Jump to content

Talk:Twisters (film)

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

Filming after the SAG-AFTRA strike

[edit]

We now know that the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike ended on November 9, 2023. However, there are no sources stating that filming resumed. Is there WP:NORUSH to state when filming would resume? The Media Expert (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went to see Ghostbusters today and they had the official trailer for "Twisters". --Nosehair2200 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a source would be needed that says filming resumed. But there is a source saying filming wrapped in December. Filmgoer (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second note, the first source right after says "Ms. Edgar-Jones is heading back to the Oklahoma set of 'Twisters.'" And that's an early November article coming from The New York Times, so that's sourced. Filmgoer (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH and quotes

[edit]

Just wanna leave this here to point out that, in addition to the blatant disregard of WP:SYNTH and WP:EW, User:Filmgoer does not want to avoid overquoting, therefore the reception section is mostly made up of quotations. ภץאคгöร 01:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"overquoting" (?). It's one more quote that has "rousing" and "summer blockbuster" in them. It reads fine now. The problem with overquoting is the next two paragraphs, which are mostly summarizing independent reviews instead of finding a general consensus. But those can be worked on. Filmgoer (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to attempt to justify/re-add your syntheses. Stop this disruptive behavior. ภץאคгöร 19:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this disruptive? The critical consensus mentions Glen Powell. Filmgoer (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep submitting the same stuff despite the explanations. RT critics consensus mentions "Powell's charisma", exactly what I explained to you on your tak page for interpretations of what is actually written, not his "singled out" and praised appearance/performance by critics. Let the sources speak for themselves. Besides the quality of the photo is not good and it adds nothing to the article. ภץאคгöร 19:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could use some images. Either way, the underlying issue is that the rest of the section is underdeveloped; too few critics being sourced to tell the reader what people think of the movie. Filmgoer (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

Why is adding a see also with the following not ok to do: History of tornado research, Mobile radar observation of tornadoes, Tornadoes of 2024, List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes?

Every single one of those four articles are related to topics in the movie and would be valuable "see also" topics. Two editors have now disagreed that none of these are valuable see also topics, so I am coming here to discuss this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings for the two editors who opposed the addition of all four articles: MikeAllen & Filmgoer. Hopefully y'all can explain why those four articles would not be valuable "see also" articles. Honestly, I am so curious to see your reasoning on how a "History of tornado research" article is not a valuable "see also" topic on a film related to research on tornadoes. So please, do tell. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a movie about tornadoes, not about tornadoes or instruments used to research them. A "see also" section would presumably link to related topics about films about tornadoes. Readers aren't clicking this article to read more about what tornadoes are. If they do, they can go to tornado and its "see also" section. Filmgoer (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to note. Your entire thought is this movie is about "tornadoes" and not storm chasers. In the trailer, they literally mentioned about trying to disrupt tornadoes. That is literal tornado research, and exactly why history of tornado research should be listed. That first sentence you said shows you don't even know what the movie is about. lol. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, mate. There's still no reason to link scientific articles for a film article. If you want, you can write a section on a scientific analysis of the movie (what it got right or wrong), and through prose link to those articles. But just adding a "see also" about tornado categories/tools/research isn't relevant for readers reading about a film. Filmgoer (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no reason to link scientific articles for a film article. Cool. I do respect your opinion that the topic of the science/disaster movie should not be linked in the movies article. But, I will continue to disagree with that assessment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the necessary information is already wiki linked in the plot section. So it seems excessive. Mike Allen 22:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also's aren't "excessive", since they are on practically every Wikipedia article...Just saying. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not one on Twister (1996 film). Just saying. This is a fictional movie, it's not trying to be scientifically accurate. Did you watch this movie? Or the first one? Mike Allen 23:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes MikeAllen, I have seen both. The first movie from 1996 was not accurate at all. However, Twisters (this movie) is scientifically accurate. Have you seen the movie? Clearly not if you are saying it isn’t suppose to be scientifically accurate. USA Today article on Twister and Twisters accuracy. Also, check out this NOAA press release about the science behind the scenes of the movie or this article from KFOR, you know, describing how NOAA and actual meteorologists and research scientists made the movie and designs accurate. Or this news article discussing how Glen Powell hung out with real storm chasers and also how the director “wanted his movie to feel as real as possible”, which included using real footage from tornadoes and real tornado research science equipment. I really do appreciate you practically confirming you both don’t even know what this movie is about. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have enough material for a whole section! Mike Allen 23:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psst...You may want to strikethrough "it's not trying to be scientifically accurate" right after you Google "Twisters" and "Accuracy". I did and pulled up about 100+ news articles on the topic. That might be a good idea for you to do btw. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there a logo at the end of "Twisters"? yes.

