Talk:Uncharted (film)

Poster

The current poster, taken from IMP Awards, says "Exclusively at Cinemas" at the bottom and has the UK release date, indicating that this is the international version. The Uncharted Twitter page has the U.S. version (with "Exclusively in Movie Theaters" and the U.S. release date), but the poster is in a non-standard aspect ratio used by all Sony films for some reason. Now, unless someone can find a version of the U.S. poster in a standard aspect ratio, I personally think that the Twitter one is a better option that the current international version. Thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Six of one, half dozen of the other. I don't see any reason why the UK poster should be used over the US poster, it is a US film. If you feel it is worth your time and effort to change it then go ahead, I guess.-- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Long critical response

An editor tagged the critical response section for being too long and {{Hard to navigate}}. I disagree with this assessment, the section lists many critics but is a fairly normal length. It could be written better but "hard to navigate" is not the problem.

I would agree that it is a little repetitive and that choice of some of the critics seems a little strange. I suppose some editors might wanted to include critics from publications that normally review video games not films (ie ArsTechnica, Engadget, Polygon) but if that was the intention the quotes from their reviews do not offer any particular insight or perspective from people familiar with the video games (with only Indiewire mentioning the video games).

If editors believe the section is too long (rather than not written well) how do they propose to shorten it? -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the section tends to read like WP:PROSELINE where for almost every review, it's one sentence after another. For me as a reader, it's simply sampling too many reviews (I think over 16 or so). Writing these sections are never easy because of trying to interweave them, but I think it is better to have a smaller sample of reviews and to extract more from each one. Some Dude From North Carolina may have other thoughts, but Some Dude, please don't call the IP editor's template removal "vandalism". Whether or not a template should stay or not has always been a sticky business on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To add, per MOS:FILM#Critical reception, it is more useful to try to reference reliable sources that gauge the consensus among critics (beyond just scoring). For example, this would be useful: "While many critics agree that the blockbuster... is, at times, breezy fun, it can't reach the dizzying heights of its acclaimed source material. In fact, critics say the finished product apparently feels more like a series of callouts to other beloved treasure hunting properties, mainly Indiana Jones, National Treasure, and even The Goonies than a fully-formed adventure all its own." The more higher-level that the section can be, the better. We only sample individual reviews to try to give readers an imperfect sense of what critics thought, and that can be improved on. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes the section could be improved, as I already said the section could be better written, but {{Hard to navigate}} did not seem to be an appropriate tag. -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• @109.78.199.168: The common reader will never read that entire section. That is the problem. They are three massive paragraphs of just pull quotes. I can barely get through the second paragraph because it is too clunky. Reviews should be summarized instead of listing 10–20 different opinions (see this example). This section is not "a fairly normal length". Please see WP:RECEPTION for further information. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There was no need to accuse anyone of vandalism. {{Hard to navigate}} still does not seem like an appropriate tag, even though as I already stated the section is imperfect. "Some Dude From North Carolina"'s personal opinion of the "common reader" is one thing, but he did not say what he actually intended to do to fix the section, if he intended to remove some reviews or as Erik suggested to rewrite it in the form of a higher level overview. -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia film articles written like WP:PROSELINE seems like such a common problem that it either isn't worth tagging at all (because fixing it is a normal part the process of of improving the article quality to Good article) or it should have a more specific tag for the problem. -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To show good faith I replaced the tag with something that seemed more appropriate and also to address the actual concerns raised. {{Summarize section}} says "This section may be too long" etc. -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Praise" for the action sequences

Because this has been undone by several IP editors, please can we get a consensus that as most of the reviews we have sourced do not praise, or are indifferent to, the action sequences (we only have one that is praising), it therefore should not be noted as a complimented aspect of the film in the lead? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We need to be careful with our assumptions here. We cannot read several individual reviews and assume an overall trend, especially when we only include a random sample of all reviews in the Wikipedia article. We need to use secondary sources that comment on what critics overall think of Uncharted. For example, Rotten Tomatoes summarizes the critics' consensus, '"Promisingly cast but misleadingly titled, Uncharted mines its bestselling source material to produce a disappointing echo of superior adventure films." As mentioned in the discussion above, Syfy wrote here, "While many critics agree that the blockbuster... is, at times, breezy fun, it can't reach the dizzying heights of its acclaimed source material. In fact, critics say the finished product apparently feels more like a series of callouts to other beloved treasure hunting properties, mainly Indiana Jones, National Treasure, and even The Goonies than a fully-formed adventure all its own." We need to summarize what critics thought based on that high-level language. Uproxx is another source. Basically, there is no direct support at this time for anything but the "lack of originality". It would be better to summarize RT and Syfy more upfront in the lead section. We're not in a position to draw broader conclusions from a random set of reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Budget $90-120 million

