Talk:Knight and Day/Archive 1

Rename article?

Since, according to IMdb, "Wichita" was only a 'working title' for this movie and it has now been officially named, "Knight & Day", should we rename the article and have "Wichita" redirect here? --Thorwald (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MISC

The last time Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz had leading roles together in a movie was Vanilla Sky. (Vestax (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

External links

Official Twitter Channel
www.TomCruise.com Knight and Day Real-Time Web Fan Page
www.TomCruise.com Knight and Day blog updates
Movie Trailer
"Update Hollywood movie Knight & Day with bull runs". CAS International. November 24, 2009.

Extraneous links and spam promo links moved to talk page. Only need one "official movie site" link. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Removed the plot, as it was 1) Unsourced, and 2) Promo/spam language. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Coolguychn, 22 June 2010

Please add the positive reviews in the critical reception. Chicago Sun times critic Roger Ebert rates the movie 3 stars out of 4 and says "Knight and Day" aspires to the light charm of a romantic action comedy like “Charade” or “Romancing the Stone,” but would come closer if it dialed down the relentless action. The romance part goes without saying after a Meet Cute contrived in an airport, and the comedy seems to generate naturally between Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. But why do so many summer movies find it obligatory to inflict us with CGI overkill? I'd sorta rather see Diaz and Cruise in action scenes on a human scale, rather than have it rubbed in that for long stretches, they're essentially replaced by animation.

Roger Moore of Orlondo Sentinel says Actor turned screenwriter Patrick O’Neill should thank his lucky stars -- both of them -- that Cruise and Diaz signed on for this. They have two of the most infectious grins in the business and their good humor puts this over.

Ty Burr of Boston Globe says The movie’s a piece of high-octane summer piffle: stylish, funny, brainless without being too obnoxious about it, and Cruise is its manic animating principle.

Lou Lumenick of New York Post says One of those movies that requires you to accept that every single time a character is presented with a choice, he or she will make the worst and most inexplicable one.

Christy Lemire of Associated Press says Cruise's presence also helps keep things light, breezy and watchable when the action -- and the story itself -- spin ridiculously out of control.

Edward Douglas of comingsoon.net says "The entertainment comes from how much fun it is watching [Cruise and Diaz] on screen together and that's what separates Knight and Day from previous attempts at mixing romance, comedy, and action. "

Bill Goodykoontz of Arizona Republic says about Mangold, working from a script by Patrick O'Neill, accelerates events in a way that is either a perfect representation of how current action films are made or a demonstration of everything that's wrong with movies today. Maybe it's both.

Sriram 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I replied on User talk:Cirt, if you provide links, I will add them. Or, I can move the review section to a subpage where you can edit it, and then move it to the article. CTJF83 pride 18:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on adding these. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Cirt's got them :) Hope to see you around! User:Jamesofur 19:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, all sources suggested above on the talk page, have been added to the article. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox revenue

Should maintain uniformity with the value format for budget, directly above this value. Also, it is helpful to have a link for US$, for the first instance of the $ sign in the article. Subsequent use of the symbol, can simply be $, itself. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for some input about this, at WT:FILMS. -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The current format of having digit representation instead of X millions, for both values, is a good compromise. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info

Please do not remove sourced info, and citations, from this article, without discussion. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were moved but out of the lead but not removed from the article. The "Cast" list is not disputed and sources are entirely unnecessary once the film has been released. The "Casting" section might require sources but not to prove the actors were in the film but to backup any other statements such as Tom Cruise being up for other roles at the time.

Please read WP:LEAD. The intro does not even strictly need to include sources as it is supposed to only summarize content already sourced elsewhere in the article. As I wrote in my edit summary there was far more information included in the intro than was necessary. There is no need for the intro to say any more than "The film has received mixed reviews from film critics." and you could optionally include the named references to backup that statement, but including more information from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the Intro is unnecessary and inconsistent with what other film articles normally do.

