Talk:Rush (2013 film)

Differences from real events?

Shouldn't there be a section on historical inaccuracies in the film? Despite Lauda's comments, two glaring inaccuracies are a) Hunt did not collide with (or meet) Lauda in Formula 2; and b) Hunt did not punch a journalist after Lauda's first post-operation press conference. Other's opinions>108.38.21.211 (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a "Historical accuracy" section. There are guidelines at WP:FILMHIST that we can follow. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I saw a review that mentioned some of the big errors (I will try to find it). It said that the Hunt-Lauda relationship was much more friendly than in the movie, and that the Nurburgring was never nicknamed "the graveyard" (what was wrong with using "the green Hell", which was really used ?). Rps (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Found it [1] but it doesn't mention the Nurburgring nickname, that must have been somewhere else.Rps (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

IIRC it was Jacky Ickx who said "I love the green hell of the Eifel." Mr Larrington (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a 'historical accuracy' section. I'd like to add another example: at the end of the final race of the 1976 season at Fuji, Niki Lauda stated in his book "Niki Lauda: protocol - my years with Ferrari", that he already was on his way to the airport when the race ended, and that he was told about James Hunt's title at the airport. In the movie, Niki Lauda remains on site until the end.

Filming/cinematography

Interesting article on the filming/cinematography if someone wants to use it in the article: http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/grand-prix.html --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Poster

There is not only one original theatrical release poster → [2] & [3], [4], [5], [6],[7]. P.S. Maybe we should change the poster, as it is not the most representative poster (of the cast) anyway. --IIIraute (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not opposed to using this one, seeing as the film is a British/German production and that's the British poster. I'll make the change now. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Countries

I edited the infobox to not have all the citations for country moving it instead to a note. The country order is per WP:WEIGHT. It seems that experts don't agree with using the country of the production companies.AbramTerger (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

