Jump to content

Talk:The Martian (film)/Archive 1

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

Similarities

variation on theme? See "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" --1964 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.195.197 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

see Robinson Crusoe on Mars for similarities. --134.109.240.56 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

When did / does filming actually begin?

In the same section, it says filming began in Nov. 2014, and that filming is to begin in March (I assume of 2015). Is one of these wrong? Or are these filming dates for two filming units (a Budapest unit and a Jordan unit)? If the latter is the case (which I suspect) can someone confirm it so we can change the article to state this more clearly? --User:Kasreyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.188.115 (talk • contribs) 23:46, June 14, 2015‎

Transl.

German translation upcoming at de:The Martian (Film) (based on this). -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Country

Regarding the "British-American" labeling dispute, I said in an edit summary the following, "20th Century Fox is the main (and American) studio here. It is not merely acquiring and distributing a film made by the production companies, like with an indie film." This is validated with Toronto International Film Festival's page for The Martian here, which says "USA" and no other country. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And Scott Free Productions has offices near Fox in Los Angeles. The script was developed by Fox in Los Angeles. Genre Films is American. Enough with these nationalistic edit warriors. We can use the TIFF page as a ref for now. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This film was directed by a British film director and produce " Sir Ridley Scott " and made by a British company " Scott Free Productions ". Are you blind or stupid to not see the name of director and the production company who made this flim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.8.68 (talk • contribs) 15:46, August 12, 2015‎
Like I said above, the Toronto International Film Festival indicates that the film's production country is the USA. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

it probably has an office in Los Angeles but The headquarter is in London and was founded in 1984 in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.8.68 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Many films have international connections but they are officially recognized as belonging to a single country. Sometimes two countries. We need official evidence of how this film is treated. At the moment there is one source TIFF that says it's a USA film. Calling it a "British-American" film is an opinion of what it should be, not what it is officially labeled as. -- GreenC 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

you said the film's production country is the USA? where?? Clearly The Director is British and The Production Company is British where's American? where? when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.237.135.205 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Try the source after the "country" listing in the infobox. It states that the film is a US film. The link is here. Sock (tock talk) 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not an American flim When It was directed and made by a british director and his british company. Are you trying to change his nationlity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.237.135.205 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A film can have a different nationality than its director. Drive is not a Danish film even though director Nicolas Winding Refn is Danish. We go on reliable sources for what nationality a film is. Scott Free is only one production company involved in this film (the other two are American), and even it has offices in the United States. Did you even bother clicking the link I supplied?
Also, please stop making new subheadings with every post. And sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Sock (tock talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm fine with leaving out the nationality from the lead sentence. I don't think it has to be an upfront characteristic here; I've instead put "U.S. production" in the second sentence, which is verifiably true and doesn't get into cultural characterization like it would in the lead sentence. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Go watch the official trailer it only has one production company which is Scott Free Productions (a British Company) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue4PCI0NamI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.237.135.205 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to keep ignoring the reliable source provided, then this conversation is fruitless. Our only reliable source reporting on the film's nationality has called it an American production. This is open and shut. Sock (tock talk) 20:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't ever ignore the official video source from 20th Century Fox on youtube,showing It only has one produciton compamy which is Scott Free Productions (a British Company)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue4PCI0NamI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.237.135.205 (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This conversation has become moot. A film's nationality can differ from that of its production companies and its director, and often does both. Please drop the stick and stop repeating your arguments. Sock (tock talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
your reliable source reporting on the film's is invalid, since it's a canadain website Which is not even involved in this flim
so, Don't ignore the official source(video) from 20th Century FOX on youtube, showing It only has one producition company in the movie Official Trailer (A British Company "Scott Free Productions") and directed by a British Flim Diretor and Producer "Ridley Scott"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue4PCI0NamI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.237.135.205 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You've ignored every single thing anyone has said to you. All Fox is saying is that Scott Free produced it, but that doesn't mean the film is considered a British film. I know it's weird, it always has been. This is an excerpt from Template:Infobox film: "According to the European Lumiere project, the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research:

'defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records - and the statistics on which they are based - can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.' (from "Identification of Films in the Lumiere Database". European Audiovisual Observatory. 2006.)"

