Talk:Logan Lucky

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)

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)

Another editor deleted it entirely. -- 109.77.197.149 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

There have been several edits to the article that tried remove the claim that several people were speculated to be the writer. Whoever ultimately is the writer doesn't mean that others weren't also speculated to be the writer, so editors should be more cautious about deleting this part.

Someone added the statement to the article claiming it had been widely confirmed but despite that assertion they only used the same article from The Playlist mentioned above, and didn't include any other sources. More sources would be better, if it was widely confirmed that should be easy. So long as there is only one source then it is important to include the caveat as I suggested earlier "According to The Playlist".

They also added a whole lot of circumstantial information about Asner being on set during filming, which is frankly irrelevant either way and not notable.

I edited the text to be more cautious at least until other sources of confirmation can be found. -- 109.79.179.4 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 13:51, 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. -- 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 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)

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)

Plot Summary Problem?

The current plot summary states "Clyde doesn't recognize one of the patrons, who turns out to be Grayson continuing her investigation undercover." I think there's room for an alternative interpretation.

Agent Grayson is portrayed as an unsympathetic character with a bad attitude, just as Logan and friends are portrayed as hapless idiots at the outset. If you were paying attention, you may have noticed that these inarticulate clowns managed to pull together a world-class heist that had a lot of moving parts and, due to luck AND planning, paid off handsomely. These are the same folks who seized power in 2016, so underestimating them doesn't pay.

I think Agent Grayson also is other than she seems. Her "interrogation" of Chilblain was a joke, and she clearly knows more than she's saying. After getting a close look at who the smart people are in this scenario, and seeing how cozy the track owner and their insurance company are, I think she reconsiders her career prospects and decides to join the winning team. Note that ALL the women in the film warm to Logan lucky despite their earlier dismissal of him. Also note that several viewers recall that Grayson presented in the final scene with an artificial hand. Did you really want Clyde to be the only one without a girlfriend at the end? Also, as this film has been characterized as a Red State Ocean's, have you thought about who will be the added member in the sequel? Somebody with inside dope as to FBI ops would not be a bad choice. Of course the black dude in the limo is also a contender. Woman power and Black power come to Trump country?

After a suitable interval, I tried adding a short paragraph to the article in which I alluded to the theory sketched above. It was removed without explanation. While I may be wrong, I'm not an idiot, and I think a more courteous approach is warranted. You could, for example, say why you summarily dismissed the idea. Personally, I think art worthy of the name is ALWAYS subject to alternative views.

It's a problem. The answer is not to add more speculation or alternative theories about what could be happening but to say what we can see and remove the rest. (Also WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, including ideas about different things that might or might not be happening is too verbose.)

I removed the speculative sentence which presumed that Grayson was continuing her investigation. -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)