Talk:CODA (2021 film)

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

References to use[edit]

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review aggregators[edit]

Regarding the descriptions of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, there are no guidelines requiring a specific wording. Just because an editor or two have perpetuated a specific wording across many articles does not mean that other ways to word these review aggregators is forbidden. If anything, it is WP:OWNership to act like they have the right to change the wording to match the wording found on many articles that they themselves had updated. That cookie-cutter language is fallacious in assuming that readers know and understand RT and MC well, but we are not all movie buffs. When we write this encyclopedia, we have to write it for laypersons. That means disclosing that RT only sees reviews as positive or negative with zero in-between. As for Metacritic, it has that in-between category and also provides a prose-based summary. These aggregators should also follow commentary about how critics received the film, explaining what was appealing to them as a whole (if possible). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik has repeated this "cookie cutter" complaint many times (and iirc he wrote much of the essay WP:RTMC). The above comment was apparently in response to an edit that simplified the Rotten Tomatoes wording[1] and Erik restored a slightly more detailed verbose version[2] which specified how many reviews were positive and how many reviews were negative. As of March 30 the article is much more like the former text than the latter.[3] (I've made similar edits to myself but it wasn't me in this case. The changes seemed like a WP:GOODFAITH edit by User:Rmaloney3 so I was a little surprised that Erik was annoyed enough to start a talk page discussion about it and bring up WP:OWN.) Someone could always change the article back to the way Erik recommended but I think it would be better if they didn't. Intentionally or not the extra detail puts more emphasis on the Rotten Tomatoes score and other aggregators, instead of getting to the guts of what the reviews are actually saying about the film, such as praise for the performances or the script. Over a year later, this article does not include any direct quotes or reviews from film critics yet, I think it would be better to do that and not add any more emphasis to the review aggregators (but of course editors could do both things). I do agree an encyclopedia should make a reasonable effort to explain, but it is not "fallacious in assuming" that readers can understand the concept that a person or a group gave a film a score, and that they do not really need more specific explanation of the scoring system. While it certainly necessary to provide some context and very briefly explain that whatever scoring system was used (out 4, out of 5, out of 6, based on 270 reviews) but most articles do that much and we can leave more detailed explanations to wiki-linked articles, for people who want to know what system Metacritic use to come up with their score beyond that it is "out of 100", they can read the Metacritic for those details.
Versions of this discussion have been ongoing for years, it is natural to argue about easy details rather than fix more difficult problems, like how I could have added some reviews to the article in the time it took me to write this. I'm sure this academy award winning film will see plenty more improvements and changes to the article, and a certain amount of minor rewriting of things that were probably fine as they were. I just wanted to know the specific context of Erik's complaint and since I was looking at it anyway it made some sense to add the diffs, in case anyone else ever wondered about it. TLDR: You can take a closer look at the diffs linked above or happily ignore this and continue as you were. -- 109.77.198.2 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes[edit]