As you can see there, this is a frequent complication. But the only way to determine a film's nationality is through reliable source, which the Toronto International Film Festival is. When the British Film Institute, American Film Institute, and the Lumiere Project add the film to their respective databases, the nationality could absolutely change. But as of right now, our only reliable source that is specifically reporting on the film's nationality, not it's production companies is stating that it is an American production. I must reiterate, please drop the stick and stop repeating your arguments. Sock (tock talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in WP:FILMLEAD if multiple nations are involved in the production, different national interests must be covered later in the lead section, not in the opening sentence. So I think it's best to keep the lead as it is now. -- Chamith (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Script error on main page

The infobox has a script error.--Varkman (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

All reference boxes, too.--Varkman (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw it too. I did a kind of null save (probably refreshed something), and it seems fine now. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

The soils of Mars seem to have the potential to be fertile substrata, eventually only requiring to be designed in terms of pore-size distribution and pore connectivity and to be freed from excess salts and toxic compounds. [1] Martiansoil (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Certini, G., Scalenghe, R. (201o). "Do soils exist outside Earth?". Planetary and Space Science. 58: 1767–1770. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2010.08.024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

Insert a sentence or two in the plot summary describing how Watney hacked his rover's computer to send and receive messages with earth, facilitating more complicated survival efforts. Grug16 (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: Edit semi-protected requests are not supposed to be for directing people to write things. If you want to write up what you want to insert and post it here that would be great. When you do please reactive this request and someone can insert it for you. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Need an edit

I don't know why I can't make an edit, since I don't see the little "lock" icon, but anyway:

