Talk:A Quiet Place

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

Notes

  • In association with this film, the producer is being called Brad Fuller, not Bradley Fuller.
  • Krasinski is the main writer for the film. He was specifically hired to rewrite the script and to direct it, so he should lead the list of writing credits.
  • Krasinski and Blunt are the highlighted "starring" names when this film is covered. We need to see if the billing block will mention the younger actors involved.
  • The film is not "just" being distributed by Paramount. Paramount, as a studio, is active in producing the film. A studio-driven film would be listed only as a distributor if it bought distribution rights to the film after its production.
  • There is no reliable source for Noah Jupe's character being called Marcus outside IMDb. Nor is this uncertain detail that critical to have at this juncture.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing credits

verifiable with a source. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Changes

Per

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". Without the crew list, the infobox is not summarizing anything. If anything, you should be removing the "Cast" section because the infobox already covers it. So try to think of a "Crew" section like a "Cast" section. Now we have an opportunity to name the production designer, and we can name other crew members that do not have parameters in the infobox. Same thing with "Starring" being a subset of "Cast". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I suppose I am fine with the IP editor's change to the "Cast" section to separate details by each actor. The point of the content being under "Cast" instead of "Production" is that the latter section is timeline-based, and the casting content did not really have a place in that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i comment on publisher.

i ask erik where guideline says about blue link and publisher? i only see no include if name is the same. i think it good practice to have publisher in any case. and TropicAces what you think? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "publisher" parameter would not be applicable here because the website stays the same while the "publisher" can (and does) change. The point of having a publisher (and related place and date) is to help with verifiability. It is not as pertinent for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. It simply means that if the website finds new ownership, we would have to change the so-called "publisher" everywhere. It's a rootless value for a parameter intended for rooting the reference. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

undue weight. If there is verifiability of a dispute that names A Quiet Place, it can go in the "Production" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Reverts

@Erik: What exactly is "unhelpful" about my edits? Never has any film artice used tables for the cast. I can name hundreds that use the regular list for such. Secondly, never has any film article used a specific section for the crew. They're unnotable to have their own section. This is not the first time you've called these edits "unhelpful" and that is unhelpful. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:FILMCAST, the cast is listed only a simple list: "A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles." The tables are used for other things and have no place here. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Adding the crew section becomes

WP:IINFO. I see that you participated in a discussion regarding this on WP:FILM and has not resulted in a consensus to include it. Unless there is consensus to include, this shouldn't be included until there is more input on it by other users. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

