Jump to content

Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Why isn't 'science fiction' listed as one of Tenet's genres?

The concepts of 'time inversion', the Algorithm, and the various future technologies used to invert the flow of time all point to Tenet being in the science fiction genre. It is as much a part of the sci-fi action genre as Inception is. Tenet should be classified as a science fiction spy film on Wikipedia. Why isn't it? It's not a straight spy film like the James Bond films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacktargumby (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this above in Talk:Tenet_(film)#Genre_revisited. I was in favor of adding science-fiction from the beginning, but by now I think this is a must be, otherwise we would be negligent. Since there were other editors in favor as well, and since there are enough sources regarding that genre, I'll make the edit to the lead now. In the categories it is already present. Debresser (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: "By now"? It was always clear from the trailers that it had science fiction and other elements. 77Survivor suggested that, because there are too many genres for random editors to claim for the film, there should be either one or none, like at Fight Club. Everybody agreed to call it a spy film after Christopher Nolan said that was the genre. If you can't agree on that anymore, I say we just remove all genres. Cognissonance (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cognissonance: True that. Hate to break it, but Debresser seems too adamant on listing sci-fi from the very beginning, even if no one agreed to list something called "sci-fi spy film". If this whole thing about sci-fi elements being not necessarily present in the spy genre is incorrect, it must be removed from the spy film page itself. And if it's not the case, spy film is not wrong. Or if it's that not okay, we can simply list it as sci-fi action. Both ways it is right but given the definition of the spy film given on Wikipedia itself, something like sci-fi spy film is redundant, the same way "superhero action", "spoof comedy", "cyberpunk sci-fi" and "heist crime" are. It's as simple as that. Or yeah, we could simply remove the genre from lead and place it in the infobox (which is pretty decent but I don't think it's happening) like we do it for TV shows. This isn't some major issue to discuss anymore, but since I have been tagged, this is what I have to offer.
And oh, if I forgot. Debresser here is discussing about whether to add sci-fi or not but is on the other hand adding it with the summary "Add science fiction to lead, see talkpage." as if there was a fixed consensus on this. Please keep in mind we agreed to the spy film as it encompasses the film's three key genres and not some hybrid like "sci-fi spy film". This needs to taken care of if we really intend to solve this not-so-complicated query. Let me know what you all have to say. (77Survivor (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
I repeat, there is nothing in the guidelines that says we shouldn't have more than one genre when it is justified. In this case, the science fiction genre is well-sourced and, after having seen the film, more evident in the film than the spy genre. With all due respect, it is not a spy film, rather an action film. In addition to science fiction, which is the dominating genre. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion is less important than that of the director, who says it is a spy film. Cognissonance (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I am a great fan of The Truth. The director may say whatever he likes, but Wikipedia goes by sources. And "The Truth". Debresser (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Came by the notice at the film project. WP:FILMLEAD states that the lead should identify "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified" e.g. "comedy" or "romantic comedy". The purpose of the guideline is to prevent genre cruft, and hence why it uses the singular form for these terms i.e. genre as opposed to genres. So far nobody seems to have brought any sources forward. The BBFC describes the film as a "sci-fi thriller". That may or may not be representative, but ideally we need a sample of sources so an informed decision can be made. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Betty Logan Thanks for following that notice and coming here. There are two more sources for the science fiction genre of this film in the discussion above, #Genre revisited.
When WP:FILMLEAD says that the primary genre is a minimum requirement that is 1. precisely that, a minimum, but more is allowed 2. that sentence is there to let us know what elements should be in the lead, not so much to indicate the number of genres. When it says in the next sentence that "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.", that also gives a clear indication that if an additional genre is sourced and prominent in the film, it should be mentioned. We have many films that are cross-genre, and it is not logical to assume that the guideline would limit editors from indicating that important information in the lead of an article. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD doesn't state that idnetifying the primary genre is a minimum requirement but more are allowed. FILMLEAD specifies the minimum components in the lead, of which the genre is one. However FILMLEAD is quite specific on this point: genre or sub-genre. Singular not plural. Specifying multiple genres is not helpful to the reader. The article should state which genre or sub-genre the film principally comes under, and this should be determined through the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I see what it says, and I am explaining to you what it means and how it should be read. This is really something that is very clear in the text, and arguing that the guideline has a problem with more than one genre, is simply incorrect. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Betty Logan and Doniago: According to Nolan, "It’s a film of great ambition and great scale that takes a genre, namely the spy film." Cognissonance (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. This was mentioned before... And as I said before, the director may say whatever he likes, but Wikipedia goes by what it is, according to sources. And it is science fiction, and an action film, and a bit a spy film, but not much. In any case, I am here not so much to argue for changing spy to action, although I would support such a change. I am here to add science fiction. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I have significant doubts that we should use primary sources for film genre classification purposes. I am more comfortable using sources that WP:FILM has previously discussed as being reliable for this purpose. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Here we go again, it's a spy film (subgenre spy-fi) and that's that. Yes, it's also a science fiction piece, but so is 90% of all spy films - it goes hand in hand with that genre. No need to add sci-fi in the lede. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, here we go again. And we will continue going on till such time as some here get it through their thick skulls that this film is also science fiction. Not 10%, but a large part, IMHO definitely more than t is a spy film. There isn't even a spy in the film! Debresser (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Ehh what? I don't even know how to respond to that, "IMHO". Did you even read what I wrote? "There isn't even a spy in the film!"? Ok.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
According to what non-primary source is it a spy film? DonIago (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
We're here because there are third-party sources for all of these genres and per Betty Logan's comment, we can't add all of them. This discussion will be resolved once we find one primary genre or like Fight Club, remove it altogether. Cognissonance (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Then answering my question should be easy? DonIago (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Easy, but redundant. Here, here, here, here, here, and millions more. Cognissonance (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If it isn't yet clear to Debresser, no one's denying the parent genres. Spy film in itself is a sub-genre of action/thriller films that often contains sci-fi elements. Action film and spy film terms aren't that different, if you do a bit of research. We're using here spy film the same way we describe Marvel/DC films as superhero film, a subgenre that combines action genre with adventure and fantasy/SF genres. I'm really disappointed with how this has turned into an edit war when it's clear and should be clear in the first place that by limiting the genre in lead to spy film, we're only trying to avoid a genre salad. If it's that necessary, I have said it before and I'll say it again: list all three genres without mentioning spy film, in the infobox. If that's not happening, I must remind you we have categories section at the bottom containing all the genres. And well, director's words do matter. "The truth" may be similar or different in comparison, but one might think that only if it's not matching with their own opinion. Please don't drag this debate for long. 77Survivor (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
And I really dislike how you in this last comment, as well as in the previous ones, are trying to suppress all opposition to your point of view. I'd kindly ask you not to request editors to stop a discussion, or calling it "dragging on", because to me (and others, even though at the moment I am the active one here), the current version is not acceptable.
I have no problem with spy and action being closely related and can live with "spy" instead of "action", although IMHO it is more "action" than "spy". By the way, and this I say in reply to the incredulity expressed above at my statement that the protagonist is not a spy, I indeed think he is definitely an "operative" of some organization, but not a "spy". In any case, the only issue I am having here is that the lead should mention the science fiction genre, which is very much stressed in this film. In reply to the not so neutrally worded claim of turning the lead into a "salad", I see no reason to call two genres a salad, and find that claim pointy. It is my opinion, that if we wouldn't mention the science fiction genre in the lead, the lead would be lacking vital information, and that is a bad thing on an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me just remind you of the sources: the distributor calling it "Christopher Nolan’s original sci-fi action spectacle" (since some like to use the authority argument , well then I think the distributor also is an authority), "Tenet takes the director back to the realm of science-fiction", "his science fiction thriller, 'Tenet', "Christopher Nolan’s frosty espionage sci-fi", "'Tenet', a clever blockbuster that slips between espionage and science fiction", "Tenet, a forthcoming science fiction thriller", "TENET is a sci-fi thriller" and many more. Debresser (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser:, did you just say that I am the one forcing their opinion? I'm at least providing solutions to this whole debate where no one is arguing as much as you. Did I not suggest to list sci-fi action? I was the one who always supported action from the beginning when someone kept deleting it in favor of thriller. It's just that we need to not make the genre thing so complicated in the opening sentence because it would invite more editors to stretch. I don't care if you dislike me as a person or not, but just because my opinion differs slightly from yours doesn't mean I am the one forcing their opinion.
And oh, this has indeed blown out of proportion. Why are you even discussing this here when you're proceeding to change genres on your own? What is the point of this whole debate if all you want to do is keep us confused and make the edits you know the consensus hasn't approved? Is it just to show some disrespect to us and all the solutions we are offering? Cognissonance, is that okay with you and other editors? Just because I want this to be resolved means I don't want the right data to be shared? Thanks a lot Debresser, you've already made the edit and looks like we don't need to interact more regarding this discussion at all. Thanks for your time and efforts. I will just request other editors to decide if this whole consensus-less discussion (it has one, but still consensus-less because someone doesn't pay heed to it) even has a point anymore. If you're all fine with sci-fi spy film, then so am I. I guess we just can't argue with some people because you don't know when we might become the one blamed. (77Survivor (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC))