In the sub-section "Box office forecast" it says: "A week before the film's release, pre-release trackings in North America (United States and Canada) showed that the film is on poise to earn between $40—50 million in its opening weekend from 3,826 theaters." Obviously it should read: "... on pace to ...". Thanks. 135.23.189.197 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --SubSeven (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Per WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis, "Emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." This applies to mentioning Matt Damon and Ridley Scott in the first sentence because they are the most important elements relative to the film. In addition, this also applies to why "U.S. production" is appropriately relegated to the second sentence. There is no actual "American film" label being used here as necessitated by WP:FILMLEAD; sources are instead calling it "a Ridley Scott film", so it is inappropriate to cast it as simplistically American. It is only appropriate to do that when the sources are very straightforward about that. This is less and less the case with internationally collaborative productions in the 21st century. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, I think it is relevant to mention Goddard's brief attachment. It seems misleading to say he was hired to write a screenplay. We could make the language more concise, however. Any way to do that? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not misleading, it's just leaving out a detail. There are a few issues with the lead. I'm all for having Goddard's history in the article, but not the lead. It is not at all uncommon for other directors to be attached and even work on a film's development, and then drift away when the film does not seem to be approaching a green light, but unless they left a mark on the finished film this does not belong in the lead. Mention of another director in the lead implies it affected the film. Not the case here. No source I've seen suggests Goddard made any directorial decisions that Scott followed up on. It appears when Scott came aboard, he made the film as much his own as if he had been the first director attached. Above all the lead should not repeat the statement that Goddard left as director to pursue another directing opportunity. In fact that film Sinister Six was not made. Nothing against Goddard, but it appears that for whatever reason, the powers that be were just not enthusiastic about greenlighting The Martian with him attached, even though Damon was reportedly already aboard. The word "Studio" should not be used to describe 20th Century Fox. Frankly, I was startled to see you had included it. It doesn't help readers, it suggests they aren't aware what Fox is. (The tiny few who aren't sure can click on the link.) You say I believe it is ideal to avoid starting a sentence with a number. That is not anywhere near as important as the principle that one should avoid being verbose in most writing, particularly in lead sections. The same goes for "The U.S. production". "American" is more brief and more to the point, and consistent with other WP film leads. I don't know why you challenge that with this one article and not all others. Identifying the nationality of the "production" instead of the film itself looks rather awkward in the lead, and readers have to wonder why it was done that way. If anything the production was more international than the film, which was initiated and developed by Fox in the US. It's the production that went beyond the US, in filming locations. But it's still an American film. Sources thus far identify it as such. This is not contradicted by it being "a Ridley Scott film" any more than it is on other film articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Goddard did not shape the film's production, but I think it is a noteworthy detail because it is a key changing-of-the-guard. Even if the initial director was not Goddard, I would have supported mentioning that first person anyway. If someone had been cast before Damon, I would also support mentioning that previous actor. It is a key turning point in the production cycle, whatever the circumstances.
20th Century Fox is the film's studio. It is not merely financing or distributing the film. That's why the film is labeled as a U.S. production. Fine if "studio" does not have to be stated outright, but it was one extra word to avoid starting a sentence with a number. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If it occurred long before shooting started and had no impact on the finished film, cast and crew turnover is not important enough to mention in the lead. No response to removing the line about Goddard left as director to pursue another directing opportunity. Your last statement is not a response to what I said about "The U.S. production" vs "American". Fox not merely financing or distributing is entirely consistent with the film being "American". - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you took out Goddard left as director to pursue another directing opportunity, but now simply saying Ridley Scott replaced Goddard as director sounds like Goddard was fired. Best not to include this at all. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is worthwhile to note a change in the director or the star. These are high-profile positions. If it were other cast or crew members, I would agree. In writing the narrative of the production, it is amiss to imply that Ridley Scott's involvement initiated the directing stage after some development and writing.
Regarding the upfront "American film" label vs. the relegated "U.S. production" label, I support the latter because the former has cultural connotations over which there has been edit warring on various articles. Ridley Scott is a British director and also high-profile enough to have significant creative control. The earlier dispute involved trying to call this a "British-American film", which is false equivalence. However, it is also fair to say that the film is not simply an "American film", on account of Scott's involvement. Maybe we could say "British director" somewhere, but sources do not seem to do that. Ridley Scott is a director in his own right, so the film's so-called nationality is beside the point. So to call it a "U.S. production" due to being filmed under 20th Century Fox is a more precise categorization. If we want, we can shuffle around the language to connect that better. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Readers will not know why it says "U.S. production". They will not get out of it what you want to imply above. It just reads awkward. As for "it is amiss to imply that Ridley Scott's involvement initiated the directing stage", most readers would never even think about that. You're trying to prevent them from assuming something that would never cross their minds. Those who know how the industry works would never assume such a thing either. They know only one director is usually credited, but others may have been involved earlier. That is common. They can read about it in the Production section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The use of "U.S. production" in the second sentence is based on WP:FILMLEAD, 'If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." If we want, though, we can dispense with such labels and take out "U.S. production" and put 20th Century Fox more upfront. But I think the absence of such labels anywhere will lead to more nationality disputes. Here, at least we are acknowledging the U.S. element of this film in a less culturally loaded manner.
As for the production narrative, you said that my trimming made it sound like Scott replaced Goddard. Is that any different from leaving out Goddard's hiring as screenwriter and director to seemingly show that Goddard's only role (in the production narrative) was to write the screenplay? He wrote a screenplay that he planned to direct. It is very commonplace for studios to hire screenwriters and to eventually hire directors. That could be perceived here if the narrative is not that fleshed out with the key changes. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For me "The U.S. production is based on Andy Weir's 2011 novel The Martian.." reads like there is another version by a different country. As far as I know, it's not absolutely necessary to mention the nationalities in the lead. We could take an example out of Alien (film) which was also directed by Ridley Scott but produced by an American company. -- Chamith (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
How else do you want to go about it? Should we just put 20th Century Fox thereabouts and replace that term? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That would be overemphasizing the studio, which we normally don't do in the lead paragraph. And I agree "The U.S. production is based on Andy Weir's 2011 novel The Martian" sounds like there may be another version. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
What I suggest is that we should only mention the nationalities in the infobox. -- Chamith (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what's done when there are multiple countries, per WP:FILMLEAD. Here there is only one. We go by sources and the production company. Scott has a British background, but he has made many American films and has a US office. There's no evidence this film used his UK office. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If there's only one country involved then why specifically mention as "The U.S. production"? -- Chamith (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't, as evidenced by your question. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is what a "<country> film" means to readers. The recent dispute had to do with the director being British and one of the production companies (his, actually) being British. Like Gothicfilm said, the company has a U.S. office. It's a matter of not being clear that the "<country> film" label is tied to the studio. Ridley Scott can be seen as an auteur director, and being British, that can challenge simply calling the film "American". Right now, the TIFF page for the film says just "USA". If additional sources reinforce that, then "American" may have stronger merit. But sources may categorize the film differently based on the involvement of Ridley Scott and/or Scott Free. That complicates matters, and this complication has happened with other articles in the past. I advocate for stating "U.S." later because most articles with this kind of dispute ultimately drop the nationality from the opening sentence per WP:FILMLEAD. I don't think this is the end of it, if we put "American" back in. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If later sources cite other countries, we can change it. But the country is identified by the production companies. Readers who want to go by director can see who the director is in the opening sentence. Production companies are not usually listed in the opening, so their nationality is less obvious. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here is kind of a similar example. For Ridley Scott's Gladiator (2000 film), AFI only identifies USA, where BFI identifies both UK and USA. The arrangement appears to be similar to here, where the British director and his production company are under an American studio. So this kind of issue may crop up, which is annoying because we're leveraging database results to write introductory prose, which is not done elsewhere. I don't think it is commonplace elsewhere to wave the flag of nationality for a given film, and I'd rather that we avoid dealing with likely disputes, hence why the guidelines at WP:FILMLEAD are the way they are. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gothicfilm, I like your wording here. What do you want to figure out about "American film"? I assume you just want to go ahead and use that label. I think using it will mean more similar disputes based on Scott's contributions. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Scott's production company has an American office. Such disputes will have to be dealt with as they usually are - follow the sources. So far the sources we have identify the film as American. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of this edit, "the film didn't move forward" sentence made it unclear. Why exactly "it didn't move forward"? Was it because of director's incompetence? or was it due to technical difficulties? or is there any other reason which made 20th Century Fox replace the director? -- Chamith (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on the details in the article body, Goddard did not want to turn down the opportunity to direct Sinister Six, so he went for it. The original wording reflected that. How much would you want to cover Goddard's attachment as director? Gothicfilm wants to expunge mention of that from the lead section, and I disagree about doing that. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This has Damon saying about Goddard, "I really liked him a lot, and got along with him right away, so I was going to do it with Drew. Then suddenly he got Sinister Six [a project which has been canned since this interview took place] and he was like ‘This is my dream.’ Because he’s a comic book guy, and so he took that. So I was like ‘OK, I guess the movie’s dead' and I hadn’t worked in a year-and-a-half so I was pretty calm about it. Then I got the call that it was Ridley [Scott]." Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The next sentence after "the film didn't move forward" is "Ridley Scott replaced Goddard, and with Damon in place as the main character, production was green-lit." Why Goddard left is ambiguous. Had Fox greenlit it with him aboard, he would not have left. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I personally think that Gothicfilm should have kept it as it was. Firstly, It was the production that didn't move forward, not the film. Secondly, I prefer using the term "suspended" rather than "didn't move forward". -- Chamith (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it was not a production at that time, it was in development. We should use proper industry terms. Development was not "suspended", or they would not have been looking for another director. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