It is false to claim that there are "never" tables for the cast. Tables are acceptable when used with care.
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." If we take away the infobox, not all of the names will be mentioned in the article body, like the editor and the composer. It also allows us to be able to identify the production designer and other crew positions that contend for awards (costume design, art direction, etc). Think of the infobox's crew parameters as similar to its "Starring" parameter making up only the more noteworthy of the cast list. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I seriously disagree. The tables make look bulky, full of information and unnecessary. A simple list can do the exact same job with more simplicity. There is no need to use a table when the majority of film articles, and for the sake of consistency, use lists whether it be two actors, five actors and whatnot. No major blockbuster or budget film I have visited have used tables, even if the cast list is small. This also makes it inconsistent. I find that adding the crew is IINFO as some may not be notable enough to mention aside from the infobox. The consensus for such has never been established for this section and this makes film articles inconsistent. Not to mention that you seem in favour of this section, and reverting to keep as such can mount to edit warring from either side. If there was some sort of agreement, then I'd abide by it but otherwise it doesn't flow with other articles and we're running around in circles to get it sorted it out. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, tables are completely acceptable. This is not "a simple list" when it has running prose to go with it. A simple list is something like The Chamber (2016 film)#Cast with just actors and roles. Here, the table allows for clear delineation of details. By collapsing everything into one bulleted item, there is not as clear delineation. That's why {{Cast list break}} is used more and more, even though it was not done in most of Wikipedia's past. Since we cannot bold actors and their roles in cast lists (as much as we would like to), we need to look at other ways to align details. If anything, this table is like a filmography (of which most are tabled if we need a more detailed column beyond year and film title).
There is zero consensus against crew lists, and there is consensus through the infobox MOS to make sure the article body includes the detail that the infobox shows. Opposition to naming all of the crew in the article body contradicts what the infobox MOS says, that an infobox should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". I acknowledge that the crew list can be partially redundant with some of the names already mentioned in running prose. We do need to mention the remaining names in the article body (as we need to do the same everywhere else). What is an alternative? A new paragraph in "Production" simply listing the names that were not yet mentioned? "Other key crew members involved with A Quiet Place were composer Marco Beltrami, etc"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the discussion further on W:FILM and I guess I can see where people are coming from. I suppose I am neutral on the issue. I am more of the conservative type when it comes to Wikipedia. I like consistency unless consensus or policy/guideline says otherwise. I just think it would be better to get more input on the issue from more users involved in film articles as it can divide people and cause edit warring. Listing too many people can easily fall into IINFO. There should be a clear indication of who to include or less it becomes too much.
As for your suggestion, I am unsure where to put it. Putting it in the production seems to make more sense since they are only involved with producing the film, but then it gets confusing as it can also apply to the actors in the casting section as well. It would be better to see examples is where and how it should go and look. Again, it would need more input from the community.
I completely disagree with the table, but I suck at arguing and making a good case. It still doesn't make sense to me and it makes consistency incredibly confusing. But I concede since I can't conter argue. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such a large section on the musicians involved in the score - Necessary?

The article is dwarfed by a considerably large table listing every single musician who was part of the score. Surely this is very irregular to include in a movie article? Most other films that have orchestral scores do not go into such considerable detail on the individuality of the members of the orchestra. This isn't me trying to suggest they aren't worthy, and whilst the score is a very crucial part of this film does it warrant such a massive table? eeveeman (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as I agree that the details are indiscriminate. I've been trying to keep up with coverage about this film, and I have not seen anything that warrants this much detail (especially the names). It's more likely that we could eventually have a "Music" subsection in the "Production" section about what Beltrami did for the film, but I haven't seen the coverage to do that yet. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 10:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life wife

Regarding the opening sentence in the lead section, I have seen repeated back-and-forth editing as to whether or not to highlight that Emily Blunt is John Krasinski's wife. It may help to come to a local consensus to know whether or not this is worth highlighting, otherwise this is going to continue throughout the film's release. (It will probably continue regardless, but hopefully with this discussion we can point to a preferred approach.) I would argue to include this highlight simply based on the fact that every bit of coverage about this film mentions their relationship. This lends

due weight for Wikipedia to also mention this detail. I would also add that this detail is likely reported because it is relatively unusual for a film's director and star to collaborate with their spouse. However, I would prefer to state this fact after her name because Blunt was already an established actor. To have it the other way around seems to frame it as the director recruiting his non-acting wife to act. Others' thoughts are welcome. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think it's really unusual. Plenty of actors who also direct/write/produce and have major actor spouses cast them in their movies: Ken Branagh, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Zoe Kazan, Ben Stiller, Steve Martin, Jenna Fischer… And it's not like John Krasinski and Emily Blunt are a "celebrity couple" that people were dying to see together—unlike, say, when Warren Beatty cast Annette Bening, or Angelina Jolie cast Brad Pitt.
I think the reason it's noteworthy is just that Emily Blunt gave the "I didn't want to star in one on John's movies, but as soon as I read the script I had to be in it" story in every interview, so it got lots of coverage. Maybe that's because the script is focused on the father-mother dynamic to an extent that's very rare in horror movies, or even non-genre movies, so she wanted to play the mother to John's father. Or maybe the publicist decided that was a good way to hype up the movie. Whatever; it's not really relevant.
Ultimately, it's not even really relevant why so much of the coverage mentions their marital status; the fact that it's noteworthy is beyond doubt. (Retrospective articles and reviews continue to highlight it months later.) So I think it's right to keep it. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Table in Filmcast

