Talk:Isle of Dogs (film)

This article is rated Start-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.

What is this movie's budget? I found a mention on Twitter of it being $25 million (https://twitter.com/platypusrex256/status/992145452937052161) but nothing to support it. Any help confirming that would be appreciated.

The cast list in the infobox is ridiculously long. I know that it is common practice to use the poster as the basis for who should be in the infobox, but, in this case, it is simply not helpful. Might I suggest we remove the list altogether – we can discuss who is more notable, but I doubt that would get us anywhere – and include a link to the cast section? This is not done often, but I have seen it in similar cases. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me.

Cybersub (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, far from being excised, it's now been added to! Cybersub (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poster and the "Starring" list on the infobox names Kunichi Nomura as a cast member in the film. However, when I attempt to add this actor in the "Cast" section of the article, it gets reverted, because apparently it is "unsourced" and "incorrect", according to TheOldJacobite (talk). I don't know why this is the case. The actor is clearly listed on the poster, with 5th billing, under Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Bill Murray and Jeff Goldblum. Can someone address this situation? Thanks. --- Draco9904 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. There have been so many unexplained and unreferenced changes to the cast, that this change got swept up in all the other reverts. Though, to be clear, the edit I reverted was made an anon., not by a registered user. Still, you are correct and I have restored the name. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, FYI, it says right here that Isle Of Dogs is PG-13 for "thematic elements and violent images" NOT for "thematic elements, violent images, and smoking" as you said before. Try to get your facts straight before you edit a Wikipedia page, for goodness sake.

Warmest Regards, --Neateditor123 (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

Oh, and about all that above, please see the section of this talk page that says "Film Ratings", where I continue this discussion, only with a slightly different angle now.

Sincerely, --Neateditor123 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

Why are only some of the actors cited next to their characters while many arent? The poster literally has the name of everyone’s character plastered all over it. You remove it over and over again as unsouced even when people source it. Besides, i dont see any source attachd to the actors with characters next to their name.

What is this? TheMovieGuy (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has posted the character names from that poster online. IMDb has covered most of the character names, but not all of them. For now we should only go by the names currently listed. However, you can't use the reason that there's no source next to the actor's name in the cast section, because every cast member is listed on the film's poster, and even confirmed by Wes Anderson himself, in an announcement for the film in the winter of last year. Whether or not the user who reverted the edit of the added character's names does not find IMDb a reliable source is something they need to point out. Other than that, what's currently listed should go back up. - Theironminer (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion that IMDb is not a reliable source; it is WP policy not to use it except as a secondary source. A film poster that somebody saw somewhere is not a reliable source, either. The only reliable source is one that is accessible to everyone so that information can be verified. If Wes Anderson made an announcement, why is that not being used as a source? The cast section has been changed repeatedly, and most of those changes have been made with little to no explanation or sources provided. Until the film comes out – at which time, the film itself will be the source – all these claims have to be sourced. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. However, is it possible that the names for Nutmeg, the narrator, and Mayor Kobayashi be kept? The Berlin Film Festival's programme page for the film lists those names as the ones not currently listed. I just found that out when I found no other usable sources confirming the other character's names. - Theironminer (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film guide would be a reliable source. Is it available online so that it can be cited? If so, that would solve our problem entirely. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can find it here: https://www.berlinale.de/en/programm/berlinale_programm/datenblatt.php?film_id=201819628#tab=filmStills

Theironminer (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use it. Where was this a month ago? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film premiered at the Berlin Film Festival on February 15 this year. I bet barely anyone knew about this until when its premiere was actually approaching. - Theironminer (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant now. Thanks for adding it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, what i am talking about is the film poster that we are using for this film on here. On the poster are the names of the actors and their characters.. We are using th psoter so it must be legitament and thusly, os should the information on it -such as the character names floating baove actors names. TheMovieGuy (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since people seem to need a source other than the poster, I've added the BFI as a reference for the apparently controversial and previously unsupported assertion that Frances McDormand's character's surname is "Nelson".

talk) 21:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The character's names on the poster are in Japanese. How could we use it as a source? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used the BFI source for all the names that were previously unreferenced, changing names, where necessary, to match the source. I removed Noda and Wood because the BFI did not list them. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

It's Neateditor123 here, and there's something that I'd like to talk about here:

The thing is, while I know it's not relevant at all to add a film's MPAA rating into a Wikipedia page unless it matters in some way, as the film in question here (Isle Of Dogs) had it's rating amended from an original PG-13 rating for "thematic elements and violent images" to the same rating for "thematic elements and some violent images", I think it's relevant to add it in there in that case because it was changed, even though it might not matter for some of you. However, as that particular piece of info has been removed from this page twice now, I see that some of you disagree.

