This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1917 (2019 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1917 (2019 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() |
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 |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
There is an invisible comment on the page telling editors not to use “critical acclaim” to describe the critical response, could somebody explain why this is the case? Many other film pages use this, I don’t see why this one can’t? Fobz12345 ( talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes has 89% positive reviews, but 1 of the section’s 3 paras, taking up nearly 1/3rd of the section, is given over to a negative review. This is WP:UNDUE. Boscaswell talk 09:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor today changed the lead from saying "British...film" to "English...film". I can understand the description English for places, and for individuals who identify explicitly as such, but for such a large cooperative project as this film, where the co-writer is clearly Scottish, and much filming was done in Scotland, British seems more appropriate.
HiLo48 (
talk)
06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedy close. Page already moved to the title per guidelines: 1917 (1970 film) and 1917 (2019 film). ( non-admin closure) Hddty ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
– Can "film" accurately describe a short film? I don't think so. Unreal7 ( talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The previous titles should be restored immediately. It’s outrageous that Crookesmoor changes them without any discussion, seemingly on a whim. Sorry, but I don’t know whether this is an oppose or a support.
Boscaswell
talk
21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have moved both articles back to the titles they previously had. No idea why they were changed in the first place. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems like there's something of a contradiction now, with the lede reading "British film" and the IB/categories saying it is a British–American co-production. Can't find any source to back up either, and to confuse matters further, the first source I could find regarding this is the BFI database, which lists four countries: US, UK, Spain, and India. What should the article say?-- Sunshineisles2 ( talk) 06:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
As per the MoS, the article’s lead sentence should say what the reliable sources say. That there were elements of co-production doesn’t prevent the artistic product being seen as British, if that’s what other sources are reporting. In such a case, the article body and infobox can set out the details of the various national involvements. Do a check and you will find sources from across the world that describe 1917 as a British movie or film - the UK ones are a given since 1917 just won “best British film” at BAFTA - but you will find references from the US, Ireland, Australia and South Africa. For example from the US, Variety.com (US edition), [1], Forbes, [2] AVclub, [3] and Hollywood Reporter. [4] (“home soil”). MapReader ( talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have quoted the MOS and provided links to several other policies and guidelines. Instead of repeatedly telling others to read the MOS, maybe you could provide some quotes and links? Also, maybe you should also provide some sourcing for your claims, because 3 of the 4 sources you provided above are about the BAFTAs, where 1917 had just won an award for "Outstanding British Film" and so obviously those sources are going to use that phrase when talking about the award. The only other source is a Forbes article written by a contributor, which is unreliable according to WP:RSP. You can keep talking about the MOS and sources, but it would be much more helpful if you provided the actual evidence for what you claim. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Enhancing wayfaring Stranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashsharm884 ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi All,
I'm new to editing and wanted to add to the historical inaccuracy section. My first couple of attempts were removed as I didn't cite a source (despite the facts being easily confirmed by numerous sources). So I then added a source yet the edit was still removed! Therefore, grateful for any pointers as to what I'm doing wrong please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Re accuracy. The section of the film with "rocks, rapids and a waterfall" makes no geographical sense. The film is overwhelmingly set in chalk downland, (implying the broader "Somme" region) or in waist-deep mud (implying Flanders). The rivers in these areas are invariably sluggish and meandering or comprehensively canalised. There were no rapids or waterfalls in any of the areas on the Western Front in which British forces were operating. This whole section of the film was surely contrived for the sake of the plot.