There is no reason to use a table. It's poor formatting.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mpen320, why do you think it is poor formatting? Tables are also used like this for filmographies where we list the year, the film, and related notes where applicable. Are you arguing against filmography tables too? There are many different ways to present a cast list, and I don't see why this is worse. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ErikI'm not suggesting that and that is a false comparison designed to distract from my point. A three part sort table for a four person cast makes no sense. The guidelines say use tables with care and I feel this is not following that, but I won't get into an edit war over it--Mpen320 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved with the discussion to write WP:FILMCAST, and the reason to use tables with care is if the actors and roles are likely to fluctuate especially due to the table code. So generally speaking, a table is ideal to implement when the article is less dynamic. While this film has yet to come out, the reviews indicate these four actors and their roles are the main roles. There is not anyone else that we would neglect. In contrast, something like Avengers: Infinity War, I would definitely not support tabling because I'm sure we will be debating who should be listed or written in prose (with dozens of actors and roles involved). I guess I don't understand why the formatting here is considered worse? Your approach is fine too, though it does not line up the details as well as a table. (Meaning that one's eyes have to "jump" over running prose to the next name and the next name.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random regular reader of Wiki here, just my two cents that the table format is jarring simply because it's used extremely infrequently for film pages, and regardless of acceptability I just see no reason to break with Wikipedia convention here. I'm sure most regular film-googlers would agree that this format just isn't what you expect to see when you look up a movie on Wikipedia, and at least in my view it makes little sense to write an article which diverges from the conventional format for an article of its type so drastically. I just saw the film at an advance screening, googled it afterwards, and came to the talk page here to see what was going on simply because I was so surprised to see the cast section formatted in this way. If it isn't what the average Wiki reader expects for the type of article they're reading, and the more conventional format would serve its purpose just as well, then what's the point of making this one stand out from the rest? 78.18.51.241 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing is not a reason to enforce a singular aesthetic when the function is the same. It was unexpected, okay. What hinders you in comprehending the table presentation? If anything, it engages in a vertical and horizontal display of details. In a bulleted list, the actors, roles, and running prose blend together so nothing is discerned right away. Some lists do a line break after an actor and their role to provide some delineating, but it still requires the eyes to skip over the running prose to get to the next bullet. With the table, the actors and their roles are clearly presented reading downward, and a reader can look rightward for additional details. I would actually prefer that for comic book film articles because the running prose is often so dense that looking up names is a chore. For what it's worth, many "Cast" sections use lists instead of tables because table code is not easy for novices to work with, and most films' casts are big enough to mean potential list fluctuation. We have the four actors listed here, and it's not going to change, judging from reviews that identify these four. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the guidelines for a table in the cast section. Only one editor is adamant about having it as a table with no beneficial attributes to the article. There seems to be a mild consensus against using the table in the cast section.
WP:FILMCAST guidelines state cast tables can be used in "plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section.", which it is not. It should be removed and left as the standard bullet point like 90% of other film articles. Brocicle (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No good reason has been put forth to throw out the table. Please do not engage in
wikilawyering about the precise placement of a table. The fact that many film articles use bulleted lists is not in itself a reason to suppress use of tables. It is self-defeating logic to claim that because tables are not more widely used, we should reject them at every turn. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No one is wikilawyering, it's written as clear as day in the guidelines in
WP:OWN this article based on personal preference. Brocicle (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, you're wikilawyering by trying to disqualify the use of the table because it is not precisely placed. A "Cast" section can use a list or a table or prose or a mix of them. Like I said, there is no good reason to reject the table approach. "I don't like it" and "I don't see this often" are not good reasons because tables are part of Wikipedia and because not seeing something often is not reason to remove it. Feel free to pursue a community-wide consensus to ban cast tables in their entirety, but I don't see that happening. To put it another way, if a table cannot be used here, with a very established set of four actors (no more, no less), when can it be used? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you see it as wikilawyering thats your prerogative but I've explain other reasons besides that which you're selectively ignore. You're going way over the top with claiming I'm trying to get cast tables banned entirely. There is no need for a table to show 4 actors and their singular roles. Brocicle (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does having four actors matter compared to having a dozen? Either way, the content is spaced out accordingly. Filmographies, even simpler versions, use tables. They often have a "Notes" column for more detail, not dissimilar to what is being done here. There's nothing wrong per se with either approach, but I don't see what disqualifies a table approach other than preference. Why do you think that the bulleted list approach is better than the table approach here? From what I can see, it is more difficult for the eyes to separate actor, role, and content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's four actors with minimal description for each character that all have a singular role. In the last month there have been 10 separate editors that have changed the table to a standard bullet format only to be reverted by yourself with claims that the edits are "unhelpful" or "unecessary" with multiple editors coming to the talk page about it. It comes across that you're trying to enforce your personal preference of how you want the article structured which is classic

