Jump to content

Talk:Edge of Tomorrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use

[edit]
Ending-related

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Edge of Tomorrow (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 23:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation

[edit]
Resolved

Images

[edit]
Resolved

Expanded the rationale of the screenshot, replaced the theater one. igordebraga ≠ 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: please see this discussion for suggestions regarding the mimic image. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it. Hope the rationale is OK as well. igordebraga ≠ 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Caption was slightly off, but I fixed it. See the criteria section for details. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
Resolved

Lead

[edit]
Resolved
  • The lead looks good at the moment. I might have some further suggestions later, but I think it's good to go for now. My only concern is the genre, and I've covered these concerns in this brief discussion. My argument is that the film is a work of military science fiction, adapted from a work of military science fiction. As the link to that discussion shows, military experts recognize it as a work of military science fiction. In my experience, most reviewers aren't all that familiar with the genre, so it's not surprising that most sources don't mention it. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book's article list it as Military science fiction, think I'll put it there too.

Plot

[edit]
Unresolved
Noting here: As mentioned below, the Plot section has been reduced to fit the WP:FILMPLOT limit. Seven words over the limit is not much, but I can see why it's best to be within the limit for a WP:Good article review. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't so much to say "this can't pass because it's over the limit", but to simply point out the word count. Having looked at the plot section, it's pretty simple to get it down under the soft limit. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, rewriting to shorten also gives a chance to make the text clearer (a must for such a short summary!). igordebraga ≠ 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, the plot summary is not "clearer," just trivial: it doesn't manage to bring out anything about why this storyline is actually interesting or reveal things that a casual viewer might have missed but that add to the reasons why it's valuable as a piece of visual literature and not simply a fluff action flick. I tried to address this in an early-December revision, which of course put the words over the limit. Rather than seeking to pare back the words, however, the helpful community decided (as always) that it was best to simply revert to the previous version. Increasingly, it's becoming impossible to add value on Wikipedia because so many fanatics revert anything and everything without much concern for what merit may have been present in the (sometime significant) work that was done. As a result, over time, Wikipedia is becoming more static and less interesting rather than a place to find worthwhile insights. It'd be nice if some of you who have time to monitor pages so they can be instantly reverted on a whim instead found time to consider the revisions and see how they might be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsamans (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jsamans, I'm sorry that you feel that your contributions were ignored. However, the plot summary is supposed to be straightforward. WP:PSTS says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." This means that we should not be trying to demonstrate why the plot is "actually interesting" or to "reveal things... missed" or to show why "it's valuable as a piece of visual literature". We need to use secondary sources to indicate the value of this film among others at this particular point in history and culture. If you think it is trivial, it sounds like the plot summary could use less detail in describing the film so readers can have context for how secondary sources address the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, I don't "feel that" my contributions were ignored; I'm not interested in whether you may be sorry or want to empathize. When changes are reverted rather than being pared back or subjected to further editing, those changes have in fact been ignored. It takes substantial time to compose edits, but anyone can and will erase those effort on a whim, returning things to whatever came before. Moreover, this is done without having the account for whether that prior version itself offered any substantive value according to the same standard used to justify the reversion. Setting aside how little sense it makes that having less detail of the primary source material somehow provides superior context in which to consider other secondary sources, the deference paid to whatever came before, however poorly written or even inaccurate, produces a calcification within this environment that ironically is making Wikipedia less likely to ever be updated substantively than the periodically published, static encyclopedias that preceded it. That may amuse who flit from article to article clicking "revert" as the mood strikes them, but it does little to advance human conversation or understanding. Jsamans (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

