Talk:The Black Phone

Orphaned references in The Black Phone

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Black Phone's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From Scott Derrickson: "The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) - Box Office Mojo". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved July 3, 2019.
• From Universal Pictures: "Universal All Time Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved April 9, 2017.
• From Doctor Strange (2016 film): "Doctor Strange". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved June 12, 2022.
• From Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved June 25, 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Actors

American 5.198.110.130 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Derrickson

s 189.160.161.69 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Black Phone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DAP389 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• The overall prose quality here is, I feel, not great. In particular, the tone strikes me as often not encyclopaedic but rather of the variety one would expect to find in outlets like Deadline Hollywood, with the kinds of phrasings they typically use. I have brought up a non-exhaustive sample of instances where this is the case below. To be clear: this is not part of the WP:Good article criteria, which only require that the prose be clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience with correct spelling and grammar. Nevertheless, I would advise seeking the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors, especially if you have plans to eventually get this to WP:Featured article status (where the prose being engaging and of a professional standard is part of the criteria).

Lead

• When Finney encounters a mystical black rotary phone – is "mystical" the right word here?
• Derrickson struggled to produce ideas of his own devising – the meaning of this is not clear. This sentence could be taken to mean that he found difficulty coming up with additional ideas of his own to supplement the short story, which (after reading the body and the sources cited there) I think is the intended reading, but it could also mean that he found it difficult to get his own original ideas turned into movies. See also below.
• Derrickson gleaned from his childhood experiences in suburban Denver – is "gleaned" the right word here?
• The film received generally positive reviews from the critics, who praised its performances but were divided on its concept. – this reflects the contents of the "Critical response" subsection poorly. For instance, the only mention of the performances there is the adjective "well-acted" appearing in the quoted passage from Rotten Tomatoes.
• The success of The Black Phone spawned the in-canon short film "Dreamkill" – "in-canon" is a rather odd phrasing in this context.

Plot

• This section contains a large number of relatively short paragraphs. It may read better if some of them are merged.

Cast

• Some sections like this provide short character descriptions. This is not a requirement.