As you can see, we now have an edit warrior removing references here and at The Imitation Game‎. The IP 118.172.31.31 should read and respond to the multiple discussions above and stop WP:edit warring. Note edit summary from IP: stupid ass dont be double standard The American Martian Directed and made by britsh you say its an american. The British Flim Imitation Game directed by american you say its an american film I have 1000 ip addresses and i will keep editing dumbass. Warnings have been given. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This was apparent like Erik II said. I'm pretty sure IP editor(s) will start edit-warring once again after the protection has expired. In order to prevent that from happening you will have to convince an admin to semi protect the article permanently. However, the admins will be reluctant to permanently semi protect the article over a content dispute. -- Chamith (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that was faster than I expected. Like I said, the "<country> film" label has cultural connotations. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I've attempted to add a footnote to "American" to explain the nature of the label. It includes referencing TIFF as well as a film criticism book from which I quote how nationality is assigned. Perhaps on the wordier side, but it is at the end of the article. Can this approach or something similar be taken? I think we need some kind of tool like this to clarify matters in-article. Betty Logan, you've been pretty good about discussing nationality. Any thoughts here? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Am I wrong, or didn't we begin to stop labeling movies by their nationality to prevent this from occurring? Rusted AutoParts 14:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMLEAD, the nationality should be dropped if it is verifiably more than singular. Here, it is verifiably singular in having USA as the production country, but it is a POV-driven dispute to include "British" based on Ridley Scott and Scott Free's involvement. If new reliable sources say USA/UK, then we would probably drop "American" due to the lack of singularity. For now, we just need to ensure the source-based version. I only added the footnote because I can sort of see why the label is disputed (laypersons not being versed in nationality assignment). Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Generally, my own personal "rule" is to go with the American and British Film Institutes if they are in agreement, but neither the AFI or BFI have cataloged it yet so there isn't a lot to go on. The New York Times lists it as a U.S. production which is what I would go with for the time being. If sources challenge that down the line it can always be changed. On a side note I would err on the side of caution when using Festival criteria since sometimes films can be entered under the director's nationality, which may not be indicative of the film's "nationality". There is certainly no case for adding "British/United Kingdom" at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Main cast members