[edit]
Resolved

Production

[edit]
Resolved
Development and writing
  • The film was directed by Doug Liman based on a screenplay adapting the 2004 Japanese light novel All You Need Is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka.
Filming
  • Though the director initially did not want a beach set built, the production had one built at the studio site.
  • The Saunton Sands in North Devon were also used for the French beaches, while receiving a digital extension of the sea as there was little visible water and no surf at all.
    • Rewrite this for clarity please. Please also remove the "little visible water" as I think that's a misinterpretation of the source which says, "The Saundon Sands location was a big wide beach, with a little water visible at one end, but there was no surf at all. That was all added in for the production. So there was a lot of ocean spray, surface and water interaction in Houdini fluid and water simulations as they came ashore or landed from the DropShip in shallow surf." Basically, the main point is: "Filming of the French beach scenes also occurred at Saunton Sands in North Devon. Due to the lack of surf, artists digitally extended the sea." Since this is about visual effects, it appears to be in the wrong section. Of course, you can separate the location filming and post-production. Not a big deal if you keep it where it is. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source said nothing about "averting how many science fiction films use" the saturated bleach bypass look,so I removed the science fiction film part. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Battle suit design
  • OK. However, I removed the header linkout to powered exoskeleton and moved it inline where it belongs. If, however, the link went to, for example, "powered exoskeletons in film" or "powered exoskeletons in science fiction", then I think it would be more appropriate in the header. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Visual effects
  • OK. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from a practical build for a crashed ship on the beach head and a gimbal set to depict the plane used by Cage's squad, most ships were digital models, that had some of Imageworks' heaviest detail for both the camp scenes where actors walked closed to the ships and depict a realistic destruction on the crashes.
  • Copyedits, please review. I think this section is done. There were a number of problems here. One, there's no need to keep repeating "visual effects" in relation to the job role when VFX is the standard term. Two, you mentioned "SPI" without ever first making it explicit after the first full usage. I fixed both instances of this in the above diff. Third, I fixed tense, eliminated redundancy, and removed inaccurate or ambiguous wording while referring to the original source. "Sculptor's model" sounds weird and unfamiliar; "early model" sounds much better. Keep it simple. In at least one instance, you forgot to place a citation at the end of a quotation, which I remedied (even though it is repeated subsequently; sucks, but that kind of source repetition for quotes is a rule for GA articles). I also removed unnecessary adverbs, which are used far too often in this article and should generally be removed on sight. Finally, I added an internal link and copyedited the Prime Focus World material from the source. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music

Release

[edit]
Resolved
Marketing
  • OK. See copyedits; OVERLINKING removed (Stoff and Viz Media already linked); redundant words removed ("film was promoted at...and it was promoted at"); release and retitled condensed and redundancy removed (you already mentioned the light novel name above it, no need to repeat it for the second time); copyedits to Tough Mudder detail (remove redundancy, source doesn't say anything about "military delinquents"). Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Box office forecast
Theatrical run
Opening weekend
  • Why do you mention Maleficent as a competitor twice? You write: "Edge of Tomorrow competed against Maleficent starring Angelina Jolie, which opened the same weekend in 46 territories." Then you write in the next paragraph: "Edge of Tomorrow faced competition from Maleficent and X-Men: Days of Future Past and ranked third after the two films in many territories." Why not combine the first instance into the second like this: "Edge of Tomorrow faced competition from Maleficent, starring Angelina Jolie, which opened the same weekend in 46 territories, and X-Men: Days of Future Past; in many territories, Edge of Tomorrow ranked third after the two films." Of course, if that's not what you intended, then leave it, but it sounds strange to see it repeated. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second weekend
  • The read here is a bit choppy in places. I was thrown for a loop when I read, " Major performances were..." That sounds very colloquial. Is "major performances" the correct term or phrase here? Otherwise, the section is OK. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent weekends
Home media