owning behaviour. Especially with statements such as "from what I can see" and "no good reason". Editors have given good reasons yet you choose to ignore them because they're not good enough reasons in your opinion. Brocicle (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Like I said, the only reasons the table approach was being rejected was "I don't like it" or "I don't see it often enough, therefore it should be removed". There is nothing wrong with the table being used. Your thinking that there needs to be more actors does not support their rejections, which are for entirely different reasons that are not supportable. Tables are acceptable in general, and they can be used in "stable, developed" conditions. That wording is because most films will fluctuate in terms of editors adding and removing actors. Despite the table/list disagreement, nobody is adding or removing actors in this specific case. That means we have a "stable, developed" condition in the matter of showing the cast. (The rest of the article can fluctuate in size and content separately from that.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it appears the same with you rejecting the bullet approach. If neither add anything extra to the article why keep enforcing your own aesthetic when its clear what the consensus would be just by looking at the edits to it and complaints in the past month. Brocicle (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am rejecting the table-rejection rationale, which is distinct, and which I've already explained above. You have a different reason to reject the table than the others, whose rationales are insufficient. Fine, you think more than four actors are needed. Why exactly? A filmography like Alex Tse's uses a table with three films and has a "Details" variable column too. Is that table wrongheaded too? How many actors are needed for a table to become acceptable (and why exactly)? (Also, even if we had a perfect dozen actors for this film to be in a table, all the other editors would have rejected your approach anyway. That's how to frame it.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the amount of actors its about the complexity of the movie. One film with less than 100 edits is hardly a good example, especially when it is only listing actors and their role without any accompanying description so yes, I would say that is uneccessary to use for the cast. Brocicle (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand you. I use the bulleted list approach if there is just the actors and the roles. (Though I prefer ellipses rather than "as" to see the space between names better.) The running prose is what complicates things. The {{cast list break}} template exists because some editors are acknowledging that a bulleted item with all three things—actor, role, running prose—is difficult to read. So this is used to separate content so we see actor and role on one line, then running prose on the next. With this table approach, a similar separation happens by having clear columns and rows for each type of content. I mean, if we wanted here to put all the running prose after the cast list, then I would agree that a bulleted list is better for simplicity. But if we are going to "attach" the running prose to each name, what's wrong with the table approach of structuring that content? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I read your comment wrong, you asked about the filmography table for the screenwriter, which might I add you added to the article in the first place so again, poor example and just further evidence you're enforcing you're own opinion and aesthetic. If running prose is fine in articles with large cast members such as Avengers: Infinity War then what's wrong with it being aquainted with a smaller cast in bullet form which is the obvious standard for films with actors with singular roles and non-dub versions. Brocicle (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "further evidence"; while I work on that article, when it comes to filmographies in general, when there is more than just the year and the film title, they are much more often tabled because it is a way of presenting content. Feel free to find an example of a filmography that does not use a table when they have the year, film title, and running-prose details. I'm asking why that approach cannot be applied to cast information too. Remember that generally speaking, lists are better than tables because table code is not easy for novice editors to work with. So following that line of thinking, if the set of actors and roles is constantly changing (e.g., in a high-traffic environment), then tables should be avoided. However, in this particular case, while it is a high-traffic environment, we have an unchanging set of actors and roles, so the reason to avoid table code does not apply here. Why is it not more valuable, then, to sort in rows and columns, when we have the chance? Why is it better for all details to be crowded together in a left-aligned manner? Why not a grid approach? Is the latter not more discernible and thus readable as a general principle? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about the use of filmography tables, we're talking about the use of a table in a cast section that has no place being there. Why not just accept that the majority agree it should be a bullet list and stop trying to enforce your personal preference? With the film's upcoming release there will be more traffic coming to this article and probably more editors changing it from a table to a bullet list, adding to the already growing number that have previously done it only to be reverted by you. Brocicle (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're not arguing well at all. Even if you thought a table was warranted by the virtue of having enough actors or complexity, that would still be rejected by editors who don't like it or are not used to seeing it. I'm bringing up filmography tables as a comparative example. A cast table has two simple columns: actor and role, and a variable column for whatever. A filmography table has two simple columns: year and film title, and a variable column for whatever. I made this comparison to ask why the number of listings is relevant at all. Are you telling me that someone thinking, "I don't like tables," is a good reason to remove this table? Are you telling me that someone who thinks that because lists are more common that they should enforce that as the only approach even though there is no consensus to reject table approaches entirely? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Filmography tables for living persons are different and fall under a different
WP:FILMCAST standard which you are failing to understand. Not to mention your examples are articles that you have added tables to. I'm really considering opening a dispute resolution. Brocicle (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