Production

• The Black Phone emerged from filmmakers Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill's adaptation of Joe Hill's short story of the same name – "emerged from"? It is the adaptation, is it not?
• The director was eager – "the director" here is essentially an WP:Elegant variation; there is no previous mention of a director, and both Derrickson and Cargill have been described as "filmmakers" earlier in the paragraph. Context suggests that it refers to Derrickson, in which case either a name or pronoun would be better.
• eager to conceive a film faithful to "The Black Phone" – what does "eager to conceive" mean here? Did he want to turn it into a film, or did he want to come up with a way it could be turned into a film, or what?
• which fascinated him in its framing of a conventional serial killer story – I'm guessing there is something about the framing that made it fascinating, seeing as the story is described as conventional? That should be made clearer.
• struggled to produce ideas of his own devising – as above, the meaning of this is unclear. Does "produce ideas" mean "come up with ideas", "get ideas produced [i.e. turned into films]", or something else entirely? Does "of his own devising" modify "produce" or "ideas"?
• He shelved the project to focus on his professional relationship with Cargill, forged from Sinister (2012), and his contractual obligations to Marvel Studios as director of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022). – I'm confused about the timeline here. The article says that Derrickson came across 20th Century Ghosts shortly after its initial US release. That US release appears to have been in 2007, based on the article 20th Century Ghosts, although that is not mentioned in this article as only the initial 2005 publication date (in the UK, I gather) is mentioned. The project was then apparently shelved somewhere between 2012 and 2022 (and since the film premiered in 2021, presumably no later than 2020), at least several years and possibly more than a decade after Derrickson came across the anthology. Did Derrickson work on it for years without making progress, or did he wait several years before starting (despite being "eager"), or what?
• Cargill briefly pitched for a replacement director in the interim – what interim, specifically?
• pitched for a replacement director – does this mean that he pitched the story to a replacement director, or that he pitched a replacement director to the studio/producer/whomever?
• To bolster The Black Phone's story – as written, this means "To strengthen the story of the film". Is that the intended meaning, or is the intended meaning "To expand upon the story of the short story"?
• He gleaned from people in his everyday life – "gleaned" does not seem like the right word here.
• He gleaned from people in his everyday life to shape the characters, their circumstances, and the film's depiction of suburbia, including a child whose mother was raped, murdered, and disposed of in a lake wrapped in phone wire. – as written, this says that the film's depiction of suburbia included the child whose mother was murdered. I'm guessing the intended meaning was that this murder was something that happened in Derrickson's real life and something he drew inspiration from.
• He also investigated The 400 Blows (1959) and The Devil's Backbone (2001) – "investigated" does not seem like the right word here.
• Agents scouted hundreds of child actors for The Black Phone's starring roles. – for the roles of Finney and Gwen, I take it. I'm not sure those two are the starring roles.
• McGraw was considered among four actresses, and when a prior commitment to Disney's television series Secrets of Sulphur Springs forced her to pull out, the producers postponed filming of The Black Phone by several months to accommodate her schedule. – the structure of this sentence makes it sound like McGraw was still one out of four actresses considered for the role when she pulled out, but it seems like they had already decided on casting her as they elected to accommodate her schedule rather than using one of the other three actresses? I had to read this sentence a few times to make sure I understood the sequence of events correctly.
• Casting for Finney was not as immediate of an undertaking. – it is unclear whether this means that it was not as highly prioritized, or simply that it took longer time.
• he reportedly stood apart from others in his ability to emote and take direction – "reportedly" is a WP:Word to watch. This is also not really what the cited source says.
• Yet The Black Phone story resonated with the actor – this is an example of a phrasing I think looks out of place in a Wikipedia article, but would feel natural in an entertainment magazine article.
• Hawke's experience on the set of Sinister was another influence shaping his decision. – how so?
• He developed his performance by honing expression in his voice and body. – this is a fairly PR-ish way of phrasing it. A more encyclopaedic way of stating it might be to say that he focused on acting with his voice and body. I would also include the point the source makes about this being due to the mask obscuring (part of) his face.
• broached the subject to Thames – I believe the common way of phrasing it is that one broaches a subject with somebody, not to.
• Due to the amount of violence and profanity in the script, Derrickson carefully broached the subject to Thames, McGraw, and their parents in preparation for scenes. – which subject? Violence? Profanity? Something else?
• under the pseudonym Static – working titles, even fake ones, are not usually called pseudonyms.
• Estimates to realize the shoot ran between $16–18 million – overly intricate phrasing. See also MOS:RANGE about the use of an en dash here.
• They also bonded from discussing Jutkiewicz's work in the satirical horror film Ready or Not (2019) – work in a film usually means acting, with work on a film being used for crew.
• I'm missing the point about the masks being cut in half with tops and bottoms that could be combined in different ways, mentioned in this source, from the section on the masks.

Release

• after delaying the film twice from its scheduled early 2022 release – how come?
• It was the third-best selling DVD and Blu-ray release in its first week of US sales, selling 34,985 copies and earning $855,633. – seems like a rather minor detail.
• The Black Phone is also available to authenticated subscribers of NBCUniversal's streaming service Peacock. – that it is available at some streaming service is in itself rather unremarkable. Depending on geographical location, it may be available at several different ones.