Reception

[edit]
Resolved

Social commentary

[edit]
Resolved
Gender roles
  • This section is OK. A little quote heavy, but a few things stopped me from reading:
  • "This was the extreme idea of what I ever thought I'd want to do"
    • I'm not exactly sure what this means, and looking at the source, it isn't exactly clear either. Since by definition, all drama is an "extreme" version of what we would normally do in RL, to me at least, the quote is a bit superfluous and almost serves to make her look unintentionally weak as it almost reinforces the gender stereotype. I found it odd; others may not. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lutes said the film's hero Cage was strengthened by her work
Comparison to video games
  • Director Liman said..
    • That's odd wording, similar to the breathless bit above. Is this a Wikipedia convention for film articles? I don't recall seeing it used outside of Wikipedia. I suppose if you don't know Liman is the director at this point, you probably don't know what's going on anyway. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I probably wrote that. My thinking was that if it is a new section, then figures should be re-identified in full. Like we state Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise's full names, and from the context, we can surmise they are actors. If someone happened to jump to that section from the TOC, "Liman" may not be clear enough. He's not an auteur/famous director, and the context does not really show what role he had. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wired '​s Angela Watercutter said Hollywood had been trying to produce films based on video games for years and that Edge of Tomorrow showed merit for studios to try basing films on video games' narrative structure.
    • Close paraphrasing here, and it loses the meaning of Watercutter's point in the original, namely that the film succeeds because it isn't based on a video game, but on the narrative structure of a type used in a videogame. That's why she says those films that were based on videogames "should’ve been based on videogames’ narrative structure". Read it again and see if you can't rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]
Resolved

Notes

[edit]
Resolved

References

[edit]
Resolved
[edit]
Resolved

Criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Production section needs copyedits
    Done
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    WP:OVERLINK
    Fixed
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image under review (see also comments above)
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    "Box office forecast" caption was misleading; I've changed it to the original image cpation
    Alien caption referred to "mineral shard", but this slightly deviated from the source; also, obsidian is not a mineral. I restored the text from the body.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    After extensive (but mostly minor) copyedits, I believe the current version meets the GA criteria. To the nominator: I highly recommend going through and reading this article this again. As you do, make a note of the most significant points in each section and check to see if they are mentioned in the lead. If they aren't, please update accordingly. I think the current version of the lead is passable, but improvement is possible. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix everything (even reducing the plot to 690 words, am only unsure on the new lead). Waiting for new requests. igordebraga ≠ 03:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I won't be finished with this review until at least Monday night HST, at the earliest. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting close to closing this out. Not quite there just yet, but very close. Please be patient, as my time has been very limited this week. All that is left is the production and release sections. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else is necessary, Viriditas? After all, I've done everything you listed above that's not marked with an "OK"... igordebraga ≠ 02:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have, thank you. However, I haven't finished reviewing the production section. Hopefully, I can do it right now without any interruptions, as I'm back home and ready to finish this thing up. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See above. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

[edit]

This film seems to be based on, if not stolen from, The Defence of Duffer's Drift. Written in 1904 by Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Defence_of_Duffer%27s_Drift 68.98.16.149 (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no direct connection between the film and the book. However, both have similar enough premises that the book is listed in this article's "See also" section. We can't make an explicit connection if no reliable sources have done that yet. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

[edit]

This mentions talks about a sequel. I think it is too premature to put anything in the article body, but this is worth keeping on the radar in case actual development takes place. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the mention from the article, without prejudice for restoring it if a stronger signal is forthcoming (e.g. from the studio). Lagrange613 20:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even realize that it was already added to the article! Support the removal for now. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in India on May 30

[edit]

Where did you guys get the source for this? --Jionpedia ✉ 13:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been in the article for quite some time (I stopped looking after a few pages of edits, but feel free to go further if you want - since there's no source, it's hard to tell where it came from). I'm not sure if the one of "you guys" who added it is likely to respond to your query here - what do you think it should be? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jionpedia, Fru1tbat, I had added the sentence, "The film was released in theaters in 28 territories—including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Germany, Spain, and Indonesia—on the weekend of May 30, 2014," under the "Opening weekend" section. The similar sentence in the lead section was copied from this, but it looks like India was inserted after that copying without a source. I've removed it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was released in India on June 6 (same as North America).--Jionpedia ✉ 13:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Edge of Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edge of Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production section

