![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
65 (upcoming film) → 65 (film) – Per WP:NCFILM, there's no reason to add "upcoming" or a year to the title as there's no other film with that name. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Paramount Pictures doesn't do this film. And does Skydance Media have something to do with it? Zack41Attack ( talk) 02:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Here, I removed the content under a "Post-production" subsection because it was entirely attributed to "Mr H Reviews" on YouTube. I did not find this content covered in other sources, reliable or unreliable. If the leak is covered in reliable sources, then the content can be re-included. In any case, if the content is true, reliably-sourced comparisons will happen closer to release. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 01:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like "science fiction thriller" is currently the most verifiable genre to use for this film. It is used in the official website's description, and reliable sources covering the recent trailer have used this label. We should use this until around the time of its release, in case reviews categorize it differently, per WP:FILMLEAD. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Valddlac, regarding this, the point of keeping the genre verifiable and duly weighted in the opening sentence is to avoid genre bloat. You added "action" to "science fiction". Why not "adventure" or "thriller"? Why not all of it -- "science fiction action-adventure thriller"? People like to add their preferences, and it bloats over time. The most universally-agreed upon genre here is science fiction. Beyond that, we need a consensus that a particular subgenre is verifiable through reliable sources labeling it as such, otherwise it's just everyone's opinions and everyone justifying their opinions, which doesn't mean squat. In addition, there is no urgency to touch on all genres in the first sentence. We can establish throughout the lead section (which is bare at this time) to indicate that fighting-off is happening (implies action), that there is a particular mission (adventure), and that their lives are under threat (thrilling). I don't know if that helps to consider. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the first sentence of the lead section should identify the most noteworthy context upfront. That context is the starring actor Adam Driver, based on reliable sources headlining the actor. We are not required to name the director without the starring actor in the first sentence every time, especially when they are not household names or not being headlined. See User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films for more policy and guideline details. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is there a category mentioning dinosaurs, yet dinosaurs are mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? Also, didn't dinosaurs go extinct 66 million years ago? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 05:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
whoever you are, this summary is really really bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.242.74 ( talk) 16:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The premise of this movie as stated (admittedly taken from press materials) is flatly, obviously wrong. Adam Driver is not an astronaut or pilot who gets "realizes he's stuck on Earth 65 million years in the past." Adam Driver is a pilot of his own time, from his own planet, who has never heard of Earth, does no time travelling whatsoever, and crash lands on a planet that has what we TODAY know as dinosaurs, because that planet happens to be what we know TODAY as Earth. This is being billed as a time travel movie. It is decidedly not a time travel movie. KStraith2 ( talk) 21:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
65 (upcoming 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/2023 July 13 § 65 (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Where is it mentioned that the name of Mills' wife is Alya? She is credited as "Nevine's mother". Glasfaser Wien ( talk) 08:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It is a fasolasuchus, there are 644 sources I counted saying that especially that article https://www.thewrap.com/adam-driver-65-dinosaurs-explained/ TheCarch ( talk) 03:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
how and why he looks human. SFandLogicReader ( talk) 11:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
65 (upcoming film) → 65 (film) – Per WP:NCFILM, there's no reason to add "upcoming" or a year to the title as there's no other film with that name. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Paramount Pictures doesn't do this film. And does Skydance Media have something to do with it? Zack41Attack ( talk) 02:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Here, I removed the content under a "Post-production" subsection because it was entirely attributed to "Mr H Reviews" on YouTube. I did not find this content covered in other sources, reliable or unreliable. If the leak is covered in reliable sources, then the content can be re-included. In any case, if the content is true, reliably-sourced comparisons will happen closer to release. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 01:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like "science fiction thriller" is currently the most verifiable genre to use for this film. It is used in the official website's description, and reliable sources covering the recent trailer have used this label. We should use this until around the time of its release, in case reviews categorize it differently, per WP:FILMLEAD. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Valddlac, regarding this, the point of keeping the genre verifiable and duly weighted in the opening sentence is to avoid genre bloat. You added "action" to "science fiction". Why not "adventure" or "thriller"? Why not all of it -- "science fiction action-adventure thriller"? People like to add their preferences, and it bloats over time. The most universally-agreed upon genre here is science fiction. Beyond that, we need a consensus that a particular subgenre is verifiable through reliable sources labeling it as such, otherwise it's just everyone's opinions and everyone justifying their opinions, which doesn't mean squat. In addition, there is no urgency to touch on all genres in the first sentence. We can establish throughout the lead section (which is bare at this time) to indicate that fighting-off is happening (implies action), that there is a particular mission (adventure), and that their lives are under threat (thrilling). I don't know if that helps to consider. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the first sentence of the lead section should identify the most noteworthy context upfront. That context is the starring actor Adam Driver, based on reliable sources headlining the actor. We are not required to name the director without the starring actor in the first sentence every time, especially when they are not household names or not being headlined. See User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films for more policy and guideline details. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is there a category mentioning dinosaurs, yet dinosaurs are mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? Also, didn't dinosaurs go extinct 66 million years ago? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 05:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
whoever you are, this summary is really really bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.242.74 ( talk) 16:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The premise of this movie as stated (admittedly taken from press materials) is flatly, obviously wrong. Adam Driver is not an astronaut or pilot who gets "realizes he's stuck on Earth 65 million years in the past." Adam Driver is a pilot of his own time, from his own planet, who has never heard of Earth, does no time travelling whatsoever, and crash lands on a planet that has what we TODAY know as dinosaurs, because that planet happens to be what we know TODAY as Earth. This is being billed as a time travel movie. It is decidedly not a time travel movie. KStraith2 ( talk) 21:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
65 (upcoming 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/2023 July 13 § 65 (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Where is it mentioned that the name of Mills' wife is Alya? She is credited as "Nevine's mother". Glasfaser Wien ( talk) 08:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It is a fasolasuchus, there are 644 sources I counted saying that especially that article https://www.thewrap.com/adam-driver-65-dinosaurs-explained/ TheCarch ( talk) 03:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
how and why he looks human. SFandLogicReader ( talk) 11:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)