References to use

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genre in opening sentence

I concur with

search engine test
of the film title and horror vs. thriller show the following results in Google News:

  • Horror: 1,110,000 results
  • Thriller: 659,000 results
  • Horror thriller (for comparison): 9,810

Horror is more used than thriller, so we should go with that and avoid any mashing-up of both. While the mash-up is valid, it is not as commonly used. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to add "science fiction" to the opening sentence to make it "science fiction horror". Here are the results for both:

  • Science fiction: 29,800 results
  • Science fiction horror: 2,920 results

Per WP:WEIGHT, calling this film a "horror" film is the most appropriate. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can OWSLAjosh666 or TropicAces or someone else please review the current opening sentence? I've reverted on this point too many times already today. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. I’m not a *huge* fan of the “stick purely to one genre” rule (sometimes a biopic is also a drama or a historical drama is a thriller) but by the rules here this is horror. If anything else it’s a thriller, but that’s an argument for another day haha... TropicAces (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

Horror thriller is the genre. If a film adheres to multiple genres, both must be represented. This film both a horror film and a thriller film at the same time, so both must be listed. More people say horror, but a significant amount of people still say thriller, so listing both genres is credible. Greninjaman864 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think horror is preferable to using the mash-up "horror thriller" because "horror" is so commonly used in the sources. The fact that some sources describe it as a thriller is addressed in two quotes in the article, but it does not seem like it would be appropriate
talk) 04:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
We generally list just the main genre in the lead, according to
WP:FILMGENRE, and we just list more than one if they are equally present in reliable sources. If one is more used than the order, we used the most used one. —El Millo (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
It is original research to mash up distinctly reported genres into a combined genre because "horror thriller" is not the genre actually being used in sources. Calling it a horror film upfront does not mean we cannot mention that the film is thrilling, is set in a post-apocalyptic world, and has sci-fi elements later on. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Origin

The origin of the monsters does not seem too important to the story. The press clipping props briefly shown in the film have speculative headlines as well. Any modification to the main genre is a guess.Group29 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Films with little or no dialogue