WaltCD, WP:NOTAMB says, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." For both CODA (2021 film) and Coda (2019 film), both topics are disambiguated by their release year. We do not generally add hatnotes to film articles that have the same title but are separated by year. Readers that just search "Coda" will wind up at the disambiguation page. I am not seeing what makes this case different enough to warrant hatnotes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I understand what you're saying, but respectfully disagree. The year the films were released is so close. Often times movies get copyrighted but don't get released for a year, two, or more, after. This appeared to be the case here. The 2021 film is currently getting tremendous praise and attention, but not yet widely released. Perhaps in the future this disambiguation could be rendered unnecessary. Currently, however, searching various databases, such as JustWatch.com, brings up just the 2019 version, with no year listed. As I mentioned in my original edit, having renowned actor Patrick Stewart lends credence to the film, making it easy for one to confuse a person into thinking that film is the Sundance Film Festival Award Winning film. Wikipedia can be a part of stopping the confusion.
(I apologize in advance if I've done this "Talk" reply improperly).
WaltCD (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Stewart's film, while released in 2019, got much more attention in mid-2020, so I guess I can accept that it is more of a one-year difference than two. Another editor stripped the details from the hatnotes, but I restored some back. I think we should avoid language like "award-winning" as puffery. I still don't feel strongly about having hatnotes, though, not having seen precedent. Maybe it suffices as a short-term approach. (And you used the talk page correctly, just indent your comments with colons before what you write.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No similarities whatsoever. Just typing in "coda” on a search line at Wikipedia leads to the Coda#Films section which distinguishes all three known films with the title. Wyliepedia @ 08:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I'll WP:IAR and self-close this (pace Yaksar). It's run its course. Nardog (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CODA (2021 film) → CODA (film) – WP:SMALLDIFFS rather supports this previous title; this is precisely a case where "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics". Nardog (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2pou (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nardog: converted to a full discussion since the same rationale was used in the move by Bovineboy2008 to get the article at its current location in the first place. Seeking more input. Additional courtesy ping @Erik: as retargeter of the redirect. -2pou (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to CODA. As a request to revert an undiscussed move, this should have been handled as a technical request before starting a discussion proposing a move to the longer title. Regardless, anyone searching for all-caps CODA almost certainly wants this film, which has been getting thousands of hits per day recently, compared to CODA (company), which gets 16.[4] A hatnote will take care of the small minority. Station1 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose that as recentism. I'd redirect CODA to child of deaf adult, after which the film is named, before move this article there (but I'd keep the current redirect even before that). Nardog (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not what readers are looking for when they type "CODA". Even though the child of deaf adult article has gotten a boost recently because of the film, it still gets only a fraction of the film's views. And although the film released this year, it has been the primary topic for months and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Station1 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What if they don't type CODA? To hell with those readers?? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get what you're asking, but if they don't type CODA, they won't wind up at this page. If they type coda, they'll be at the dab page. Station1 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move as proposed per SMALLDIFFS. Oppose a move of the film to the base CODA name -- given the film is named after an existing subject, looking at page views right at the time of its premiere creates some recentism issues. I'm not opposed to revisiting down the line.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: All three films use "CODA" in all-caps on their poster art, so "CODA (film)" is ambiguous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, pretty much any movie title is written in all caps somewhere, whether as a stylistic choice in promotional material or because italics isn't supported (e.g. on social media). Neither Coda (1987 film) nor Coda (2019 film) would ever be written in all caps at least in this encyclopedia because they aren't named after an acronym. Once you start taking stuff like posters into account the very premise of WP:SMALLDETAILS falls apart regardless of how the titles appear on posters. Nardog (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, pretty much if there are several movie titles that are all the same on their poster art, they should be disambiguated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can stomach the idea that the difference between sentence case and all caps isn't sufficient to negate the need for disambiguation; I just find it odd that it's what's on the posters that breaks the deal for you. But seeing even 9 and Nine aren't apparently a sufficient difference, I can see that I might belong in the minority. Nardog (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand that comment. 9 (2009 animated film) and Nine (2009 live-action film) use titles that are disambiguated from each other in a way that does not depend on the distinction between "9" and "Nine". I think that is probably as it should be. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything should be anything. I was just making an observation that an RM determined that the difference between "9" and "Nine", which is arguably larger than that between "Coda" and "CODA", was not a sufficient disambiguator by itself, which I obviously disagree with, and thus I might belong in the minority. I would have withdrawn this by now had no one !voted in favor. (Now that I think about it, a better argument for keeping the year than the posters would be that this movie would be spelled "Coda" in some (particularly British) styles.) Nardog (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Barrel. Since the films use all uppercase in the posters, there it is very likely that readers will also look for them like that. I also don't see any benefit in having a title with a disambiguation not be fully disambiguated. Gonnym (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Case sensitivity should not be a factor in disambiguation, and the change will likely increase the amount of incorrect redirects. Bachwiz18 (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question in the YouTube interview about the film how is it pronounced? See-0h-Dee-Ay? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
STOP PRESS The film is pronounced "Coda". In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not an acronym In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an acronym for "Child of Deaf Adults". Station1 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We all know that from the first line of article, but the film title is read "Coda" not as an acronym. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're mistaking it for an initialism (as opposed to the narrow definition of acronym), but either way I don't see how that's relevant to the RM. We write "UNESCO", not "Unesco", after all, unlike The Guardian etc. Nardog (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Read as", meaning "read as". Noone is arguing to write Coda, the point is that the proposal is to partially ambiguate the the title by removing 2021 and thereby make life more difficult for readers. Haven't we got better things to do than play hide the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already effectively retracted the proposal and even cited the fact it's an acronym as opposed to an initialism as a potential argument against it. I agree, we've got better things to do. Nardog (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Gonnym and Bachwiz18. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khamoshi by Sanjay Leela Bhansali[edit]

Is CODA inspired from 1996 movie Khamoshi By Bhansali ?! 76.218.105.244 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article, it's based on La Famille Bélier. DonQuixote (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent?[edit]

Pathé is one of the largest film companies in France. Although the film may well be considered "independent" from an American perspective, in the sense that it was not made by one of the major Hollywood studios, it doesn't seem appropriate for this encyclopedia, which strives for NPOV, to characterize it as an independent film. AFAICT the source is using the term more as a genre ("Indiewood") than as a statement of fact; I don't think it's a strong enough source to support the characterization. Nardog (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CODA_(2021_film)&oldid=1206734194"