This article previously claimed the budget was $90-120 million. Variety posted different figures at different times. It is not clear why, by who, or if these two different figures represent different things. An editor removed the earlier figure [1], disregarding it as unimportant or incorrect. This editor does not believe that when he does it omitting earlier figures constitutes "cherry picking" that Template:Infobox film the guidelines expressly warn against. We might reasonably assume that since multiple sources now say the film cost $120 before P&A,[2] and that since Variety is contradicting previous figures we should go with the figure that everyone is reporting now, but point of the warning in the documentation not to cherry pick would seem to be, to strongly discourage exactly those kinds of assumptions and to instead include both figures.

Many films have had different budget figures reported at different times. We do not know why exactly the earlier figures were revised. If we could clarify exactly what the $90 million represents it might be a detail worth including, if we are going to make assumptions we could reasonably guess the budget was $90 million at the start but since the film took so long to make, and suffered delays because of the pandemic, the final production cost increased to $120 million. We don't know for sure, which is why we should not exclude the lower figure either. The guidelines warn against cherry picking, and they do not say "but" or suggest various exceptions like Wikipedia guidelines so often do. (Perhaps someone could point to a past discussion that might help clarify the intent behind this particular bit of documentation, but it always seemed to me that it was intended to err on the side of caution and to keep conflicting information even when another figure seems most likely.) I think that the warning against cherry picking also includes cases like this, even where editors might be making reasonable assumptions in good faith, but we should not assume we know better, we should not assume at all, and we should keep both figures. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

TropicAces seems right in their summary. Difference between different reliable sources saying different figures, and one source revising their report Indagate (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines say not to cherry pick, but Tropic Aces claimed the guidelines do not apply and that excluding the lower figure is somehow not cherry picking because Variety published more than one figure. We do not know why Variety posted 2 different figures. We should not assume we know better, the guidelines give no indication that we should exclude the lower figure at all. The guidelines do not give any reason whatsoever to exclude figures if they are "revised" later, we only know that the same author at Variety published two different figures, "cost $90 million to produce and several millions more to market" [3] "cost $120 million to produce."[4]

Editors should not be applying this policy selectively based on their personal opinion that it is okay to exclude certain figures. This policy has been applied strictly many other times, even when seemingly better information was published later. We've had articles before where the director has explicitly disagreed with budget figures, but that has been taken as all the more reason to include both numbers. Without knowing more we should not hide this conflicting earlier information from readers. Again why did they think the budget was $70 million? If the budget went up over time that is something that should be explained in the article not deleted from the Infobox and ignored.

It does readers no benefit to pretend as if the figures are clear when they are not. The article barely mentions the marketing costs, it does say that Sony spent $20 million on TV marketing, only part of the total marketing costs, and if it was any less than $50 million I'd be very surprised. Hollywood accounting is so obscure we can never almost never be sure. (Almost never, Mad Max Fury Road comes close because of disclosures in a court case). If editors want to cherry pick and exclude inconvenient figures, they should be the ones establishing a consensus to ignore the rules. The guidelines say include both, so include both.-- 109.76.140.42 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If editors aren't going to WP:DISCUSS I remind them that WP:BRD is a WP:CYCLE that repeats. I firmly reject the notion that I need to get a consensus before following what the documentation clearly says we should do. While it might seem a little strange to include the conflicting figures that is what editors have insisted on doing in the past. If you look at articles like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales the budget is listed as $230-320 million and you will see that editors in the past have been very serious about including both figures (Talk), and not being selective at all, even if one of those figures does seem highly unlikely. Include both, leave it up to the readers, imperfect though that may be, that is what the documentation recommends. -- 109.76.139.151 (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Editors did not discuss, the WP:CYCLE continues. I have added the $90 million figure again, it is reliably sourced.[5] We do not know why Variety published two different figures and we should not presume we do. When reliable sources differ we should present the information to readers, not cherry pick, as {{Infobox film}} clearly warns. Also WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article and the article body failed to mention any budget figures at all. Even if you think excluding the lower figure is justifiable editors still need to improve the article body. -- 109.76.197.121 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CYCLE says new edit should address concerns, yours is the same edit. Variety revised their reporting it seems so ok to only report their latest, report both if e.g. Deadline reported a different figure