Although this is an interesting list, it may belong in a different article or category and not in this one about the A Quiet Place. There are other lists of this sort, for example: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2016/20-great-movies-with-very-little-dialogue/. I can think of at least two other specific reasons to not have this here: 1.) The film itself is not listed. 2.) Where is Silent Movie by Mel Brooks? Group29 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per
WP:SEEALSO, "See also" sections can be used like this. The guideline says, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Using a preordained list helps us provide a sample set of related films. I'm sure we can find more and more examples, but it helps to draw the line somewhere. I think the set from this list is sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Budget

The MPAA and Paramount put out a release saying the film spent $21 million. How do we know it spent this? Add up the numbers listed. All of the costs state "more than" on whatever cost. And if you use just the numbers listed, you get $19.7 million. That's production spending, not economic impact. Translation, the 'more than' amounts all add up to $21 million, which is also in the report. Foodles42 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood accounting FTW. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does not apply here. Hollywood accounting is about the revenue side and profit participations, not line-item on the ground spends.Foodles42 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Unless an editor can actually find commentators who say "it is a 'stretch' to infer" [things,] then do not include your own personal opinions in this article while disguising them as critical reception. You need to provide

WP:SYNTH. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Aliens?

Hi. I trimmed the plot section recently. One of the things I removed was some text / link identifying the monsters as alien or at least extraterrestrial. Did I miss a reference in the film that said that they were? Or something in sources that confirmed them as such? It seemed pretty ambiguous as to where the things came from (space/genetic experiment/good old fashioned monster) so I'd prefer to keep our summary in line with the events in the film. Anyone see something that would contradict that? Scribolt (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://collider.com/a-quiet-place-monsters-explained/ Barnabypage (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm still inclined to keep the monsters origins undefined in the plot summary (the source explicitly confirms that this not done within the film and is irrelevant to the events). If included, I'd say this seems more like content for a development section. Scribolt (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems reasonable. Barnabypage (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Botet's role