[edit]

Deathawk and I have been discussing writing the opening of "Production" sections, as you can see on my talk page here. I do tend to include introductions to "Production" sections more often than may be seen elsewhere, and I'd like to explain why. The lead section is simply a concise overview of the article body (and so is the film infobox). In other words, the lead section is a mini-article that summarizes the most important information from the article body. So my approach prioritizes production-related facts to the top of that section, especially more useful to do so when this film is more known for Tom Cruise and the time-loop premise than the director himself or the companies involved. I think it is more useful, than not, to establish these key facts within a section before proceeding with how the facts were finalized. Deathawk thinks the information is too repetitive and obvious to readers who likely read the lead section first. (I argue that shouldn't always be assumed, nor the production details readily retained in memory in the course of reading the article.) There are not really any policies or guidelines here; it is more about writing styles and what to assume of readers. Deathawk removed the introduction, and I've restored it for now here as the status quo, and I ask other editors to weigh in. Is the introduction too much? Too little? Better worded to fit? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would be that with the Erik's introduction sentences, we now reiterate the same information three times 1) Once in the intro, (2 Once at the start of the production section and 3) One further down the production section. The info that I deleted and Erik restored is a better fit for the lead, which is to summarize the article, rather than the production section which expands on the lead. therefore we do not need two"intros". I think Erik's position, and I could be wrong on this, is that the info in the lead should be reiterated, it already does so in the body of the section. While I do see merit in certain cases for opening up with such a statement, the cases would be few and far between, and I do not see this as being an exception. --Deathawk (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that content should be deleted because it is solely repeated in the lead. The whole concept of the lead is to summarise the content in the main body. That said, I think it is reasonable to assume that visitors to the article will read the lead even if they don't read every other section. If the lead repeats content in the introduction to the production section, which then repeats the content again that seems like overkill. As a rule of thumb I would say that content should appear once in the main body of the article, and the key points will then be repeated in the lead. If you take Gone with the Wind (film)#Production for example, nothing is repeated in the production section, but certain aspects of the production section are repeated in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems really unnecessary to me. What is the need for having another summary of the information? The lead should cover that fine. I'm pretty sure we would all be aware if there was a Wikipedia guideline suggesting that we summarise every section within an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Erik probably feels that there should be some sort of lead in or introduction to the section, because it is a bit jarring to jump straight into the development. I tend to agree with that approach, but I think the repetition should be minimised. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Joan of Arc quality”?

[edit]

What does “The battle suit for Blunt's character had red slash marks sprayed on to reflect a Joan of Arc quality”, actually mean? I’ve tried to get my head round it, and looked up the article on Joan of Arc to see if she is traditionally depicted in red, or wearing red, or with red marks, and came up with nothing. Why does spraying suits with red slash marks reflect Joan of Arc, or any of her qualities…? It sounds like it may have been taken from a studio publicity article or an interview, but I think without further explanation it is a confusing thing to include, approaching a non-sequitur, and warrants something to support it. Jock123 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you access this link? I'm trying to access it to get the direct language but can't: https://web.archive.org/web/20180621042135/https://www.mpaa.org/2014/06/building-edge-of-tomorrows-exosuit/ Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found an updated URL: https://www.mpaa.org/2014/06/building-edge-of-tomorrows-armored-exosuits/ The exact quote is Liman has said that Blunt's character has a Joan of Arc quality about her, so they sprayed red slash marks on the chest of her ExoSuit, which is a nod to Sakurazaka’s novel, "as if to say she had been to hell and back and lived to tell about it," he said. The current paraphrasing in the article is pretty poor. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I probably wrote that phrasing back then. Feel free to reword it based on the source. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Now then, I'll just take my foot out of my mouth... :) I'll see what I can do. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I accept that it does not make sense in retrospect. Could simply quote the passage directly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edge_of_Tomorrow&oldid=1196416804"