We need to have a consensus in identifying the main cast members in the film. Here are the grouped names from different sources:

  • The film poster's billing block: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Aksel Hennie, Chiwetel Ejiofor
  • Official website's "Actors" textbox: "Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Aksel Hennie, Donald Glover, Mackenzie Davis, and Chiwetel Ejiofor"
  • Official website's film description: "THE MARTIAN features a star studded cast that includes Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Donald Glover."
  • TIFF.net's "Principal Cast" textbox: "Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Aksel Hennie, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Wong, Mackenzie Davis, Donald Glover"

Template:Infobox film says the billing block is to be used for listing names. I believe that in general, the names listed in the infobox should also be mentioned in the lead section. E.g., if Donald Glover is included in the infobox, he should be in the lead section too. We have a few different groupings here, not just Glover, but Davis and Wong as well. Rusted AutoParts, what grouping are you wanting to go with? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, in this case, since different site and trailers are using different names in their cast lists, perhaps we take the names frequently mentioned and use those? Seeing as Wong's name only comes up the once (TIFF, perhaps they're listing the people attending the film's premiere?) So perhaps the names the marketing has used (posters and trailers) should be used, which included both Hennie and Glover. Rusted AutoParts 15:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm hard-pressed to break away from a direct rule of thumb that we have in the guidelines, though. There's no truly wrong presentation to have here; we can err on having all the names in these groups or only the fully consistent names in these groups. How do we avoid whataboutery here? You can justify Donald Glover because he's thrice mentioned above, but then why not Mackenzie Davis, who is twice mentioned? And who knows what the U.S. theatrical poster's billing block will be like! Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically the American poster was already released, though the cast list was absent from its billing block, listing only Damon. But since the trailers advertised Chastain, Wiig, Daniels, Pena, Mara, Bean, Stan, Glover and Ejiofor (a new trailer featuring this being released only 9 days ago), we included them. This British poster is the only one so far to include Hennie in the billing block. Rusted AutoParts 16:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sock, Gothicfilm, Green Cardamom – thoughts on this? (RAP, feel free to ping others who are also frequent contributors to this article.) Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
DasallmächtigeJ, Darkwarriorblake? Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I remember a similar discussion concerning The Expendables 3 here, where they just kept adding cast members on the posters. Basically every new poster had more actors on it (Robert Davi for example appeared in one scene that was two minutes long but was on it). The consensus there was that they all had to be featured in the box and in the head section because they were all on the poster/in the billing block. I guess this is a grey area here... --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We should use the billing block on the theatrical release poster, as usual. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is the British poster. So far we've seen only the one poster with the one billing block with cast, and two trailers featuring Glover within that block too. Rusted AutoParts 22:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That poster is good for now. If the theatrical release poster changes, we can act accordingly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Still, we have an odd man out. We cannot simply exclude Glover because the British poster didn't have him on it. He was featured in the cast list for two worldwide released trailers. We can't just ignore that. Rusted AutoParts 22:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, Glover is in a billing block, that being the trailer. Both of them. It is incorrect to exclude him. Rusted AutoParts 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, perhaps we should go with the website. [1]. It seems to be the most concrete way of dealing with this, as names are being included and excluded in various formats. Rusted AutoParts 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The billing block of the poster is more consistent. And there are people at WP Project Film who argue that not every actor in the billing block should be included. So trying to put in even more than on the poster is not likely to be supported. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. It's just stupid to me to exclude actors because they didn't get featured on a certain version of a poster. Glover was shown in a rather prominent position in the trailers and therefore should be included in the cast list of the infobox. Just because, and I again reiterate, a version of a poster doesn't feature him, as I've also stated its a European version of the poster, we shouldn't ignore the fact he was featured as part of the main cast. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock, I thought we were going to use the billing block as the most preferred rule of thumb? Glover was added here, but before that, the list of names was based on the billing block. I don't find the need to keep Glover or add Davis to the mix. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't checked for an update on this page. Glover alone was added at some point, and I thought that had been by some rogue editor and didn't realize we'd met a consensus. I agree with the billing block as well. My bad! Sock (tock talk) 19:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