What do you think? Should I or should I not add that to a Wikipedia page? Personally, I really don't care either way. I just don't want people removing things from a Wikipedia page without a reasonable explanation behind it. I just thought it would be helpful to know that the rating reason was slightly changed without any edits to the movie itself, although again, that may not really matter for some of you.

Please let me know your thoughts!

Sincerely, --Neateditor123 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

As you have been told elsewhere, we do not add ratings to film articles, unless they have been the subject of discussion in the media. If, for example, there was a controversy about the rating. There is no such discussion that I am aware of in regard to this film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See references: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} Daerl (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of the article mentions that the movie was released in Germany on May 10th. How come I've been unable to find any information about that release, or its performance? Surely that would be a necessary addition to the article if the film is to be considered a "German co-production".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.66.196 (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

This was added by

The see also link is now irrelevant as the term is linked and sourced in the "controversies" subsection. A look at the reference that was already in that section would have shown that the term was relevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My contention was with the content of the article and its relevance to 'See also', not the relevance of the content of a source to the 'See also' section. This is why I stated that "[it] does not relate to anything in the article". References in the article to text in the sources are obscure. Please keep this in mind when making edits to this article or Talk page. --2601:602:8501:47FF:31D1:420B:A1A4:670C (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the controversy section so that it is more readable but keeps the arguments put forward by previous editors. However the user TheOldJacobite appears to a militant editor who is unwilling to have anyone's voice heard than their own and immediately reverted it. This is an issue that needs looking at as this section of the article represents a wider debate that is going on mostly in the US, which seems hot right now but it is wrong to give it such weight regarding this film. We are only talking about a couple of articles written in only a couple of publications and it seems clear that they have fed off each other. It is, however, worth mentioning and I have attempted to improve legibility.

The matter has been discussed at length and several editors have made contributions and edits to that section. You have no right to remove a significant portion of it because you think the discussion is only currently fashionable. Frankly, your opinion is irrelevant – as is mine, which is why I have never stated an opinion as to the validity of any of the arguments. As was stated below by

WP:BRD, you cannot revert again until the matter has been discussed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, you have no consensus for your gutting of that section. Please stop. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter virtue signaling doesn't need a place in the article. CaptainPrimo (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is dubious, at best. There is no mention of Twitter in that section, but there are links to articles at The Telegraph and Junkee. This issue has also been discussed at Slate and other news sites. "Virtue signalling" is a meaningless term much loved by blowhards at Fox News. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So despite the film getting 94% on RT you think more than half of the critical reception section should be devoted to building up a controversy section gleamed together from passing mentions in a couple of article one of which the author even in your view disputes. That seems reasonable. I would recommend you read up on:

WP:Undue Weight CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri attracted similar 'controversy' about racism but the article for that doesn't have a controversy section.https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2018/01/03/growing-racial-backlash-against-three-billboards-explained-explaining-growing-backlash-against-oscar/977024001/ http://www.vulture.com/2018/02/three-billboards-director-addresses-backlash-racist-cop.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2018/01/03/growing-racial-backlash-against-three-billboards-explained-explaining-growing-backlash-against-oscar/977024001/ How is it significant in this case? In the age of digital media any spurious claim can be backed up as having being made by someone in online articles. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further he Guardian article that is cited concludes by saying it is not cultural appropriation so I would take that as a reason against the section, not for. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did it really require three separate posts for you to say the same thing? The Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri article does have one brief mention of the controversy. It could easily have more if editors decide it is worthwhile, but that would be a different discussion on a different talk page. As for the size of the controversy section, that is only an argument for expanding the critical response, not for removing the controversy. Finally, the fact that not all the sources agree is not an argument for removing the controversy section, either, it is simply an indication that it is a complex issue that is being discussed from different perspectives. That is something we should favor. The controversy is real, no matter how much you might like to deny it. --The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made separate points in the 3 different posts. The first said you were giving undue weight, the second demonstrated an example of how a proper film page is handled and the third disputed the source you have used. CaptainPrimo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I should wait till more editors show up and dispute your giving of undue weight to this material as they must have on 3 Billboards? Would that be a fair assessment? CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article should definitely summarize all points (and counterpoints) from reliable sources, but I would suggest separating the matter into its own section and figuring out a more neutral section heading, perhaps something like "Use of Japanese culture". Per