Many thanks Mapreader and have read the '5 pillars.' However, I'm still a tad confused. The film states it is set in April 1917; I provided a source (as you requested) stating the aircraft didn't enter service until June 1917 as well as images showing the unique wing dihedral. Ho hum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mapreader! R M O'Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done, Wikipedia! Let me guess, one "consensus" resulted in one result, another one in the exact opposite. Am I close? -- 84.132.154.198 ( talk) 16:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I find it strange that an article about a file released and filmed in the US was using a the D-M-Y format. I changed it to M-D-Y but I am bringing it here to the talk page for review. 108.30.105.141 ( talk) 09:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP editor would be advised to read the article and the talk page discussion, which have already covered the nationality topic, based on citation of reliable sources. I don’t understand how he can possibly think that this is an American film. MapReader ( talk) 12:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Right now we dedicate a paragraph to Cathy Tempelsman's opinion about the historical accuracy of this film. Cathy Tempelsman is not a historian of any kind. She is not an expert in WWI. The article used as a source is an opinion piece she wrote in the New York Times. It's a primary source, reliable only for reporting her own views on the subject, and since she has no qualifications whatsoever when it comes to the history of WWI, her views on the subject are no more relevant than anyone else's. This section should be sourced either to secondary reliable sources or to the opinions of actual WWI experts. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
User:MapReader, it doesn't matter whether you think the opinion is "credible" or "well-argued", nor does it matter that it was published in the New York Times. The fact is that it is an opinion piece, and thus a primary source, reliable only for the opinion of its author. And the author is not an expert in history. Everyone has an opinion. Many of those opinions get published, some of them in newspapers like the New York Times. Tempelsman's opinion is no more relevant to this article than yours or mine, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There are much better sources out there that discuss this. For example, [7], [8], and [9]. These are all secondary sources that incorporate interviews with actual WWI historians. I'll attempt to add these to the article instead. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree - it struck me as out of place when reading this. While a "disregard for human life" by military command may or may not be true, I think it unlikely that an operation would be allowed to go ahead that was headed into a known trap. The disregard for life could be argued in the sense that high casualties would be accepted in order to achieve a goal, not that command would wilfully ignore intelligence. This playwright's opinion seems dangerously presumptive, does not seem to be relevant and I'm unsure why it's included in the article if not written by an expert or significant person. If she were a particularly famous playwright I might understand, but as a relatively unknown one her opinion doesn't seem significant here Flobberz ( talk) 01:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that personal opionion of Cathy Tempelsman should be removed as its pretty much bizzare and just don't have any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.198.82 ( talk) 21:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding a cover art for the EP released Fitriamirrol ( talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the category "IMAX films"? 82.27.106.254 ( talk) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X=Categories as they are. Y=Categories with "Category:IMAX films" 82.27.106.254 ( talk) 20:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
I’d like you to reconsider the content in your ‘historical accuracy’ section. I think that by focussing on the accuracy or otherwise of black and Asian soldiers (as the first points raised) you risk playing into a … difficult narrative.
In the film: (1) a man falls down a waterfall in the - famously flat - Flanders; (2) the tactics used are indicative rather than accurate: consider the accuracy of the German rifle and the 30-40m shots that are routinely missed; (3) there is a clear prioritisation of narrative over documentary filming.
Given the need to make a film that is watchable by maintaining a narrative, it is not unreasonable to represent the black and Asian soldiers through a historical inaccuracy. In the same way it is not a travesty to invent a 10-15m waterfall in Flanders.
By choosing to focus your paragraph about accuracy on race in the first instance you might be perpetuating a pretty worrying trope. The black, Asian, and Irish contribution to WW1 has been often missed (for a number of reasons more complicated than racism). Why spotlight the manner of their inclusion in the film in a way you don’t spotlight other glaring errors?
I’d propose just deleting the historical accuracy paragraph, or properly researching and documenting every inaccuracy. Alternatively change the paragraph to ‘People were concerned because there were too many black and Asian people in the film. They - and we - focussed on this narrative device than any of the other narrative devices used in the film.’
Thank you. 148.252.129.149 ( talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure the paragraph about Black and Sikh soldiers is supported by the sources it gives, at least not to the degree of confidence it seems to present:
However, I don't have access to The Times source or the Encyclopedia of World War I source, so I'm not sure what they say. But the bulk of the sources cited in the section don't really seem to back up what the section is saying with the degree of confidence to which the section is saying, and barely any of the sources are about the film itself (only the Telegraph and the The Times sources). NHCLS ( talk) 21:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
X="Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree before looking at photographs of his wife and children which, like the message paper, have miraculously survived undamaged after prolonged immersion in the river." Y="Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree before looking at photographs of his wife and children."