Friends, the main concept of this film is science fiction. The film's concept revolves around 'inversion' which is a type of time travel/time manipulation. So yes, it is a science fiction as well as it's a spy thriller. There's also Spy-Fi, which is a blend of spy thrillers and science fiction. -Okiegolf55

@Debresser: You don't WP:OWN the lead. You're not winning on personal opinion alone. If we're going by Google numbers, as you did in the previous discussion, action film is the genre most widely circulated. We only changed it to spy film because it's only reasonable that the director take precedent. I would be in favor of just changing it to action film, or better yet removing any genre, seeing as this is never going anywhere. Removal seems like a solution that would end this whole thing. Cognissonance (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I agree. Removal seems to be the last resort now. (77Survivor (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC))
@Cognissonance: This is rich coming from you, since it you who has been shown above to have WP:OWN issues with this article and other film articles, and may I remind you that you were warned for them. But let's not go there, since I hope that we can do without accusations and reach a consensus.
I would oppose removal. Now that would really be against WP:FILMLEAD which says that as a minimum the lead should indicate a genre!
I don't know why you would say that this is not going anywhere. The last time we discussed this, in the #Genre revisited section above, we agreed to review the issue of the science fiction genre again after the film came out and more sources would be available, and that is precisely what we are doing now.
I am fine with either spy or action film, and the only reason I started this section, is because I think the film and the sources justify adding the science fiction genre too, as we discussed previously. It also happens to be that a number of editors (including some IP editors who are not around to discuss) agree with me on this issue, and I fail to see the reason to oppose the addition of this well-sourced information. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If you want to follow WP:FILMLEAD, you cannot simply ignore MOS:SEAOFBLUE. You want science fiction, but WP:FILMLEAD says to have a primary genre that represents the majority of sources (action film). I want one genre and would be open to just science fiction, HOWEVER, we would be violating WP:FILMLEAD since science fiction does not represent the majority of sources. This leads us to an impasse, which the only solution to is genre removal. It is not unheard of. Cognissonance (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've seen the film twice, its a spinn on the spy film genre (with action and a hard science fiction hook). This is backed by multipe credible sources and the writer of the film. Keep spy film in the lead or get rid of it entirely. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cognissonance: As I have said before, WP:SEAOFBLUE is only a stylistic guideline. It even says so specifically: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link". So when it is necessary, we do it. Not to mention that 2 consecutive links is not yet a "sea of blue", and is common practice. Even the example there mentions three consecutive links. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD is also a manual of style. Two links next to each other look like a single link, this is what MOS:SEAOFBLUE is there for. A lot is common practice on Wikipedia that ought not to be done. Cognissonance (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but SEAOFBLUE is a minor issue, about presentation; FILMLEAD is about content. In any case, there is no contradiction between the two. It is a lot simpler: if in order to write good content sometimes we have to put two links next to each other, then we do that, without giving it a second though. This, and many other articles like it, is such a case. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It is like saying keeping good prose is a minor issue because that has to do with style, not content. Is Tenet going to be a quality article or not? If so, this means encompassing not just function but form, and not ignoring this guideline for your own convenience. Cognissonance (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sound Mix

I watched the movie in a traditional giant IMAX auditorium with a laser projector. The movie expanded to the full height (1.44:1 aspect ratio) several times. The sound mix was equally bad as the 35mm prints mentioned on the page. The dialogue was frequently muffled or lower in volume than the music or sound effects. As crazy as it may sound, Nolan may've intended it to be that way (same as Interstellar).70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

Please add link to 70 mm article in the third paragraph ("... September 3, 2020, in IMAX, 35 mm, and 70 mm.") (70 mm). Dmaroulidis (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See MOS:DUPLINK. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Protagonist 'rank' notion