This claim is unreferenced. It also follows a pattern whereby Botet is claimed to be a cast member in a science fiction release on Wikipedia (IMDB as well) only to be discovered later that his role was limited to production crew member (as was the case with Alien: Covenant.) Seeing this claim placed so prominently in an article should raise red flags, and should only be confirmed by placing his name in its proper location within the film's end credits, referenced accordingly under the {{cite AV media}} template along with the time index whereupon the name appears in the credits. A film's end-credits are in many ways a legal document since they carry industry-mandated information, and should be seen as authoritative with regards to someone's involvement in the making of a film.  Spintendo  17:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just examined the end credits of this film, and of the hundreds of names listed, Javier Botet is not one of them. I find it difficult to believe that work performed by him would be uncredited as the claim in the article states. This is the exact reasoning a handful of editors took in the Alien: Covenant article when the film first came out, and the claim was made that Botet played one of the xenomorphs in that film, when in fact Botet's role was as movement artist, motion capture. That role was but one of hundreds of artists, technicians and editors who make up the production crew, and did not merit being named in the Wikipedia article. With A Quiet Place, the claim is that once again, Botet played a main role. But there is no evidence that this is true. In Alien Covenant the end credits confirmed his role as production crew, but here his name is not found anywhere in the 6 and a half minutes of credits. Thus I'm removing the claim.  Spintendo  00:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Quiet Place (film series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Quiet Place (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Quiet Place (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus in favor of the proposed move. Concerns that the franchise will come to be known by this name can be dealt with if that comes to pass. BD2412 T 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The film A Quiet Place came out in 2018, and three years later, it is still primary topic with respect to usage, as seen this year so far here. It is rising now due to sequel coverage, but even between January 2021 and May 2021, views of the film article were much higher than the other articles, including 230x more than the next topic. Even the disambiguation page got more views than the other non-film topics. Furthermore, the film demonstrably is a primary topic through contextual significance, with Google Scholar showing articles written about the film over the years, including 2021, as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, having had a look at the other low-traffic topics that share this name. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. —El Millo (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose I feel there is a bit of recentism at play here (opera can't compete in the pop culture with a very recent film). I also see the recent page views are putting the sequel ahead of the first film. It seems likely that, assuming there are more films to come or an expansion to the franchise, that a film series/franchise article when created would be the more appropriate primary. Until then, why don't we save a lot of rework and enforce disambiguation for all the pages so that link destinations are kept clean. -- Netoholic @ 11:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair argument to make. I would note that the opera, while notable, does not seem to be particularly famous. Furthermore, we don't know for sure if the spin-off will happen or not. And it's not necessarily the case that a franchise article will always occupy the primary-topic slot. The first film Back to the Future occupies that slot despite being a film in the franchise. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we've ever specifically considered whether
    WP:NCFILM#Media franchise). I know at least in my mind with the 2nd film about to drop, that "A Quiet Place" feels like it refers more to the overall film series. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The clickstream data for the dab page for March shows that the film is indeed the most sought entry, though – as usual – by a much smaller margin than suggested by the pageviews. It accounted for 71–72%: its link got 780 clicks, A Quiet Place Part II got 288, and the opera – 11 (links with fewer than 10 clicks do not make it into the dataset). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Disambiguation serves the reader better than this kind of recentism-based primarytopic takeover. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Three years old is hardly "recent" especially compared to topics that aren't even famous (e.g., no indication of opera being a standout one in the opera world). And where exactly are the clickstream details? Not sure what clicks related to the sequel have to do with this, either. (Struck out, thought clickstream comment was from Dicklyon.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I forgot to sign my post, and only did so now: I hope that clarifies any confusion. For the clickstream data you need to follow the link and read the page, but ultimately accessing the data can be clunky (you'll need to download a text file that's over 1GB big and then search it for the string A_Quiet_Place). The numbers above are for how many times each of the links on the dab page A Quiet Place have been clicked for the month of March. Unlike the pageviews, this is a direct indicator of what readers are searching for on Wikipedia, and pretty much the only source of meaningful data for deciding if there is a primary topic with respect to usage. A figure like 72% will meet many (most?) people's requirements here. – Uanfala (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think recentism applies here. Both the album and the opera receive barely any views. Even when not compared to the film, these pages' view counts are quite low. The daily average for the opera is 16 and for the album is 1. Both these articles aren't even fully developed: the opera has 11 refs and the album has 4; both are Start-Class and the opera is mostly plot summary. —El Millo (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per pageviews and general relevance that clearly make this a primary topic. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the fact that there are various articles with the title of A Quiet Place. Additionally, this is the first film in a series of movies (part 1, Part II, upcoming "Part III", and the spin-off that was announced last year). Furthermore, each article (with similar titles) should have the specifier in parenthesis ... which in this case is "(film)". Additionally, there is currently a draft article for the A Quiet Place (film series)" being made. This adds yet another article that has some form of the title. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the primary topic per page views. –
    talk) 03:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support per nom.
    Kellis7 16:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per
    talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per
    WP:FILMSERIES and above discussion, the "(film)" qualifier is enough, however. Chompy Ace 20:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Clear primary topic. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Massviews [1] show the film as overwhelmingly what readers are looking for. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear primary topic. Dimadick (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No qualifier is needed. There's only one movie with that title. Much like how The Godfather and The Godfather (film series) works. User:ScottSullivan1 ScottSullivan1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RECENTISM. The Die Hard analogy is not appropriate as that film had 20+ years to be clear that it was the primary topic, where we only have 3 here. It could potentially be such a case but at this point, no, its far too early to judge. --Masem (t) 00:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hudson Valley?

There is no evidence in the movie that supports it's in the Hudson Valley. It is certainly in the United States as a flag is seen on a building but Hudson Valley is a highe speculation THEBANANAEDITOR (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@THEBANANAEDITOR: I don't see any statement in the article to that effect, nor in the version of the article that was live when you made this comment. Where exactly are you seeing the Hudson Valley claim? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Quiet_Place&oldid=1197186048"