Reception

• The relative weight given to the US and Canada vs. the rest of the world in the "Box office" subsection is a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias.
• The Black Phone was considered a surprise box office success, as studios anticipated meager profits for theaters screening lower-budget films, closed as a consequence of COVID-19 pandemic control measures. – this is not remotely what the cited source says. It doesn't say that it was a surprise box office success. It doesn't say that theaters screening lower-budget films were expected to turn less of a profit (and the relevant thing would be whether the lower-budget films themselves, rather than the theaters showing them, would turn a profit). It also doesn't speak of the film in the context of theater closures due to COVID-19, but in the context of theaters having reopened afterwards (Blum is quoted as saying in our sort of post-Covid theatrical world, it's kind of anybody's guess what people are willing to go back to the movie theater to go see). What the source says is, roughly, that the film performed well and that people were unsure whether it would as they didn't know if audience interest for viewing lower-budget films at the cinema remained (Blum was one of many that worried lower-budget films might not have a place at cinemas in the wake of pandemic theater closures.)
• $71.3 million internationally – see MOS:DOMESTIC.
• Of this figure, $67.8 million was estimated to have been yielded by Blumhouse and Universal in net profit, factoring in advertising, production, interest, administrative overhead, residuals, and miscellaneous costs. – this is also not remotely what the cited source says. Per the source, the film lost money in the theatrical window as the theatrical net revenue was $75 million while the combined cost of production (i.e. the budget) and prints and advertising (or marketing and distribution) alone was $90 million. The actual net profit came from other revenue streams, namely home media and especially television and streaming.
• After securing $3 million from advanced screenings – advance (early) screenings, not advanced (elaborate) ones.
• the film received a wide release across 3,150 theaters – wide release is movie business-speak that has to do with the number of theaters (the precise definition varies), as opposed to a limited release. Thus, stating the number of theaters makes it redundant to label the release as wide.
• 3,150 theaters in the United States – no, the United States and Canada. They are a single box office territory and figures pretty much never relate to the US alone.
• It opened as the fourth-highest grossing movie of the week with $23.3 million – weekend, not week.
• About $1.7 million of this figure came from Los Angeles-area cinemas alone. New York, Dallas, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, Phoenix, Philadelphia, and Washington also represented much of the film's biggest takings. – is this really that remarkable? Large population centers have large moviegoing audiences, and LA is, suffice it to say, a very central location in the movie industry.
• Exit polling conducted during opening night revealed the average opinion moviegoers gave the film was positive – a few issues here. The phrasing is overly intricate. "Revealed" is a WP:Word to watch. People have opinions and give ratings. It's dubious whether this belongs in the "Box office" subsection.
• ranging from a B+ on CinemaScore to an 86% score on PostTrak – I don't think we can call this a range, as the rating/grading/scoring systems are entirely different.
• The following weekend saw the theater count peak to 3,156 despite box office figures dropping by 48% – this implies a rather nonsensical causality between those two figures, and as the source points out a second-weekend drop of 48% is pretty good for a horror film as they are typically fairly frontloaded (Typically horror films drop like a rock in weekend 2, more than -60%. Not this one.).
• The Black Phone finished the third week as the number six film with $7.66 million – weekend, not week. It's also wrong; those were the estimated numbers by Sunday, but when the actual numbers were reported it turned out it grossed $7,781,615.[1][2]
• The Black Phone remained one of the top ten highest-grossing films for seven consecutive weeks. – that's verifiable from the cited source, but it is a very unorthodox metric to use (for one thing, it's usually weekends that are considered). Do any sources comment on this? That is to say, is it WP:PROPORTIONAL for this article to mention it?
• By August 2022, the film's domestic gross topped $85.8 million. – again, see MOS:DOMESTIC. Also: so what? The final gross has already been mentioned.
• The Black Phone debuted overseas grossing $13.4 million from 45 countries, for a total sum of $35.8 million. Mexico comprised the largest portion of earnings – Mexico is not "overseas". The best approach is to simply stick to "in the US and Canada" and "outside of the US and Canada".
• The Black Phone debuted overseas grossing $13.4 million from 45 countries, for a total sum of $35.8 million. – "total sum" is a redundant phrase; I gather the intended meaning is "worldwide total"?
• Mexico comprised the largest portion of earnings – no, the largest portion of the earnings came from Mexico.
• reportedly one of the country's all time biggest-opening grosses for a horror film – why "reportedly"? The cited source doesn't hedge its phrasing in that way. I also think it's pretty misleading to call it "one of the country's all time biggest-opening grosses" when, per the source, it's number 12.
• one of the country's all time biggest-opening grosses – a few hyphenization problems here. As it is used attributively as a compound modifier, "all-time" should have a hyphen (whereas it would not have a hyphen in constructions like "of all time"). Using a hyphen in "biggest-opening" is correct when it is used attributively as a compound modifier (e.g. "biggest-opening movies"), but that is not the case here as "opening" does not pair with "biggest" but with "grosses" (it is not "[biggest-opening] grosses" but "biggest [opening grosses]", or to put it another way it is not "one of the grosses that is opening biggest" but rather "one of the opening grosses that is biggest"). Grosses are also typically called "high" rather than "big", so the best way to phrase it would be "one of the country's all-time highest opening grosses" (except I think that's misleading, as mentioned).
• Second week earnings dropped by just 28% to $8.3 million – again, that's "weekend" rather than "week". Also, this can't be right: a drop from $13.4 million to $8.3 million is substantially larger than 28% (roughly 38%, depending on how those figures have been rounded).
• thanks to the film's continued global rollout [...] – "thanks to" is really not an appropriate phrasing to use here.
• and several overseas markets buoyed The Black Phone's performance – "buoyed" is a rather conspicuous word choice here. And again, avoid "overseas".
• in the week of July 24, grossing $6.9 million – again, that's "weekend" rather than "week". Weekends should also preferably be labelled by date range (e.g. "the weekend of July 22–24") rather than a single date, if the date is the best way to label it (why not "fifth weekend"?).
• By September 11, the film's offshore gross exceeded $69.7 million. – avoid "offshore" in the same way as "overseas". And as with the US and Canada gross by August, so what?
• The Black Phone opened to mostly favorable reviews. – a few issues here. Firstly, it is a bit odd to specify that it opened thusly—were later reviews significantly more positive or negative? Secondly, the cited source isn't about the reviews the film received following its theatrical release but the ones that came from its film festival premiere nine months prior. Thirdly, the cited source here is Screen Rant, which is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or—most relevant here—any kind of analysis (it is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight).
• The second paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection feels like it was written to present the critical commentary in as general terms as possible, unfortunately to the point that it ends up barely saying anything substantial at all (summarizing too much, in other words).
• They were inclined to compare The Black Phone to Hill's short story based on tone and style – what does this mean? They were inclined to compare them in terms of tone and style or because of the tone and style?
• saying the film script augmented ideas faithful to the source material – I find it difficult to tell what is meant here. I'm not even sure I'm parsing it right. I think "ideas faithful to the source material" is a noun phrase ("ideas [that are] faithful to the source material"), but I can't tell if it means "ideas found in the source material" or "ideas similar to the ones found in the source material" (or something else?). I am likewise unsure whether "augment" is intended to mean "improve upon" or "expand upon" in this context. I looked at the five cited sources to see if that made it clearer, but it didn't really. The first merely says "Hill's short story is a creepy bare-bones framework, which allows Derrickson and Cargill to deeply flesh out the characters." The second doesn't compare the film to the short story at all. The third says "The Black Phone expands on a short story in ways that feel very true to the source material while significantly enhancing its theatrical appeal." The fourth again doesn't compare them at all. The fifth says "Derrickson penned the script with his Doctor Strange cowriter C. Robert Cargill from a short story by Joe Hill, and the slim source material tends to feel padded out accordingly."
• the script's treatment of a traditional serial killer story in the approach and period setting – I am unable to parse what "in the approach" means here, and I'm not sure I understand what the rest means either.
• On the other hand, the media differed over the handling of ideas – it is difficult to tell what this means, or even if it means anything at all—"the handling of ideas" is extremely vague.
• Others were unanimous – that's a rather meaningless statement, self-contradictory or borderline tautological depending on how one looks at it.
• Plodding characterization and pacing was ascribed to mistakes in the writing – that's two things, so it should be "were". This phrasing also presents the presence of "plodding characterization and pacing" as factual (with the debatable part being the reason).
• although the Los Angeles Times singled out intense basement-set conversational scenes with Finney as the film's most compelling moments – why "although"?