[edit]

Domain Entertainment appeared at the end of the film itself. you guys need to add Domain Entertainment to "Twisters" please. 2601:803:47E:570:A03B:D9B6:426B:1CFE (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a logo? Mike Allen 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because it's a company Toshibafansandmore (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That did not get producing credit. Only "association with". No third party sources mention the company in detail. Mike Allen 11:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and it literally appears at the end of the film Toshibafansandmore (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As executive producing credits usually do. We do not list executive producers in the infobox, so why would we their companies?
It can always be mentioned in prose, if it's this important to so many. Mike Allen 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for See Also

[edit]

Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?

  1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [1])
  2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [2])
  3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
  4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
  5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC reason: Several editors have discussed or even "edit warred" over this, so an RFC is being started to get a solid community consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Option 1 or 3 – Both should be linked to the to the Scientific accuracy section. However, I could see arguments for only having the History of tornado research linked and not the 2024-specific article. Given this movie is about tornado chasers doing research on tornadoes, having that article just as a "see also" seem valid. This is a fictional movie, but given the cooperation with actual meteorologists and actual tornado researchers, having the "real deal" article linked just as a simple "see also" seems valid. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – Is there precedent for doing similar linking in the articles for other films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Cane (talk • contribs) 09:42, July 31, 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose hatnotes – {{See also}} hatnotes, unlike {{Main}} ones, are more often than not a distraction and a waste of readers' time. I just want to read about Twisters` scientific accuracy, and instead I have to parse and evaluate first a series of See also links to vaguely related articles, only to conclude that none of them is really relevant to how accurate the film is. As for See also sections at the bottom, to me less is more: at a stretch, History of tornado research could be included, but Research on tornadoes in 2024 is little more than random. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 - After considering it I think a link in the prose of the Plot section to History of tornado research (something like "main character did blah blah blah to conduct tornado research") is the most appropriate way to handle this.
The scientific accuracy section is not the best place to locate such a link because the section considers how well the film's creators consulted with NOAA and other scientists for their research as part of the project, not research that furthered tornado science. I agree with User:Deeday-UK that the articles are too vaguely related to warrant a hatnote. I oppose linking to Research on tornadoes in 2024 because a) this movie was a project that spanned several years and b) this movie didn't really add anything to scientific tornado research in 2024.
Per WP:SEEALSO, having a link in the prose means there should not be a hatnote or link in a see also section. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 - (Brought here by WP:RFC/A) I would say if it states in WP:SEEALSO having a link in the prose means there shouldn't be a hat-note i suppose I vote for 5.
MaximusEditor (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article cites opinion piece from untrusted news source

[edit]

In the critical reception section on the fourth paragraph, the article cites FOX News which according to the reliable sources page should never be sourced for political news and also has some consensus as of 2023 to not be cited as a source at all on this website. I read the FOX article in question and it starts off as a simple movie review but it keeps going on about climate change and the woke left. My point is, its classified as an opinion piece on the FOX website and it is full of buzzwords as opposed to a legitimate review from a movie critic. The Wikipedia article wouldnt lose or gain anything by deleting the citation, changing the citation, or deleting the paragraph entirely in my opinion, since the paragraph is mostly a comment about the racial diversity of the cast and a survey of five people (which is also way too small of a sample in my opinion) on how they heard of the movie. No one else seems to notice or care, so I may just be creating a problem from nothing or letting my personal left-leaning bias in, so I would like someone else's take on this before I change anything about this paragraph. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my reading of the current content, this isn't obviously political and ok per WP:FOX. Fox is a reliable source that the reviewer said that. If someone wants to argue some sort of WP:NPOV-angle to remove, they can try that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is in no sense a real film review. It is a coatrack for ranting about how "far left" Hollywood is, and about the author's bitter resentments about the realities of climate change and being told about it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the author is not a film critic. He is an opinion columnist who rants and raves about "woke left" influence on the culture, and occasionally talks about a movie in passing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface, this appears to be OK per WP:FOX. However, it does come across as a political opinion piece disguised as a film review, because each thing the author says about the film has an ideological point behind it. The overall message is "this film is great because it didn't offend my political views."
Considering the fact that the author isn't actually a film critic, citing this opinion piece is no better than citing some random person's blog.
This article isn't enhanced by citing the Fox piece, and it isn't harmed by removing it. Therefore, it has no value and should be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cullen328 and Anachronist. I went ahead and boldy removed it. We would not use Fox News for a film review, the same way we would not use CNN, etc. Thanks for bringing this up, ApteryxRainWing. Mike Allen 20:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt to me that the piece's inclusion is a violation of WP:NPOV. The piece is literally named 'Twisters' whips up lessons for Disney and far-left Hollywood and the article itself uses the phrase far-left more than it does even the title of the film Twisters, while using the phrase tornado exactly 0 times. For a review of an action film, I can't find any mention of any sort of action scenes in the review. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twisters_(film)&oldid=1243537328"