They're considered RS, but we've all seen them make mistakes. I don't agree with how you assign the weight. The nationality is determined by the production companies. That has long been the standard. You cannot ignore that three of the production companies are American, and none are German. In the Andrew Eaton interview, he's not consistent to himself, and doesn't seem to be trying to make an official declaration. He wants to celebrate British film. He mentions the American director, but not the fact that the director is also a producer with his partner and their Imagine Entertainment, a major company. TCM is very questionable here - how can anyone say this is solely a German film. BFI puts them in alphabetical order, so their order is not to be used. Note they do include the US. That leaves AFI (lists UK and US) and Lumiere, which seems to have put it best: GB INC / US / DE [Co-production], as seen at http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/film_info/?id=43115. They should be listed in that order. I'll also say I'm glad to see the ten refs for Country get consolidated into one footnote. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes RS can be mistaken, but we rely on their expertise more than the WP:OR of your choices. Can you cite the policy that states: "The nationality is determined by the production companies" in WP? This does not seem to be an accurate statement as demonstrated from the WP:RS. If it was so clear-cut there would not be this much disagreement. If you would read the citations about the film, you would see some interesting comments on from Producer Andrew Eaton you would see he considers this an independent British film, that was co-produced by Great Britain and Germany. He goes on to say that there were no US dollars invested in the film. The country parameter is not just about the production companies, but also about the financing. We as editors use WP:RS to maintain a WP:NPOV so we do should be doing no WP:Cherrypicking and no WP:OR as you seem to want to do. How would you rate the information in the sources? GB is first since 4 of 5 list it as first. Germany is before US since in the 2 references listing all 3, one lists Germany 2nd US 3rd which balances the other with US 2nd and Germany 3rd. In other references Germany is listed 1st (US not listed) and the other US first (germany not listed). Weighting of the rankings thus becomes GB, germany, US. Eaton as you said seems inconsistent in his statements, but perhaps he means something else we only see as inconsistency. For example I could say on one hand that Paul Newman starred in The Sting and then later claim that the Sting starred Robert Redford and Robert Shaw. They are inconsistent and also both true. If you think the RS are inaccurate, find citations that indicate that and bring it up for discussion, otherwise I see no reason to be WP:Cherrypicking. Remember WP:NPOV is for all articles. If you don't have evidence from RS to support your position, I see no reason to move the film conversation here. If you want to change WP to have your viewpoint the only viewpoint on country, you are welcome to go to the FILM page and try. AbramTerger (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been discussed on the WP:FILM Talk page, and it's often been stated there that nationality is determined by the production companies, but case-by-case judgment then comes in when sources disagree, as here. Why are you not responding to my points above, and implying I didn't read the Eaton interview, then apparently admitting I did? Now I have to repeat he mentions the American director, but not the fact that the director is also a producer with his partner and their Imagine Entertainment. He does not mention how he considers it UK-German when there are three American production companies with prominent billing. Plenty of sources can be found to back that up. His interview does not negate this, particularly since he does not address the point. BFI puts the countries in alphabetical order, so their order is not to be considered, only their inclusion. TCM is very questionable here - it is clearly not a solely German film. Given all that, WP:WEIGHT goes for UK-US-Germany. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to your points in many places. The production company is as irrelevant as the nationality of the producers and actors when we have direct citations for the country. The information you are trying to get amounts to WP:OR. Also if you would review WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". As pointed out, the requirement for all article remains to maintain the WP:NPOV. Taking a "weight" after you ignore have the citations is not following WP:WEIGHT it remains WP:Cherrypicking. [Even some of your assertions are false. you claim: "BFI puts them in alphabetical order" Can you site a source for that? It would seem unlikely, since for this film, BFI lists: Great Britain, Germany, USA. Alphabetical would be: Germany, Great Britain, USA. The current listing is NOT alphabetical as you claim that they do.]. If you believe a source is questionable, go to the source, get them to verify it is correct or make a correction in their database. Then when updated, you change the access date to the citation and reword to take that into account. You seem to see different expert analysis and want to classify them as right or wrong based on your own WP:OR. That is not consistent with the WP:NPOV. Look at them as if they were all versions of the truth and presume that they are all correct in some manner [like the story of the Blind men and an elephant]. For example, here is a scenario (I have no idea if it is the truth or not, that is irrelevant, the point is it demonstrates that the inconsistencies can be there with no mistakes, just different interpretations and/or criteria being used). A British filmmaker wants to make an independent British film. To make the film he needs financing. He may get some financing from a few British but the brunt of the film is financed from a German Company. With he financing, the filmmaker hires talent (Actors, directors, writers, cinematographers, other producers, etc). Some US, some British, some from other countries, etc) Some of the hiring is also amounts to "renting" the services of production company from studios (using the talent, but no financing from these companies). Thus the filmmaker could see this as an independent British film since there was no studio financing. But he also acknowledges it as British-German co-production since Germany essentially financed it. TCM sees all the producers and the financing and keys on the financing from Germany and puts it down as a German film since their money produced the film. AFI ignores or does not see the German financing, only the producer and the US companies he hired and interprets it as GB/US. BFI sees all three and ranks the financing over the hired helpers. Lumiere puts the ranking in a slightly different order based on their criteria: GB(with incoming investment)/US/DE. But as I said, I don't know the respective criteria of the experts, nor do I need to know or even understand their logic. The order is based on a WP:WEIGHT of all the expert opinions to maintain a WP:NPOV. The order requires no [WP:OR]] to list this way, nor does it require WP:Cherrypicking to try and match your particular interpretation.AbramTerger (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement "The production company is as irrelevant as the nationality of the producers and actors when we have direct citations for the country" is your opinion, and it's contradicted by a number of conversations on WP film Talk pages and at the FILM page. And there's almost always going to be citations for the country, so those discussions were taking that into account. BFI lists countries alphabetically 99 percent of the time. But since you want to go by pure RS, let's add another: http://www.allmovie.com/movie/rush-v547696 which lists COUNTRIES UK, USA. With that, the balance of WP:WEIGHT goes for how Lumiere (which seems to put the most effort into this) lists it: UK-US-Germany. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how talk pages are relevant if they don't change any policies. If there is a policy about an editors analysis regarding the country parameter outweighs citations from WP:RS could you cite it so I could read it. I know of know policy. And regardless of those discussions, they don't outweigh WP:NPOV. If you are going to make a statement like: "BFI lists countries alphabetically 99 percent of the time" you really need to cite a WP:RS especially since it seems an odd factoid. But as pointed out for this discussion, it is irrelevant how often they alphabetize, since in this case they are not doing it. And your remarks about lumiere here demonstrate the issue I see with your WP:Cherrypicking of sources. In the discussion of The Wolverine you wanted to ignore lumiere since it did not match your personal opinion of what the country was. I added the all movies citation, but that still does not change the WP:WEIGHT Great Britain (GB) is still first and Germany (DE) still outweighs the US.:

• GB is listed first in 4 of the 5 citations.
• There are 2 citations with 3 countries Lumiere and BFI. Lumiere lists GB/US/DE which balances BFI's GB/DE/US
• The guardian lists GB/DE which balances AFI's GB/US
• TCM's sole country of Germany weighs Germany higher than allmovie's GB and US.AbramTerger (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign box office gross

The foreign box office gross is actually $70,035,385, but box office mojo stopped totaling it by November 2013, while it was still being released.