Sequel and related media

• Hill pitched Derrickson follow-up ideas examining The Black Phone characters as early as June 2022. – the cited source does not say that. It quotes Derrickson as saying "Joe Hill pitched me a wonderful idea for a sequel to Black Phone [...]", but nothing about whether it would involve the same characters (which of course seems likely, but it is just an assumption).
• The film's success lead to immediate negotiations – led.
• The Black Phone canon was expanded further – "canon" is perhaps not the best word to use here.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See my comments above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See my comments above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig gives me an error message unless I turn off the search engine, in which case it does not reveal any overt copyvio. I have not spotted any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing, but I have not taken a close enough look to be able to rule it out with a reasonable degree of confidence.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There is no analysis of themes or the like, and the "Critical reception" is as mentioned above rather thin—to my eye to the point where I don't know what critics actually thought of the film.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See my comments above.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See my comments above. The article is mostly okay in this regard, but there are a few things that need to be addressed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The poster is fair use and the other images appear to have acceptable licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@DAP389: I'm closing this as unsuccessful. The sourcing issues I have spotted without really conducting anything approaching a thorough spot-check are serious enough that I think this best. Apart from that, the main issue that needs to be addressed is that there are many places where the prose lacks clarity. I look forward to seeing this renominated in the future. Best of luck, TompaDompa (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.