never been able to read the 'fortune.'

Since the fortune is a focal point, is it important enough to mention what the fortune says/reads somewhere in the article?

Just curious. 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The fortune cookie said "A delay is better than a disaster" and is based on a real one that Sully kept. See What I got back and Review:Sully. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)