These articles all imply that there is no 'Protagonist' rank within the Tenet organization. One uses the term 'code name'. These came from a quick Google search. https://www.dailyherald.com/entlife/20200902/does-christopher-nolans-tenet-live-up-to-the-hype https://slate.com/culture/2020/09/tenet-explained-christopher-nolan-movie-ending-spoilers.html https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/tenet-movie-plot-explained/ https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/reviews/tenet-nolans-visually-spectacular-hyped-espionage-cliche https://www.owensbororadio.com/2020/09/04/john-david-washington-says-the-physical-demands-in-tenet-encouraged-him-to-do-more-rom-coms/ https://www.theoaklandpress.com/entertainment/review-director-christopher-nolans-tenet-is-the-cinematic-escape-we-needed-in-2020/article_84389ca2-ed34-11ea-ba31-ff091d274a2d.html

Certainly, there is no "Protagonist" rank within the Tenet organization. Each person's role is compartmentalized. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Section on physics

No doubt physics plays an integral role in this film, and this article is not doing its job without at least a brief section of reliable commentary on the relevant physics — without succumbing to made-up rantings and speculation. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 13:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

These topics are relevant:

(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 14:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

For example, something like: ==Scientific accuracy== {{see| Maxwell's demon}} While the film's plot revolves around reversing the [[entropy]] of things and people resulting in [[time reversibility]], and characters mention concepts including the [[one-electron universe]], Nolan stated "we’re not going to make any case for this being scientifically accurate” in the film’s press notes.<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-09-04/science-christopher-nolan-tenet-physicist-interview How real is the science in Christopher Nolan’s ‘Tenet’? We asked an expert] ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' EMILY ZEMLER, 2020-09-04</ref> (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

The critics praised the movie's cinematography and musical score Dennis Ngo (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

​Could you point to sources for that? – Thjarkur (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit reverts

I think I made a number of copyediting improvements to this article, but they have been reverted.

Some examples:

  • Over 100 vessels and thousands of extras were used. (my edit) has returned to In excess of a hundred vessels and thousands of extras were brought into play during filming. Same information, more words (and metaphorical language - "brought into play" - we should use plain English).
The word "over" has already been used in the lead and the article uses mostly words for numbers. Cognissonance (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, some people would say "More than" is more correct than "over", so use that. I don't object to writing one hundred instead of 100. Popcornfud (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
"more than" is also used in the lead. Cognissonance (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Goodness gracious, think what would happen to readers if they were forced to read the constructions "more than" or "over" more than once in the same section. These words are not rationed. Your priorities are completely backwards. Popcornfud (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The lack of other films afforded it more screens per multiplex (my edit) has returned to The paucity of available movies afforded it more screens per multiplex than would otherwise be possible. Same information, more words.
  • The first trailer was published online in December, when a cinema-exclusive prologue played in certain IMAX theaters before Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. The latter was introduced during Indian IMAX screenings of Birds of Prey in February 2020. It's not at all clear what "the latter" is here. The first trailer? The cinema-exclusive prologue? Star Wars? I had to check the sources to understand this.
"prologue" and "played" have already been used. "latter" wouldn't be referring to the trailer or Star Wars because the word is directed towards the last mentioned thing that relates to the subject, which is the prologue, and also this isn't a Star Wars article. Cognissonance (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what's the problem with being clear and precise exactly? Like this:
The first trailer was published online in December, when a cinema-exclusive prologue played in certain IMAX theaters before Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. In India, the prologue was played during IMAX screenings of Birds of Prey in February 2020.
Is your objection really that we say "prologue" twice? Because that is a ridiculous objection. Popcornfud (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
My objection is using "prologue" and "played" twice, not so much "prologue". Your version repeated words from the last sentence. Cognissonance (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Disappointed with the Royal Swedish Opera as a potential spot for the Kiev Opera House, it was switched to the Linnahall, which fit Crowley's affinity for Brutalist architecture. Exactly who is disappointed in this sentence? At the moment it literally says that the Royal Swedish Opera was disappointed with itself, which I don't think is the intention.
  • promoted in the video game Fortnite's Party Royale mode. What is Fortnite and what is its Party Royale Mode? We cannot assume our readers know this.
  • some criticized the confusing plot This presupposes that the plot is confusing instead of positing it as the opinion of critics. See the WP:RECEPTION essay for more on this problem.