balance all aspects of this topic. Regardless, judging from the multiple sources writing about the culture-based criticisms, there is no basis for excluding any mention of the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. A more balanced discussion of the matter would be appropriate. CaptainPrimo (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There most certainly has been some controversy, but only in some publications, and there is a strong element of like-minded people talking to like-minded people in a bubble. I have tightened up the section and provided explanations in the edit history. However, I really think there should be a briefer mention and a link to the wider debate about cultural appropriation, as the section takes up too much real estate for a film page. After all the debate has largely played out and it's only April 2018. Sekt10ned (talk) 22:30, 25 April (UTC)

You stated from the very beginning your belief that this issue was simply current fashion, betraying an ideological motivation for your edits. I see no improvement to the section by your changes, and you have still failed to build any consensus for your edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only change I have made was to sharpen the text, add further context explaining the charge of cultural appropriation (some of which was removed by other users) and to remove unnecessary secondary references which mere aggregated the quotes already contained. I would prefer to edit more in-line with Wikipedia's own guidlines which argue against such extensive use of quotations from primary sources, but believe that given this is a hot issue on this page, that would be inappropriate. After the first change was reverted simply out of hand by TheOldJacobite, I produced a longer version that included an earlier source and another perspective from the community affected. I have made no mention of my beliefs (hint: I left the content alone) and do not believe they are even relevant to Wikipedia editing. I have, however, cautioned about devoting so much of an article about a film to some initial press in the first week of it's lifetime about a debate that has died down and was only carried out in a couple of places. Now you made no mention of consensus-building, and yet you neglected to read my explanation of the edits - see the page history; and wrote a rather aggressive message on my talk board without due diligence. All of this is really not necessary as I haven't tried to white wash anything, I have tried to improve legibility and understanding of the issue. As I had not altered the impact of the section, building a 'consensus' is a little moot, but I can see in the page history that the consensus is usually that of one TheOldJacobite, and precious few would get the chance to even see that an edit has been made let alone discuss it. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia is supposed to lead to gradual improvements in a pages but this section will not benefit from this if every change is aggressively reverted. Now I can see on your page that you've been thanked by users in the past for helping others and for doing good work on other pages so I ask for your consideration. Please re-read it and I hope you'll find that the changes don't change the political point that you want to make but has added more context supporting your argument while adding a little more balance too. Sekt10ned (talk) 02:46, 26 April (UTC)

Both @Sekt10ned: and @TheOldJacobite: have violated 3RR on this page. If there are any more edits to that section before consensus is reached, admin action will be needed on one or either account. --Masem (t) 03:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider doing that; the rules about 3RR are clear and I suspect that admin action may be required based on how things have been going so far. I would add that TheOldJacobite usually seems a diligent editor on various film pages so it would be a shame to have any action taken to his account; and of course I don't want any to mine either, especially as I fear we might be of similar mind but arguing at cross purposes. However, having said, that this is getting a bit silly so a resolution should be found. Best wishes Sekt10ned (talk) 03:49, 26 April (UTC)

