Talk:1917 (2019 film)

Why no “critical acclaim”?

There is an invisible comment on the page telling editors not to use “critical acclaim” to describe the critical response, could somebody explain why this is the case? Many other film pages use this, I don’t see why this one can’t? Fobz12345 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

it’s awards season and competition for them is huge right now. I’d say just go ahead and use the phrase. Boscaswell talk 09:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reception section: undue weight to negative review

Rotten Tomatoes has 89% positive reviews, but 1 of the section’s 3 paras, taking up nearly 1/3rd of the section, is given over to a negative review. This is WP:UNDUE. Boscaswell talk 09:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I've dealt with it.Boscaswell talk 00:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Two editors added a whole new paragraph critical if the continuous takes. Criticism of that had already been given space and again following WP:UNDUE I deleted the whole paragraph. Boscaswell talk 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Quad Trench-CMYK-Jan-10-AW 1917-scaled.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

English or British

An editor today changed the lead from saying "British...film" to "English...film". I can understand the description English for places, and for individuals who identify explicitly as such, but for such a large cooperative project as this film, where the co-writer is clearly Scottish, and much filming was done in Scotland, British seems more appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy close. Page already moved to the title per guidelines: 1917 (1970 film) and 1917 (2019 film). (non-admin closure) Hddty (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• 1917 (Sam Mendes film) → 1917 (film)
• 1917 (Stephen Weeks film) → 1917 (short film)

– Can "film" accurately describe a short film? I don't think so. Unreal7 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move of the Mendes film... is the short film even notable enough to have it's own article? There is very little content. Plus I don't recall any instances where films have been disambiguated by the director's name should at least be by year. Also support restoring original titles as outlined below. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Restore previous titles which were moved by Crookesmoor without a discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The previous titles should be restored immediately. It’s outrageous that Crookesmoor changes them without any discussion, seemingly on a whim. Sorry, but I don’t know whether this is an oppose or a support. Boscaswell talk 21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, revert to prior titles (1917 (2019 film) and 1917 (1970 film)), and speedy close - this was an undiscussed move. The current and proposed names fail WP:NCFILM which gives preference to year disambiguation above other methods. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have moved both articles back to the titles they previously had. No idea why they were changed in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Country?

Seems like there's something of a contradiction now, with the lede reading "British film" and the IB/categories saying it is a British–American co-production. Can't find any source to back up either, and to confuse matters further, the first source I could find regarding this is the BFI database, which lists four countries: US, UK, Spain, and India. What should the article say?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Good luck getting responses on this matter. I tried up above three days ago, and got nothing. I still believe British would be most appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As per the MoS, the article’s lead sentence should say what the reliable sources say. That there were elements of co-production doesn’t prevent the artistic product being seen as British, if that’s what other sources are reporting. In such a case, the article body and infobox can set out the details of the various national involvements. Do a check and you will find sources from across the world - the British ones are a given since 1917 just won “best British film” at BAFTA - but you will find references from the US, Ireland, Australia and South Africa. For example Variety.com (US edition),[1], Forbes,[2] AVclub,[3] and Hollywood Reporter.[4] (“home soil”). MapReader (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48 (talk · contribs) I’d say a response within two minutes is pretty lucky ;) MapReader (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Very true, but now I'm jealous. What have you got that I haven't got?  ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)