Pointing out plot holes is not the purpose of the plot summary. The comment about water damage is also snarky, which violates neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:81:E580:E121:2112:6C35:78A7 ( talk) 00:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you link 1917: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack in the Music section 223.178.86.76 ( talk) 12:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Done --
Euryalus (
talk)
12:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
box office should be changed from 384.6 to 384.5 Lmnopw ( talk) 12:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@
MapReader: You must be unfamiliar with
WP:FILMCOUNTRY. The policy states: If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section.
According to the infobox, this film is a British-American co-production; as such, the opening sentence should omit mention of its nationality. It's not about RS's, this is pretty straightforward.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
the film is widely described by the RS as a British film, then the infobox should be adjusted; you cannot claim the film is British-American in the infobox but only British in the lead. We always look at the infobox (where I see there is a source for British-American involvement, so I'm not sure why you claim otherwise) when determining whether to include nationality in the lead. If you have an objection, please start a discussion at WT:MOSFILM to change the guideline's wording, as this is how editors have interpreted and followed the guideline for years. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this dispute. The source provided in the infobox clearly lists both the UK and the US as "Production Countries", which seems unambiguous to me.
If that's correct, then the countries should not be listed in the lead sentence per FILMCOUNTRY, as noted.
If that's not correct, then are we asserting that The Numbers isn't a reliable source for production country data? Has that claim been made before, and if so, where? If it's just incorrect in this case, why aren't alternative sources being provided to support the claim that it is strictly a British film? DonIago ( talk) 05:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
. Therefore, I do not think it is consistent with WP:WEIGHT to describe it as a solely British film, and reputable sources clearly show its nationality is not "singularly" defined. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. Different national records and the statistics on which they are based can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities...Adopting a pragmatic approach, the Observatory considers as the country of origin of a specific film the country out of which the film is financed. In the case of international co-productions, the film is assigned to the country which provides the majority share of production financing. The Observatory tries to list all co-producing countries in the order of their financial investment in the film (whether known or assumed), with the country having provided the majority financial investment in the production in first place.
simply [follow] the RS in terms of how a film is described. There is, however, a guideline (FILMCOUNTRY) that says to omit mention of a film's nationality/production countries if there is more than one. As I and now Doniago have said, it's really not a debatable topic. If you are saying there were previous discussions on this page where editors concluded we should call it a British film, they are wrong. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override community-wide consensus. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
MapReader, can you provide a policy-based reason for not following FILMCOUNTRY? If not, there is no reason to violate FILMCOUNTRY. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
singularly defined by reliable sources? TL;DR, per this article's infobox, this film is a British-American production; however, MapReader is insisting that we should say "British film" in the lead because [see comment directly above]. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
If that's the case, FILMCOUNTRY needs to be amended to clarify that sources
actually refers to sources in prose
, and that the lead does not necessarily need to match the infobox. But I'll say this: is a British film
is another way of saying is a film whose country of production is the United Kingdom
, so this confusing arrangement is just inviting editors — IP or otherwise — to attempt to change the lead to British-American film
. This is what I assumed was one of the reasons behind FILMCOUNTRY, not this arbitrary case-by-case analysis of sources that overcomplicates things. Editors are not going to sit down and have a discussion every time a film is a multinational production to decide what the "majority" of sources label the film "in prose" (without directly citing said sources in the lead or anywhere else in the article).