The lead is bloated, this is perhaps less obvious because it summarizes information from the Reception section which is also bloated. The Box office information is all very recent, and comparisons to other films it was released alongside at the American box office are of little longterm relevance and also fails WP:WORLDVIEW. The critical response is only slightly better than a list of critics saying good or bad and gives little insight into the film. I won't be rewriting that section but you should be aware a good editor could make it much much better. -- Horkana (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info from the lede at this point is inappropriate, rather, per WP:LEAD and relative to the rest of the size of the article, the lede should actually be expanded upon, not reduced. For Cast discussion, see below, on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

Let us please not have 2 different Cast sections. Just keep it to the one paragraph format, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two examples provided in WP:FILMCAST do not include both a cast box and cast discussion, but rather only prose format. See the 2 different WP:FAs mentioned, Halloween (1978 film) and Tenebrae (film). -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just re-read over all of the section on Cast at WP:MOSFILM. Clearly, the "cast table / cast list" format is to be avoided, in favor of other options which include mentioning the actors names in the Plot subsection, and a prose format of Casting section in Production. -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFILM "Cast lists should not use table formats" ... is an older artifact, you may have seen film articles that put the cast in a table, which unlike a list is awkward to expand and add more text and background information.

"Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body" ... it is funny how the guidelines work backwards from the ideal, ignoring how articles usually grow from a list of Cast, a Cast list with expanded prose points, and then sometimes end up with just prose and no cast list.

There are enough editors that prefer your approach and have been pushing it in Featured Articles, and I think having a list of Actors and character names is underrated but your other changes compensate for most of the minor downsides so I can see you have considered it carefully and properly and were not hastily removing the cast list. -- Horkana (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad these issue has been resolved but I do not appreciate being accused by Cirt of repeatedly inserting a Cast list and being threatened with a block. I added the cast list back one time.

This is precisely why my Talk page has a note at the top urging editors to keep discussions on the page of the relevant article.

I hope you will consider slimming down the lead section. I urge you to give others more of a chance to help you improve the article. I might make a few minor tweaks but the structural changes and addition of subsections were the main things I wanted to do anyhow. -- Horkana (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should actually be expanded, not reduced: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

Infobox changes removed sourced info, and also in the same edit removed useful templates from the top of the article, including protection templates, with no explanation as to why that was done. Inappropriate edits, please do not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my edit that cleaned up the infobox and properly indented it. When I cut and pasted to restore the changes I accidentally removed the other templates. Will make the edit again only this time without the accidental removing of templates. Please show a little more good faith before rushing to label my edits as unconstructive. -- Horkana (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed fields from the infobox that should not have been removed, but left empty to be filled out. Please do not remove these fields from the infobox again. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made an unintentional mistake but I looked again using the difference tool and I cannot see which parameter from the Infobox you are saying I removed. WP:ALT I added the parameter needed for the alternative description of the image - which is needed, yet you deleted it - and that bumped other parameters down a line, but I did not intend to delete any parameters and I cannot see what parameter you think I removed. Please clarify?

It is a matter of opinion and so I'll leave it but I disagree on your removal of the Cast list. A list can provide a useful overview at a glance, and provide character names not included in the prose. Some editors remove the Cast list before providing the prose, but this article does at least include casting section which leaves room to expand. Your later changes to the Plot section do compensate for the absence of a list of actors and corresponding character names so I'll leave it. Another editor will probably argue their preferred style and try to shorten the Plot section by removing those changes and not mentioning minor characters, which is why I favor also including the Cast list. -- Horkana (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the style guide layout at WP:FILMCAST clearly indicates to avoid use of a cast list, see comments in above subsection on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what parameters you thought I deleted from the infobox? If you restore the indentation and the WP:ALT parameter I'd like to add a proper alternative description for the image. -- Horkana (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no fields were removed, then I may have been mistaken about that and apologize, sorry! Please feel free to restore it, and please feel free to modify the alt text I had added. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:Russ.lienart

Edits by Russ.lienart (talk · contribs) reduced quality of Critical response section, and gave undue weight to one review by giving one single source its own paragraph (Kenneth Turan). Let us please avoid devoting an entire paragraph of the Critical response section, to just one source. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede cite

Regarding this edit by Russ.lienart (talk · contribs), please, take a moment to read WP:LEADCITE. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summarization

The plot needs to be resummarized. Unless you have already seen the film, the description of the film's opening makes no sense - and if you have seen the film you probably would not have an interest in reading about it here... Please explain the missing, unexplained assumptions that the film is based on (i.e. he's a spy, an agent, a terrorist, whatever he is...) so those of us that haven't seen the film can understand what it is about... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot has been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spin2Win (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Global Box Office" sect

To user "Cirt,"

