Talk:Uncut Gems

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

May 24 to 30, 2020

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Release info wrong[edit]

Dec 13 release was limited not "United States". Ceever (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one listens to me when I put the correct release date (December 25). IMDB, Google, even the one of the Safdie brothers confirmed on their Instagram page that the release date was December 25th worldwide. Whoever keeps putting the December 13th release date needs to understand that New York City and Los Angeles's theaters were released on that day. TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wide release is irrelevant. Per Template:Infobox film, “Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release” (13th). This is the case for films like 1917 or The Revenant that go limited in December of one year then wide in January of the next, or ones like Gems or Bombshell that do it a week apart. TropicAces (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

That doesn’t make sense at all. Put the December 25th release date along with the December 13th release date then. TheBigMan720 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I added a note up top about limited Dec 13 and wide on Dec 25. TropicAces (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

Reception summary in lead[edit]

I recently removed information from the WP:LEAD about the film's reception [1]. The information was not supported by the main body text, and it was sourced to two individual reviews, which would need to be attributed to the individual reviews (which is not due for inclusion in the lead when only a single source). I am opening up this discussion to allow for discussion about what would need to be improved in the main reception section before including it in the lead. For those interested, I would also encourage them to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Reception details in lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Editors need to read WP:LEAD and WP:MOSFILM needs to make this clearer. Many editors are making these kinds of attempts to summarize (often without first expanding the Critical response section to include those points) and are making poorly supported generalizations which don't meet the standard of WP:LEAD and tend towards WP:SYNTH. -- 109.79.188.174 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has often enough to become a topic of discussion at Project Film[2] -- 109.78.197.202 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that the discussion has resulted in changes to the MOS as well by this point, although additional input could be beneficial (link is also the same as the one above in the original comment). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the opal plays a CENTRAL role in the movie, I don't know why you keep removing this"[edit]

regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncut_Gems&diff=prev&oldid=959402091

Yes, the opal plays a central role in the movie, but the scene in which it is discovered in Ethiopia is not an important part of the plot and can be omitted. The critical point is that the protagonist orders it and events unfold, not that miners discover it in Ethopia. Popcornfud (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without discovering it, there wouldn't be an opal, the main character doesn't order it from space. It is also INTERESTING (it's a movie) who discover it, why do you want to omit that fact. CABF45 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can just say While Garnett is in the store, a rare Ethiopian black opal Howard has ordered arrives. Readers won't wonder if Howard ordered it from space. Popcornfud (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it interesting and worthy of mentioning who exactly discovered it. So I would leave it as it is.

In 2010, Ethiopian Jewish miners retrieve a rare black opal from the Welo mine in Africa.

I hope you don't have a problem with anything in THAT ONE SENTENCE. CABF45 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I do - it's the sentence I'm saying we don't need, as I've explained above. Popcornfud (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it interesting and worthy of mentioning who exactly discovered it. So I would leave it as it is. CABF45 (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes[edit]

People have commented about Sandler's costume in this film, comparing his look to Lando Calrissian, including Billy Dee Williams and Sandler replied.[3] Perhaps this was intentional. If anyone can also find a source from the Production/Costume design side it might be worth including something about this in the article. -- 109.79.169.6 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I find it slightly amusing but this article is being persistently vandalized[4] by someone claiming that it was released in Europe as "Click 2". The article should probably be locked. -- 109.77.207.155 (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More Click 2 vandalism,[5] from another IP user whose entire Contribution to Wikipedia seems to be this same vandalism over and over again. -- 109.76.196.168 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it.[6] Funnier than most vandalism but still vandalism. Might be a good idea to lock this article. -- 109.78.195.245 (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandal sure is persistent.[7] -- 109.76.196.41 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck[edit]

The film is full of profanity but apparently the word fuck was uttered 560 times. Nice bit of trivia but still trivia and original research so I removed/reverted it.[8] It also did not seem like the Critical response section was the appropriate place to include it, even if it had include a reliable source to WP:VERIFY and show it was WP:NOTABLE. -- 109.76.192.5 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix tweeted about it[9] which seems to be the source. -- 109.78.204.175 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed trivia again.[10] -- 109.79.162.163 (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to award nominations (Subsection to Accolades)[edit]

While funny, it seems like a notable piece to add to the page as it is a direct reaction from the lead actor on a notable talk show. Here's a source that's WP:RSPS approved: https://ew.com/movies/2019/12/03/adam-sandler-uncut-gems-oscars-win-bad-movie/

...and the text from the removed post by the IP 109.79.167.27: During an interview with Howard Stern in December 2019, Sandler promised to make the "worst movie ever" if he did not win an Oscar for his performance in Uncut Gems, stating, "If I don't get it, I'm going to (...) come back and do one again that is so bad on purpose just to make you all pay. That's how I get them".

Does anyone have any objections to adding it back? Gold Pieces (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cleared up the sourcing issue so that at least has the basics covered.

It does not merit a subsection either, see WP:OVERSECTION.

It is a joke and not appropriate to include it at all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. (EW.com lean into the joke and suggest Grown Ups 3: Fart Camp. Funny, still not encyclopedic.)

If I was going to include it at all (and I still don't think anyone should) I might try to expand and rewrite it and include Sandler's response to the film as a whole in the Reception section (possibly a subsection), and maybe as part of that mention his joke threat. So it would be good if the article include more commentary from Sandler about working with the Safdie brothers and his opinions about how the film turned out, rather than putting unnecessary emphasis on a throwaway joke. But I do not agree it is noteworthy or think that it is a good idea to include it. -- 109.79.169.73 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noa Fisher[edit]

What is the significance of mentioning Noa Fisher’s debut? She has not since had a notable career. 98.13.56.126 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]