Agreed about budget missing in body, problem in many film articles but not really priority in my view. Indagate (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep assuming you know why Variety published two different figures. You don't know for sure why they did that. (Many films overspend and have the budget they get greenlit at, and the final budget of what they actually spent.) The documentation says not to cherry pick, but TropicAces and Indagate have decided this isn't cherry picking, and I reject that assertion again. Having said that, this looks a lot like a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to deliberately ignore the documentation, but readers beware, budget figures are estimates and not as reliable as you might like to believe.

Also it may not be a priority in your view but WP:INFOBOX is clear that it should not summarize not supplant the article body. When there is any question of the budget figures in the Infobox it is especially necessary that there be further explanation. I can settle for the Infobox keeping it simple so long as the article body explains that was more than than one budget figure published by Variety. -- 109.76.141.34 (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Add film's post-credits scene

Wikipedia film articles, more often than not include the post-credits scenes in their plot summaries, they're a part of the movie and should be included. Advofspec (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT The plot section must first deal with the plot of this film and stay within the word count guidelines. Even if editors agree that the post credits scenes should be included it would still need to stay under the recommended word count. It would need to be a lot more concise and not put WP:UNDUE emphasis on a very brief scene. Wikipedia guidelines include a lot of exceptions and compromises, frequently undermining the point of the guideline, post credits scenes are a case in point (Marvel fans undermined that guideline almost immediately after it was written). It isn't clear that they are as important as people claim they are, and it isn't clear that they are more important or need significantly more space to explain than the rest of the film. Sony claim they're going to make another film but nothing is certain until it actually happens. The significance (or lack of) the post credits scene also is not as certain as you might think, you cannot really know if it is important yet either until we know the plot of the next film.

Again if you follow the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines and shorten the plot section significantly to actually make room for something else and then summarize the mid/post credit scenes concisely (without putting undue emphasis on a few seconds worth of a 116 minute film) then I'd more willing to let it go, but I don't think it is clear yet that an exception is necessary in this case. -- 109.77.192.199 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Advofspect added the mid/post credits sequence again, slightly less verbose, but the plot section is over the length recommended by WP:FILMPLOT. I have tagged the section as {{long plot}} to give editors a chance to reconsider what the most important details actually are and to reduce the word count to no more than 700 words (but shorter than that would be better, for example the previously mentioned Green Lantern (film) has a much shorter plot section, and arguably it shouldn't include the post credits sequence either, but it was evaluated as a "Good article" in 2012 before the guidelines actively discouraged including post credits sequences and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason not to follow the guidelines here in this article). If editors cannot keep the plot section concise following the other part of the guideline "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary" and removing the epilog will quickly shorten the plot section to comply with the guidelines. I read the guidelines again to be careful, and in case they had changed recently but the film is not yet part of a franchise and a sequel is not yet in production (it has not even been confirmed to be in the development/script stage) so this film does not meet the guidelines requirements to make an exception and include the epilog. -- 109.77.197.59 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The plot section must in any case follow the guidelines WP:FILMPLOT 400-700 words. The conditions for making an exception for including an epilog have not been met either, but I'm there is no point even discussing that until the plot is under the recommended length. (If you dig into the guidelines the purpose of the plot section in this encyclopedia is not to be complete or even detailed but to provide enough information that other sections of the encyclopedia such as the Critical response section will make sense without have to repeat or explain a whole lot of plot information.) I have restored the shorter plot section that complies with guidelines. Do not add post credits sequences again unless you can keep under the WP:FILMPLOT length requirements. -- 109.78.196.165 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Advofspect shorted the plot section and also included the post credits scene again. I remain skeptical that the epilog is necessary at all, or that the requirements stated in the guidelines have actually been met, but this is adequate and the WP:FILMPLOT length guidelines are actually being followed, so I'll leave it for now. -- 109.78.196.165 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)