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
After the soldier jumped in the river and fell over the waterfall is when the cherry blossoms began to fall. I know it’s an extremely minor correction—I just like accuracy. Helipilot68 ( talk) 12:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Filming also took place at Bovingdon Airfield Studios over 8 months from January to September 2019. The actors had to rehearse for 6 months on location before shooting started, all of which had to be supported as if filming the entire time. Over a mile of trenches were dug for the film, including on Bovingdon’s huge radar and triangle field backlots. It’s one of the largest-scale filming endeavours to have taken place on Bovingdon’s site, recreating No Man’s Land, Allied and German trenches, and large bomb craters. Bradburysl ( talk) 21:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1917 (2019 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1917 (2019 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() |
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 |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
There is an invisible comment on the page telling editors not to use “critical acclaim” to describe the critical response, could somebody explain why this is the case? Many other film pages use this, I don’t see why this one can’t? Fobz12345 ( talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes has 89% positive reviews, but 1 of the section’s 3 paras, taking up nearly 1/3rd of the section, is given over to a negative review. This is WP:UNDUE. Boscaswell talk 09:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor today changed the lead from saying "British...film" to "English...film". I can understand the description English for places, and for individuals who identify explicitly as such, but for such a large cooperative project as this film, where the co-writer is clearly Scottish, and much filming was done in Scotland, British seems more appropriate.
HiLo48 (
talk)
06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedy close. Page already moved to the title per guidelines: 1917 (1970 film) and 1917 (2019 film). ( non-admin closure) Hddty ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
– Can "film" accurately describe a short film? I don't think so. Unreal7 ( talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The previous titles should be restored immediately. It’s outrageous that Crookesmoor changes them without any discussion, seemingly on a whim. Sorry, but I don’t know whether this is an oppose or a support.
Boscaswell
talk
21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have moved both articles back to the titles they previously had. No idea why they were changed in the first place. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems like there's something of a contradiction now, with the lede reading "British film" and the IB/categories saying it is a British–American co-production. Can't find any source to back up either, and to confuse matters further, the first source I could find regarding this is the BFI database, which lists four countries: US, UK, Spain, and India. What should the article say?-- Sunshineisles2 ( talk) 06:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
As per the MoS, the article’s lead sentence should say what the reliable sources say. That there were elements of co-production doesn’t prevent the artistic product being seen as British, if that’s what other sources are reporting. In such a case, the article body and infobox can set out the details of the various national involvements. Do a check and you will find sources from across the world that describe 1917 as a British movie or film - the UK ones are a given since 1917 just won “best British film” at BAFTA - but you will find references from the US, Ireland, Australia and South Africa. For example from the US, Variety.com (US edition), [1], Forbes, [2] AVclub, [3] and Hollywood Reporter. [4] (“home soil”). MapReader ( talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have quoted the MOS and provided links to several other policies and guidelines. Instead of repeatedly telling others to read the MOS, maybe you could provide some quotes and links? Also, maybe you should also provide some sourcing for your claims, because 3 of the 4 sources you provided above are about the BAFTAs, where 1917 had just won an award for "Outstanding British Film" and so obviously those sources are going to use that phrase when talking about the award. The only other source is a Forbes article written by a contributor, which is unreliable according to WP:RSP. You can keep talking about the MOS and sources, but it would be much more helpful if you provided the actual evidence for what you claim. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Enhancing wayfaring Stranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashsharm884 ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi All,
I'm new to editing and wanted to add to the historical inaccuracy section. My first couple of attempts were removed as I didn't cite a source (despite the facts being easily confirmed by numerous sources). So I then added a source yet the edit was still removed! Therefore, grateful for any pointers as to what I'm doing wrong please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Re accuracy. The section of the film with "rocks, rapids and a waterfall" makes no geographical sense. The film is overwhelmingly set in chalk downland, (implying the broader "Somme" region) or in waist-deep mud (implying Flanders). The rivers in these areas are invariably sluggish and meandering or comprehensively canalised. There were no rapids or waterfalls in any of the areas on the Western Front in which British forces were operating. This whole section of the film was surely contrived for the sake of the plot.