References to use

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

...and another one. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I removed unsourced content from the "Scientific accuracy" section as seen here, but it can be restored with proper sourcing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourced or not, that paragraph contains way too much indiscriminate information. -- Chamith (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception

I think breaking the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic down into very specific numbers (how many negative/positive reviews) creates a jumbled mess, and vote to go back to the normal format. Any thoughts? TropicAces (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to avoid reporting Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic simplistically in the "Critical reception" section. They are commercial websites, so when we leverage them for encyclopedic use, we need to present the details correctly. To say "92%" upfront is simplistic especially when Rotten Tomatoes only considers a review as positive or negative, essentially a thumbs-up or thumbs-down verdict for readers to decide about seeing the film. The distribution of reviews is the more critical detail for this encyclopedia, and Metacritic is more appropriate than Rotten Tomatoes because it has "mixed" as well as "positive" and "negative". RT can follow suit because it is popular, but it needs to be clear that they only judge reviews as positive or negative. It is critical to clarify the methodology of these websites each time and to report the appropriate details. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The simplistic language has been proliferated across many articles, but this does not mean it is warranted. We need to write from a neutral and historical perspective. As film article editors, we may be deeply familiar with RT and MC, but not all readers will be. We should not be writing such sections to tell them whether or not to see the film (that is what the websites themselves are for), but to keep a historical record of what critics thought of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is evidenced with The Avengers: MC vs. RT, and Gravity: MC vs. RT. The RT scores are identical, but the MC scores correctly reflect Gravity ahead of The Avengers. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the breakdown is important, since the same score can have a different distributions of reviews. For instance, a score of 50/100 on Metacritic could indicate a film that received mostly mediocre reviews (in the 40-60 range) or a film that split the critics with many highly positive reviews and many highly negative reviews. Knowing the distribution of positive/average/negative reviews helps provide some insight into the spread of opinion. A similar thing can happen on Rotten Tomatoes: a film could pick up a 10% rating, but could have wildly different ratings i.e. a 1/10 or a 5/10, while another film could pick up a 70% rating and have a rating of 6/10; the films which score 5/10 and 6/10 are qualitatively much closer in terms of critical opinion although one meets the threshold for approval and the other does not. I suppose if you view the aggregators in statistical terms the metascore/average rating is the mean and the spread of positive/mixed/negative reviews is the variance, and you need both to paint a complete picture. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. I agree with your assessment. I think the common concern with this approach, here and elsewhere, is that the language gets weighed down in detail. (As described above, "a jumbled mess".) I do not have an issue with the language but prefer to put more prose in front of the statistics (and plan to do more of that when there is more summarizing of reviews this weekend). Do you think the write-up warrants improving in any sense? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
A bit of extra clarification wouldn't hurt, and neither would tightening up the langauge. For instance, in the RT segments it is not really clear that the 93% Tomatometer score relates to the percentage of positive reviews, and if you give the percentage of positive reviews does it really need the review counts for the number of positive/negative reviews? That could be re-worded as: Rotten Tomatoes, another review aggregation website which categorizes reviews as positive or negative, surveyed 112 critics and determined that 92% of the reviews were positive with a rating average of 7.6 out of 10. The site summarized the critical consensus, "Smart, thrilling, and surprisingly funny, The Martian offers a faithful adaptation of the bestselling book that brings out the best in leading man Matt Damon and director Ridley Scott." That still pretty much has all the same information but is slightly more succinct. It doesn't have to be exactly like that but you can see what I am getting at. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the succinct wording and have implemented it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TropicAces, I find the choice of wording used in this article to be excessively verbose, especially considering there are so many older articles still only have the overall percentage and fail to even specify how many critics reviews were counted. There is a template which I don't much like either but at least it is consistently mediocre. But I've better things to do than argue about it. If you can decide on something please try to decide to fix the template, and even better if you or a Robot can go back and update all the other film articles to better fit with whatever way you decide to do things. -- 109.79.158.174 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan, see above for why a breakdown is needed. In addition, it is more appropriate to lead with summary-level prose about what critics thought. Statistics about the distribution and the way each score is calculated is secondary to that, especially from an encyclopedic perspective. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Erik: Thank you *very much* for your comments - no problem whatsoever - whatever is WP:CONSENSUS is *entirely* ok with me - also - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce my edits of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Article structuring