I have reviewed the history of this page and your very extensive edits. You are clearly pushing a profoundly negative agenda not remotely rooted in balanced reality. Your justification for doing so is often arbitrary, hypocritical, thinly veiled behind a manipulative use of Wikipedia policy and without merit beyond your transparent agenda to do harm to Tom Cruise and/or FOX and/or Knight and Day. If you continue to vandalize this page I will bring this matter to the attention of the highest review possible at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.203.176 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To IP 198.172.203.176 (talk · contribs), the info you have added repeatedly and disruptively ([1] and previously [2]) is from poorly sourced material that does not support the stated claims, and is also WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to have it as its own subsection consisting of a very short paragraph. The info should be removed as from poor sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to WP:RSN regarding the poorly sourced info. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Let use try to not do this, adding info that is essentially violating WP:NOR from a primary source, and poor sources "mojo" and "mojo korea" for main body text other than purely statistical or numeric info. We should use secondary WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gross revenue figures clearly show that Knight and Day was a worldwide success despite a poor domestic performance. If you argue that box-office figures are poorly sourced, I'm sorry I cannot agree with you. I therefore request the information on the film's global box office performance be restored, rather than giving readers the false implication that the film was a flop. Ilov90210 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any secondary sources make these suppositions? -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored in the article body a statement about the film's gross in territories outside the United States and Canada. I checked The Hollywood Reporter for analysis of its overseas performance, but there was not any either way to be had. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit [3] by Erik. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, under "Related stories", the "Around-the-World Roundup" headlines talk about Knight and Day's performance outside the United States and Canada. The article could use some commentary about this, referring to its relatively "solid" performance in these territories. Best to avoid drawing conclusions between "domestic" and "international" performances, though, unless there are references analyzing both. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will add that in. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see [4]. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states the film earned $76.4 million "domestically." This is true if you are reading this inside the United States, but not if you are reading it elsewhere. It makes more sense to list the worldwide amount, and then the $76.4 million as American revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.8 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced additions

Unsourced addition to lede [5], followed by poorly sourced addition to lede [6]. Please, do no do this. Per WP:LEAD, new info should be added to the body text of the article anyways, and not directly into the lede/intro itself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV review

Per Cirt's request, I have a couple of suggestions for the article. First, I think the "Critical reception" section could sample a smaller number of reviews, allowing for a little more depth. The current set seems like a series of soundbites which tend to be flavorful. When I include reviews, I try to look past the language and identify the elements that the critic liked or disliked. A thought I've had about writing such sections is that the bulk of it could be reviews that have a similar score to the Metacritic metascore, which seems to adequately represent the consensus. This film has a metascore of 47, so perhaps sample mostly reviews in the 40-50 score range? These samples could be accompanied by one on the positive end and one on the negative end of the critical spectrum.

My other suggestion is to open the "Box office" section with a neutral description of the start of its theatrical release. Declaring a poor performance from the onset seems a little pointed, where we could explain the performance in the second or third sentence. In addition, I think that the section could be more straightforward with its coverage. Tracking the daily performance for its opening weekend seems pedantic when the overall performance was equally sub-par. I also think that we can be more straightforward with labeling it a box office flop. The third paragraph strikes me as a form of citation overkill, parroting the same conclusion. As a film that is rapidly receding into history and little editorial interest for some time now, we can be more forthright. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Jenkins

Why is Dale Dye's character of Frank Knight listed as Frank Jenkins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.15.205 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having viewed the film twice recently I notice that the closing credits give "Dale Dye as Frank Jenkins". Earlier in the film when June Havens goes to the home of Roy Miller we see the name "Knight" on the mailbox, and the people in the house are called Molly and Frank. I am drawn to the conclusion that Molly no longer lives with Mr Knight but with someone else whose name is Frank Jenkins, but she has kept her married name on the mailbox for convenience. I hope this clears it up, even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the film. With the foregoing in mind I have edited the article to reflect this idea. Jodosma (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013743/combined) and they list the character's name as Jenkins, too. 63.143.219.45 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Box Office Reception Information

Suggest the Box Office Reception section be extended to explain the apparent inconsistency between the introductory paragraph (". . . and was a success at the box office, grossing over $260 million worldwide.") and the box office reception section ("Knight and Day performed poorly at the box office in its debut, with a take of US$3.8 million." and "The film's revenues dropped nine percent on its second day of release . . .")

If the film had a financially disastrous opening, to account for its ultimate box office success, either the film had a long but steady income over time, or was much more successful in non-U.S. markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.120.254 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section is poor and only exists because once again it must be hammered in that Cruise film failed, domestically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.236.81 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The article should state why the film is called Knight and Day. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Knight and Day. 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) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knight and Day. 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) 15:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]