Many thanks Mapreader and have read the '5 pillars.' However, I'm still a tad confused. The film states it is set in April 1917; I provided a source (as you requested) stating the aircraft didn't enter service until June 1917 as well as images showing the unique wing dihedral. Ho hum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mapreader! R M O'Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done, Wikipedia! Let me guess, one "consensus" resulted in one result, another one in the exact opposite. Am I close? -- 84.132.154.198 ( talk) 16:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I find it strange that an article about a file released and filmed in the US was using a the D-M-Y format. I changed it to M-D-Y but I am bringing it here to the talk page for review. 108.30.105.141 ( talk) 09:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP editor would be advised to read the article and the talk page discussion, which have already covered the nationality topic, based on citation of reliable sources. I don’t understand how he can possibly think that this is an American film. MapReader ( talk) 12:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Right now we dedicate a paragraph to Cathy Tempelsman's opinion about the historical accuracy of this film. Cathy Tempelsman is not a historian of any kind. She is not an expert in WWI. The article used as a source is an opinion piece she wrote in the New York Times. It's a primary source, reliable only for reporting her own views on the subject, and since she has no qualifications whatsoever when it comes to the history of WWI, her views on the subject are no more relevant than anyone else's. This section should be sourced either to secondary reliable sources or to the opinions of actual WWI experts. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
User:MapReader, it doesn't matter whether you think the opinion is "credible" or "well-argued", nor does it matter that it was published in the New York Times. The fact is that it is an opinion piece, and thus a primary source, reliable only for the opinion of its author. And the author is not an expert in history. Everyone has an opinion. Many of those opinions get published, some of them in newspapers like the New York Times. Tempelsman's opinion is no more relevant to this article than yours or mine, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There are much better sources out there that discuss this. For example, [7], [8], and [9]. These are all secondary sources that incorporate interviews with actual WWI historians. I'll attempt to add these to the article instead. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree - it struck me as out of place when reading this. While a "disregard for human life" by military command may or may not be true, I think it unlikely that an operation would be allowed to go ahead that was headed into a known trap. The disregard for life could be argued in the sense that high casualties would be accepted in order to achieve a goal, not that command would wilfully ignore intelligence. This playwright's opinion seems dangerously presumptive, does not seem to be relevant and I'm unsure why it's included in the article if not written by an expert or significant person. If she were a particularly famous playwright I might understand, but as a relatively unknown one her opinion doesn't seem significant here Flobberz ( talk) 01:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that personal opionion of Cathy Tempelsman should be removed as its pretty much bizzare and just don't have any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.198.82 ( talk) 21:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding a cover art for the EP released Fitriamirrol ( talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the category "IMAX films"? 82.27.106.254 ( talk) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X=Categories as they are. Y=Categories with "Category:IMAX films" 82.27.106.254 ( talk) 20:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
I’d like you to reconsider the content in your ‘historical accuracy’ section. I think that by focussing on the accuracy or otherwise of black and Asian soldiers (as the first points raised) you risk playing into a … difficult narrative.
In the film: (1) a man falls down a waterfall in the - famously flat - Flanders; (2) the tactics used are indicative rather than accurate: consider the accuracy of the German rifle and the 30-40m shots that are routinely missed; (3) there is a clear prioritisation of narrative over documentary filming.
Given the need to make a film that is watchable by maintaining a narrative, it is not unreasonable to represent the black and Asian soldiers through a historical inaccuracy. In the same way it is not a travesty to invent a 10-15m waterfall in Flanders.
By choosing to focus your paragraph about accuracy on race in the first instance you might be perpetuating a pretty worrying trope. The black, Asian, and Irish contribution to WW1 has been often missed (for a number of reasons more complicated than racism). Why spotlight the manner of their inclusion in the film in a way you don’t spotlight other glaring errors?
I’d propose just deleting the historical accuracy paragraph, or properly researching and documenting every inaccuracy. Alternatively change the paragraph to ‘People were concerned because there were too many black and Asian people in the film. They - and we - focussed on this narrative device than any of the other narrative devices used in the film.’
Thank you. 148.252.129.149 ( talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure the paragraph about Black and Sikh soldiers is supported by the sources it gives, at least not to the degree of confidence it seems to present:
However, I don't have access to The Times source or the Encyclopedia of World War I source, so I'm not sure what they say. But the bulk of the sources cited in the section don't really seem to back up what the section is saying with the degree of confidence to which the section is saying, and barely any of the sources are about the film itself (only the Telegraph and the The Times sources). NHCLS ( talk) 21:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
X="Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree before looking at photographs of his wife and children which, like the message paper, have miraculously survived undamaged after prolonged immersion in the river." Y="Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree before looking at photographs of his wife and children."