Josephlalrinhlua786, thanks for adding content to the article! I've made some changes and have been implementing content from the sources I listed above. Let me know if you have any comments about these edits. Regarding your recently-added "Box office" subsection, I am wondering if that could instead be merged under "Theatrical run" with some content shuffling. Both "Theatrical run" and "Box office" are very related, but I think the former is more high-level to encompass other details such as distribution and the eventual CinemaScore grade. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I also see that the "Pre-production" subsection is mostly NASA-centric. How can we combine this with the content under "NASA involvement"? There is obviously some overlap. One thing we could do is fully interweave the NASA content into the stages of production. Another thing we can do is mention NASA's involvement in production coverage in summary, but then expand the "NASA involvement" section for a more detailed read. I'm favoring the latter approach because I think the involvement is a fairly distinct aspect of the film, as evidenced by the sources. It's something that I think readers would want to jump to and read closely, apart from the standard production details. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Josephlalrinhlua786, a single-line "Box office" section is awkward, and I'm not understanding why box office content should be separated from theatrical run content. How can one report on the opening weekend gross and in the same breath not mention how many theaters it was released in? Is there another article that would separate the details like that? It seems to me that box office content is a key ingredient of a "Theatrical run" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I too find it rather unnecessary for another box office section. But the problem is that the theatrical run section is already dedicated to contents pertaining to release dates and CinemaScore poll result. I think the release dates should come under the release section and CinemaScore poll result in the critical reception section but im not obliged to alter that. I thought of writing the box office grosses in the same section but in a different paragraph since grosses from its US and Canada as well as from 60 countries will be reported from tomorrow. And i will rewrite its late night screening and opening day figures again in another paragraph (the opening day gross of $17 million is not even accurate) which will be followed by its weekend gross (estimates) in the same paragraph and its international figures in a separate paragraph. Thats how i have been writing for box office figures and how most of the films have it written. (talk)

Issues of realism

Some other issues of realism further to the current article may be:

1. When rocket launching from Mars near the end of the film nuts and bolts are shown floating in the ship while the rocket engine was burning. The fact that the engine was running would mean that the ship was accelerating and so any loose items would be expected to fall to the floor rather than float.

2. Exposure to cosmic rays on Mars and in space was not mentioned and may become a significant health hazzard during the extended mission.

3. Lightening appeared during a storm on Mars which in actual fact has not been observed and is very unlikely.

4. Breaking down hydrazine (to make hydrogen) also produces hightly toxic ammonia. This problem was not mentioned. Also the catalyst appeared to be lumps of metal (with low surface area) rather than gauze like material with a high surface area.

5. Ultaviolet breakdown of polymer materials such as plastic sheeting on Mars would probably occur quite quickly making some of the building repair fabrications untenable.

2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:A087:230D:D13:2843 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly when there's a source from a reliable news outlet or someone who's an expert (say an academic polymer expert on their blog for 5). This isn't an IMDB goofs page. I'm also not sure about some of these: for example, couldn't the polymer be something futuristic that doesn't break down under UV light? And to what extent would the hab be able to protect from cosmic rays, especially if (say) Watney covered it over with rock? Blythwood (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Padlock

The padlock for this article has not been justified. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:3DCD:72EA:CE5E:FBF5 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The padlock is justified by WP:NOCONSENSUS. Since you repeatedly contravened this policy annonymous editing of the article has been temporarily suspended. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Good one. I'm sure that holds a lot of truth for you. Speaking (Be Bold) for myself, I see an article whose fan-boys were formerly selling the studio's idea that this is a "soooo accurate" movie. Truth always outs. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:FCF2:7326:4688:5434 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
My rationale for adding the padlock is that the page is semi-protected. I did not protect the page, I simply added a visual element to inform people who come here that it is protected. You can click here for the request for protection and the response from an administrator. Sock (tock talk) 20:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Martian_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1084084480"