Jump to content

Talk:Logan Lucky: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 21: Line 21:
:: It is no way near as obvious as you say it is. I take your point about the production and independent distribution and maybe I can think of a a few short words and give it a brief mention but the intro does broadly summarize most of the article. The critical response is already adequately covered (positive reviews, that succinctly summarizes it), if you think more needs to be said on that topic in the intro then please do make the changes you think are needed. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.74.130|109.79.74.130]] ([[User talk:109.79.74.130|talk]]) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:: It is no way near as obvious as you say it is. I take your point about the production and independent distribution and maybe I can think of a a few short words and give it a brief mention but the intro does broadly summarize most of the article. The critical response is already adequately covered (positive reviews, that succinctly summarizes it), if you think more needs to be said on that topic in the intro then please do make the changes you think are needed. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.74.130|109.79.74.130]] ([[User talk:109.79.74.130|talk]]) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::: Help me out here. You've said the intro is too short but haven't done anything to expand it. I've made [[WP:GOODFAITH|good faith efforts]] to expand the intro and been reverted more than once already. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.181.165|109.79.181.165]] ([[User talk:109.79.181.165|talk]]) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::: Help me out here. You've said the intro is too short but haven't done anything to expand it. I've made [[WP:GOODFAITH|good faith efforts]] to expand the intro and been reverted more than once already. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.181.165|109.79.181.165]] ([[User talk:109.79.181.165|talk]]) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The Old Jacobite says (above) the article intro was too short, and that there were parts of the article it didn't summarize. I expanded the intro, but others are reverting my changing without fully explaining, and without doing anything to expand the intro (or remove the tag). <br>
The article mentions at some length speculation about the screenwriter, this is why I expanded the intro text to emphasize that the film was based on an ''original script'' (not adapted from any existing story) and that Blunt is a ''newcomer''. (If Asner is confirmed as the screenwriter it will still true that she is a new screenwriter.) It might seem like a small extra word or two but I think the detail is worth mentioning. <br>
The article also discusses that Soderbergh was retired and unhappy with working in Hollywood (although he worked on other projects) and the fact that the film was independent distributed by Soderbergh and done differently to his previous films is part of his reason for returning, so again while distribution might not seem like an important detail in the context of summarizing this article it is important to mention. <br>
I've made a [[WP:GOODFAITH|serious effort]] to expand the intro because The Old Jacobite said it was needed. So please, expand the intro, rephrase if you must but if you're going to delete then please also delete the tag saying the intro needs to be expanded. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.196.129|109.76.196.129]] ([[User talk:109.76.196.129|talk]]) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:17, 18 September 2017

WikiProject iconFilm: American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heigl replaced by Holmes?

I've noticed that, despite Heigl being announced as cast in the film, she seems to have disappeared off the IMDB cast list and Holmes as being cast. All of this without an official announcement. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say Heigl was cast, the final film features Katie Holmes. The article probably needs to be improved to make this clearer. At least one editor failed to read even the title text of the linked article and tried to replace Heigl with Holmes. -- 109.79.74.255 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor deleted it entirely. -- 109.77.197.149 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of the writer

The Playlist says with certainty it's Sodebergh's wife Jules Asner, though no other sources seem to firmly confirm it. Nardog (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't say it with certainty so much as they say an unnamed source "confirmed" it. Is that good enough for an encyclopedia? How reputable a publication is The Playlist? I don't think it should wait until the filmmakers eventually admit as much but any addition to the article would need to be very carefully worded. (Given how much people here like deleting things it will be difficult to get it right.)
If you worded it carefully and specifically something like: "Rodrigo Perez at The Playlist cites unnamed sources close to film saying that Rebecca Blunt is a pseudonym/pen name for Jules Asner." That could be cautious enough until other sources confirm it. -- 109.76.168.55 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is short

The lead section is short but it does more than adequately summarize what is in the article. Please explain what you think is missing and why do you think the tag should remain? -- 109.79.74.130 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The production is barely mentioned, as are the release and the critical reception, and there is no mention of the producers or financing. These are key elements of the film that should be discussed in brief in the lede. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is no way near as obvious as you say it is. I take your point about the production and independent distribution and maybe I can think of a a few short words and give it a brief mention but the intro does broadly summarize most of the article. The critical response is already adequately covered (positive reviews, that succinctly summarizes it), if you think more needs to be said on that topic in the intro then please do make the changes you think are needed. -- 109.79.74.130 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help me out here. You've said the intro is too short but haven't done anything to expand it. I've made good faith efforts to expand the intro and been reverted more than once already. -- 109.79.181.165 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Jacobite says (above) the article intro was too short, and that there were parts of the article it didn't summarize. I expanded the intro, but others are reverting my changing without fully explaining, and without doing anything to expand the intro (or remove the tag).
The article mentions at some length speculation about the screenwriter, this is why I expanded the intro text to emphasize that the film was based on an original script (not adapted from any existing story) and that Blunt is a newcomer. (If Asner is confirmed as the screenwriter it will still true that she is a new screenwriter.) It might seem like a small extra word or two but I think the detail is worth mentioning.
The article also discusses that Soderbergh was retired and unhappy with working in Hollywood (although he worked on other projects) and the fact that the film was independent distributed by Soderbergh and done differently to his previous films is part of his reason for returning, so again while distribution might not seem like an important detail in the context of summarizing this article it is important to mention.
I've made a serious effort to expand the intro because The Old Jacobite said it was needed. So please, expand the intro, rephrase if you must but if you're going to delete then please also delete the tag saying the intro needs to be expanded. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]