Pointing out plot holes is not the purpose of the plot summary. The comment about water damage is also snarky, which violates neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:81:E580:E121:2112:6C35:78A7 ( talk) 00:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you link 1917: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack in the Music section 223.178.86.76 ( talk) 12:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Done --
Euryalus (
talk)
12:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
box office should be changed from 384.6 to 384.5 Lmnopw ( talk) 12:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@
MapReader: You must be unfamiliar with
WP:FILMCOUNTRY. The policy states: If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section.
According to the infobox, this film is a British-American co-production; as such, the opening sentence should omit mention of its nationality. It's not about RS's, this is pretty straightforward.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
the film is widely described by the RS as a British film, then the infobox should be adjusted; you cannot claim the film is British-American in the infobox but only British in the lead. We always look at the infobox (where I see there is a source for British-American involvement, so I'm not sure why you claim otherwise) when determining whether to include nationality in the lead. If you have an objection, please start a discussion at WT:MOSFILM to change the guideline's wording, as this is how editors have interpreted and followed the guideline for years. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this dispute. The source provided in the infobox clearly lists both the UK and the US as "Production Countries", which seems unambiguous to me.
If that's correct, then the countries should not be listed in the lead sentence per FILMCOUNTRY, as noted.
If that's not correct, then are we asserting that The Numbers isn't a reliable source for production country data? Has that claim been made before, and if so, where? If it's just incorrect in this case, why aren't alternative sources being provided to support the claim that it is strictly a British film? DonIago ( talk) 05:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
. Therefore, I do not think it is consistent with WP:WEIGHT to describe it as a solely British film, and reputable sources clearly show its nationality is not "singularly" defined. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. Different national records and the statistics on which they are based can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities...Adopting a pragmatic approach, the Observatory considers as the country of origin of a specific film the country out of which the film is financed. In the case of international co-productions, the film is assigned to the country which provides the majority share of production financing. The Observatory tries to list all co-producing countries in the order of their financial investment in the film (whether known or assumed), with the country having provided the majority financial investment in the production in first place.
simply [follow] the RS in terms of how a film is described. There is, however, a guideline (FILMCOUNTRY) that says to omit mention of a film's nationality/production countries if there is more than one. As I and now Doniago have said, it's really not a debatable topic. If you are saying there were previous discussions on this page where editors concluded we should call it a British film, they are wrong. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override community-wide consensus. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
MapReader, can you provide a policy-based reason for not following FILMCOUNTRY? If not, there is no reason to violate FILMCOUNTRY. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
singularly defined by reliable sources? TL;DR, per this article's infobox, this film is a British-American production; however, MapReader is insisting that we should say "British film" in the lead because [see comment directly above]. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
If that's the case, FILMCOUNTRY needs to be amended to clarify that sources
actually refers to sources in prose
, and that the lead does not necessarily need to match the infobox. But I'll say this: is a British film
is another way of saying is a film whose country of production is the United Kingdom
, so this confusing arrangement is just inviting editors — IP or otherwise — to attempt to change the lead to British-American film
. This is what I assumed was one of the reasons behind FILMCOUNTRY, not this arbitrary case-by-case analysis of sources that overcomplicates things. Editors are not going to sit down and have a discussion every time a film is a multinational production to decide what the "majority" of sources label the film "in prose" (without directly citing said sources in the lead or anywhere else in the article).
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
After the soldier jumped in the river and fell over the waterfall is when the cherry blossoms began to fall. I know it’s an extremely minor correction—I just like accuracy. Helipilot68 ( talk) 12:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Filming also took place at Bovingdon Airfield Studios over 8 months from January to September 2019. The actors had to rehearse for 6 months on location before shooting started, all of which had to be supported as if filming the entire time. Over a mile of trenches were dug for the film, including on Bovingdon’s huge radar and triangle field backlots. It’s one of the largest-scale filming endeavours to have taken place on Bovingdon’s site, recreating No Man’s Land, Allied and German trenches, and large bomb craters. Bradburysl ( talk) 21:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)