Talk:Asteroid City

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bob Balaban is also cast, but I can't find a source.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Roman Coppola is also there doing his stint.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Murray is right there in the trailer, why is he not mentioned as cast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.127.21.129 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in the trailer do you see Bill Murray? Please specify the minute:second. I have watched it over and I only see Steve Carrell. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an extensive edit to shorten the summary's length, per the warning tag that it was excessively long. If other editors feel the revised length is adequate, please remove the tag. PNW Raven (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe that the play we see is meant to be a recorded performance? If anything, it seems like there are indications that it is a live performance, like Schupert saying, “are you on,” implying that time is an urgent matter. Unless I missed an interview of some kind, this assumption that the play is a recording and not live in the plot section seems like a significant leap in logic. Additionally, the plot section is currently rife with speculation. Am I out of line here? 2600:1702:1B20:CB20:4517:95D1:800C:CEA3 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The play is being recorded for television, that's for sure. If we agree on that, we can already say that the current text is correct, as the performance we are seeing is not the premiere, nor that of any other particular day, it is precisely the recorded performance, the one recorded for tv. Whether we are watching it "live" or through the tv cameras, Shubert is indeed talking about the recorded performance.

We should probably stop the discussion here, as the above is fully sourced, and that's what matters for Wikipedia.

Now, for the sake of argument, yours is still a valid question: are we seeing it through those tv cameras or "live"? I'm ready to speculate on that: I think the most "live" moments are in black and white, like the Margot Robbie or Adrian Brody kind of moments. Then, if reality is in b/w, it follows that anything in colour must be seen through the tv cameras, if you follow the logic. It is a fascinating topic but, still, this conversation would be interesting in a forum, which Wikipedia is not. Megustalastrufas (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the present of the story a "retro-futuristic version of the 1950s"? Mind you, that statement in the synopsis refers to the present where the television program is filmed, not the play itself (which is mostly fantastical and purposely scientifically incorrect, I wouldn't even say that's retro-futuristic, it just imagines kids being able to invent crazy stuff, not that it's stuff that's already ingrained in an alternate version of society. The technology seems for the rest 1950s-appropriate). I don't think there's anything in the black and white scenes that makes us think their reality differs from normal. I'm not even sure they're in the 1950s, to be honest. The playwright says "The action of the play takes place in September of 1955", but from where do we infer that's also the time period of the black and white scenes? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the marketing for the film encloses Asteroid City in quotation marks. This appears to be a deliberate and meaningful choice by Anderson. Shouldn’t the film be referred to as “Asteroid City”? ScottMainwaring (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it, but now I cannot unsee it. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you erased my commentary again. This is a TALK page. Learn some respect and tolerance: we are NOT in China, where people who speak their minds get "deleted". You are under suspicion of committing CENSORSHIP.

AGAIN:

"...as a movie it's for Anderson die-hards only, and maybe not even too many of them". I share the queasiness of critic Owen Gleiberman. Mr. Anderson certainly overdid it this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines here: WP:TPG.

Note that it clearly says: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject.

So, if you have any suggestions as to how to improve the article, you are welcome to participate. If you find there is something missing in the article, or feel some paragraphs are unclear, or consider some info to be lacking in references, please speak your mind.

If, on the other hand, your comments are simply discussing the article's subject, you are in the wrong talk page.

Is this clear enough for you?

. Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I can clearly see by the commentary on style, scenes etc. the article's subject IS being discussed already. Therefor I can see no difference. Your declaration is purely arbitrary. So let's talk about whether a film maker in reaction to his fan community can overstep sometimes and lose contact to his recepients according to overzealous production. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what the talk page is for. Use Reddit to share your theories.Mike Allen 16:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So we are talking about cast, style etc but not about the film maker? That's arbitrary! Maybe your rules need revision. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read them before posting. Mike Allen 16:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As always, rules are subject to interpretation. They are not absolute. This is certainly no place for attacking a person for what he or she had done. But in art there are critical boundaries, especially if you decide to go to extremes in style or writing, where other people can hardly follow. And THAT is a fact you can talk about. Momentarily we are only talking about if talking about it is allowed in the boundaries of a wikipedia talk page. And that is sad. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose we improve the article? Since that is what Wikipedia talk pages are for. Mike Allen 16:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does the talk about levels in the narrative improve the article?

But o.k. let's try this: In the B/W intro the presenter is showing the stage on which the soon to follow play is going to happen. He shows the left and right portions of the stage in reverse order as explained. What is Mr Anderson's purpose behind that intentionally misleading commentary? 129.69.140.138 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include any reference to that "intentionally misleading commentary" in the article, please note that you will need to find a reputable source. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, see the guidelines here: WP:NOR. What we do here is collect knowledge as established by reputable sources.

When there is conflict between sources, or a source is lacking, or if the article says something that is not adequately supported by the sources, then we discuss it here. That is the case in all the above sections; they re not general comments about cast, style, etc., it is about finding sources for a member of the cast, or questioning a statement about style in the article that may not be supported by the sources.

It may sometimes be a fine line, but your comment is clearly on the wrong side. Megustalastrufas (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change "temperamental yet talented" to: talented yet temperamental actress 2600:4041:5D21:CB00:8B85:B1B8:50D8:DC27 (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The television show hosted by Bryan Cranston's character is not describing a real famed playwright; he's describing a hypothetical play and its production for illustrative purposes. He states this multiple times in the opening section. The plot section regarding this is misleading, then, is it not? Alikkss (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]