As for the claim in the edit summary that "repetition of words is bad prose", I'm not sure which words you mean here, but please see the essay The problem with elegant variation, as I suspect it's relevant.

Variation is not a problem. Avoidable repetition is lazy writing. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. Cognissonance (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Still not sure which "avoidable repetition" you're referring to here. Popcornfud (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, on reading your above comments, it's clear you and I have very different considerations about what makes good prose. The goal is not to use as many different words as possible, and spending the time to write clearly and concisely is not "lazy". WP:PLAINENGLISH. I'll leave it there. Popcornfud (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please reconsider the revert. Popcornfud (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in description the Protagonist and Neil

The current text reads:

The Protagonist notices a red trinket on Neil's rucksack. Neil reveals that he was recruited by the Protagonist years earlier, and this mission is the end of a long friendship.

However, Neil is recruited by the Protagonist in the future, and the years of their friendship are only remembered by Neil, whereas the Protagonist feels like he has only recently met Neil. A better description might be:

The Protagonist notices a red trinket on Neil's rucksack. Neil reveals that he will be recruited by the Protagonist years in the future, and this mission is the end of a long friendship from Neil's perspective.

2600:6C67:2280:21CA:F955:337F:600A:8C12 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Plot section—thanks!

I'd like to personally thank the team of WP-contributing physicists, puzzle-masters and forensic screenwriters who volunteered to watch TENET multiple times, valiantly tried to create a coherent description of its plot, then had the humility to ring up Chris Nolan for help. 😁 – AndyFielding (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Should "Tenet" be listed as a spy film as well as an action-thriller and science fiction film?

Yes - It's important to list Tenet as a member of the spy genre given the content of the film itself as well as director Christopher Nolan's statements regarding how the spy genre influenced the film and how he intended it to be a subversion of said genre (::[1][2]). While the film's action-thriller and science fiction elements arguably outweigh those of the spy genre, they don't nearly to the degree it becomes a negligible part of its' identity. Also, as noted previously on this page, action-thriller is not a substitute for spy film or vice versa. As neither genre innately entails the other. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear God no. We already have three genres listed in the lead sentence, in violation of WP:FILMLEAD guidelines, because the editors of this page are unable to make up their minds and everyone thinks their pet genre is the most important to mention. I wish we could agree on a simple solution. Popcornfud (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have provided a different proposal on the genres in the discussion Talk:Tenet (film)#"Spy-fi" above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a reasonable compromise. One I was about to propose myself before you beat me to it. Thank you. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, then? Yes, it was. – AndyFielding (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Though I was the first one to provide an answer/personal defense of my position, the posing of the question was intended to kickstart a dialog. I want people to provide their own perspectives on this issue regardless of whether or not I agree with them. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this a separate section? And if it should be a separate section, why does it refer to the section above? And Popcornfud, please be a bit less dramatic in your posts. Also, Popcornfud, contrary to what you say, MOSLFILMLEAD does not say to have only one genre. That misunderstanding has been refuted already. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Why is this a separate section? And if it should be a separate section, why does it refer to the section above?" My apologies, I'm new to this. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Many editors disagree with you on that interpretation. Popcornfud (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
And they are wrong. One needs some basic reading skills and a rudimentary working brain to understand this, but it's clearly there... Debresser (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The "action-thriller and science fiction film" classifications are the result of months of discussing guidelines and concerns. We don't need any more essays repeating the same points that were already made in said consensus building. Cognissonance (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was compelled to restoke the kitchen fire, so to speak, because I felt the absence of "spy" in the genre listing (for all the reasons stated) was a critical error. Had the previous listing of "action-thriller and spy-fi film", which was satisfactory, remained I would've been perfectly content to leave it alone. And from what I read of an earlier segment of the discussion, said genre listing was more or less the consensus until Popcornfud (talk) objected. So I suppose I have him/her/them to blame. Regardless, your grievances are totally understandable. This discussion is likely to go on forever unless we all concede. And you have my concession I guarantee. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

AT&T Ceo

At their Q3 earnings call, the CEO of AT&T said that Tenet was not a "home run" commercially. Shouldn't this be added to the box-office section? PinpointJoker57 (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenet_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=990569337"