The Japanese probably should be: 犬の島 [Inu no Shima. inu is dog. no is of (in hiragana) and Shima is Island] or at the very least: 犬ノ島 [Inu, dog, no, katakana form, Shima, Island] But the Japanese reads: 犬ケ島　[Inu ke[katakana Ke] Shima]. But the Japanese wikipedia corrects the title as 犬か島 [Island or Dog]--I kinda think this needs some sort of explaination here. Because the Japanese wikipedia notes it as wrong and corrects the title. Also be nice to explain the title a bit since the attribution of the words on the poster is wrong. (where Island and dog is reversed in meaning on the poster to fit English grammar) There needs to be some clarification why the Japanese is so wrong on the poster. I find it strange since it's basic Japanese. --KimYunmi (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Japanese WP article cite a source for this incorrect grammar? If so, no reason not to import that information here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly Hollywood often plays fast and loose with reality, but this would be a huge error to have made accidentally. Since the Japanese grammar is clearly incorrect, can we also find and include any information on the intent of the filmmakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:AC9:71F0:C397:8606:12D3 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any reports on it, however, I can back the fact that the Japanese is written wrong with sources, if need be. Also link to the Japanese wikipedia correction. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8A%AC%E3%83%B6%E5%B3%B6 (They've changed it yet again--this time to いぬがしま (with kanji for those not as literate: 犬が島, I think confused at what the title should be in Japanese since the Japanese on the poster is wrong) Loose translation of Inu ga Shima would be Dog is Island? ga is a subject marker, but usually written in hiragana, not katakana. Katakana is used for foreign words, usually (there are a few minor exceptions). I think this clearly shows confusion on the Japanese wikipedia side. For reference, ga, in katakana is, ”ガ” (small ten ten for those who can't see... kinda looks like quotes after the character. That looks nothing like the katakana ke that's on the poster: ケ (this doesn't even have a ten ten). Grammatically it doesn't quite work. Google translate (which isn't really reliable) tries to translate it as "Dogs on the Island" but from my basics of Japanese grammar it doesn't really work out because the "ga" calls for a verb at the end. Personally, I would think Dogs on the Island would be better said as Ue no (上の) (ue is on or above. and no is of, which is required.) I can't find explanation from the creators either. I kinda think it's an unexplainable mess up in this case. I would like an interview explaining why. I tried to look for one can couldn't find it. If you need basic Japanese book references to point the error out, let me know. I hope the Japanese wikipedia is sufficient to help straighten this out though. Maybe someone from the Japanese version would be English fluent enough to explain it and source it?--KimYunmi (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second character is not katakana ke (ケ) but rather the Small ke (ヶ) which sometimes functions similarly to the possessive の in place names, as rather well described in its own article. The title is pronounced Inugashima, and evokes a folk story familiar to Japanese children about a boy Momotarō whose adventures take him to Onigashima (鬼ヶ島), the isle of demons. 99.228.159.28 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the Japanese and English on the poster are mismatched. The character above (犬） means "Dogs" and the character below （島） means "Isle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiuJiageng (talk • contribs) 11:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've changed it - I'm not very good at adding licencing info though so would an experienced editor please check. As it is I have duplicated the previous licencing info from the previous image. Edaham (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the note about the manga adaptation to the lead; I didn't think it warranted its own section.

The Infobox includes a language parameter. The documentation for Template:Infobox_film recommends using BBFC as a source of for this information. On the BBFC page for Isle of Dogs in the section marked "Details" the Main language is listed as English, and no other languages are listed. (Other films include details about "Other languages" if a significant amount of another language is included.)

Unless there is a reliable source (IMDB is not a reliable source) to indicate that there is a significant amount of Japanese in this film or there is some special reason to ignore the instructions on Template:Infobox_film then please leave the language parameter as English only and do not add other languages. -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit at #Cast section. Akira Takayama (Japanese theatre director) isn't voice actor of "Major Domo". True person is this actor. See these tweets:

• Taisuke Shimanuki [@nukisuke] (April 25, 2017). "Wアンダーソンの新作、キャスト名に高山明とあるぞ。。同姓同名。。？" [W. Anderson's new work, Akira Takayama is in the cast name.. Same name but different person..?] (Tweet) (in Japanese) – via Twitter.
• Akira Takayama [@akirat16] (April 26, 2017). "ん？ぼくではないすよー。" [Hmm? That's not me.] (Tweet) (in Japanese) – via Twitter.

That's all. --Keruby (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Isle of Dogs (film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Isle of Dogs (film until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]