This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Wick (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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | John Wick (film) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
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 |
![]() | On 24 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to John Wick. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Clearly identifiable as a Mach 1: https://www.hotcars.com/the-true-story-behind-john-wicks-mustang/
Ford's authorized copy of it is a Mach 1: https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/classic-restorations-1969-ford-mustang-mach-1-hitman-2899981/
Iosef is a stereotypical punk who doesn't know what he's looking at, and would call a Camaro a Corvette if he didn't have a name badge to look at. DiogenesNY ( talk) 21:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Came here from WT:FILM#RFC at Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1. I would suggest you cut the Gordian Knot by referring to it as a "car" and then move on. You could perhaps add some adjective like "precious". TompaDompa ( talk) 21:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Winston informs John that Viggo is preparing to leave the city by helicopter– there is critical information missing here!!!!!!11 What model helicopter is it? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DiogenesNY: Saw that you tried to change this yet again. Did you forget about the discussion above? -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 23:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh dear, not this again. I suggest removing the information about the specific model, including the explanatory footnote, from the plot section altogether. These minutiae don't belong there anyway. As I said above, "precious car" would have been just fine. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, this source states the average sale price of a Boss 429 is over $312k according to Classic.com ( SlashGear essentially concurs), opposed to the average sale price of $74k for the Mach 1. Add that to the fact that less than 1400 Boss 429 variants were produced compared to 70,000+ Mach 1s. The SlashGear article even offers some legitimate reasons why the Mach 1 was selected by the props team:
Sometimes film sets simply can't find certain vehicles and are forced to do their best, a process that's made even harder when you add rarity into the mix. Given the sheer number of Mustang Mach 1 cars out there, compared to the limited availability of Mustang Boss 429 models, it's perhaps no surprise that the props team responsible ... opted for something more attainable. Especially when you consider the expensive prospect of inadvertently destroying an original car on-set, or the possibility of time delays should something on a rare vehicle simply break.
They ended up destroying 5 cars during filming; another point worth noting. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 11:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
...received a great deal of supposition and conjecture in return" – It may appear that way, because you have asked a question that you need an answer to, but the answer itself doesn't actually matter to a plot summary. Plot summaries describe the events of the film as they occur. One character clearly calls it a Boss 429. The other character, John Wick, doesn't correct him or react in any way to imply that the label is incorrect. The model is even identified in the script by Kolstad:
Having shaved and showered, wearing an old -but well-fitted-gray suit, John pushes open the garage door......to reveal a legend in dire need of a total overhaul: a black, 1969 FORD MUSTANG `BOSS 429'.
Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about the truth? Instead of saying the film was directed by Chad Stahelski and then having to explain that he *actually* co-directed it, why not say the truth; that it was directed by Stahelski and David Leitch, then indicate why the DGA refused to acknowledge it? Leitch should be listed in the lede and in the infobox, since he actually co-directed the film, no matter what the DGA says.
If the MOS says we follow the DGA, that should change. Wikipedia is not beholden to the DGA (or it shouldn't be) and should be devoted to reflecting reality. 2002:620D:3AF:0:D82D:A054:991C:AEA8 ( talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This was settled in 2014 in favor of listing both directors in the lead and infobox, with Leitch as "(uncredited)". Many sources show they worked as a team through the entire production. Darkwarriorblake says above The entire article clearly states they were co-directors - so it follows that this information should be clearly present in the lead and infobox, which are supposed to summarize the article.
Here's what was said back then:
Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together. Every source that talked about this film up to its release listed two directors, and some continued to do so after its release. There are interviews of the two together. They both belong in the lead and infobox, with Leitch listed as uncredited. A good source should be found for how this happened, but there's plenty that back up it did happen. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with him being included in the lead, but uncredited people do not belong in the infobox. This has been a broadly held opinion for quite some time, and I don't see why it should change now. I'm absolutely fine with listing him where appropriate, including the lead, but belong in the infobox he does not. Sock (
tocktalk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)- This discussion over Gone with the Wind is very similar, in that there were several people without on-screen credits who weren't added. I should note that I absolutely agree that Leitch should get his credit in the lead and in the article, but the infobox is for credited contributors only. If Leitsch had directed it and then went "Alan Smithee" or something, I think that's the only time it's particularly appropriate to add uncredited contributors to infoboxes. Sock (
tocktalk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was a later participant in that discussion. This is more notable than that. One did not fill in when the other was absent, like Gone with the Wind. Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together as a team. They were credited together on every source I saw up until just before the release. Your standard is not reflected in many film articles. Numerous sources list uncredited people in infoboxes. When clearly notable, as it is here, it should be included as long as they're properly labelled. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- We could add a footnote similar to the one at Edge of Tomorrow (film) (for screenwriting) to explain that David Leitch was involved with directing too. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- That would be better than nothing, but the involvement of the now uncredited director is considerably more than that would imply. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that we don't have any sources stating why he's now uncredited. There was clearly a reason behind it, but it's unknown to us at this point. There's a chance he wanted to go uncredited and focus more on getting Stahelski boosted into the spotlight. Maybe he hated the film and wanted to take minimal credit for it. We really can't know without a source, which isn't accessible at the moment. I would say that the footnote would work nicely, acknowledging that he was considered a director but was not credited when the film was released. I apologize for my heavy-handedness in terms of the "no uncredited people" argument, but I do stand by it and think that it's unnecessary inclusion nearly 100% of the time. Sock (
tocktalk) 21:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sock, Gothicfilm, this basically says the Directors Guild of America does not support recognizing more than one director for a film. Looks like Cloud Atlas (film) went through something similar as covered here, though not sure how they get away with identifying three directors there and only one here. Politics? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I also do not believe that we are absolutely required to use official credits in the film infobox. The official credits are the appropriate baseline to follow, but I don't think we should be constrained by that if verifiability triumphs over officiality. We can check about the consensus for this, but I would support listing both names with a footnote for the officially-uncredited one to explain what the DGA did here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
After combing through the archives of WT:FILM, it appears that you are indeed correct, Erik. There was a discussion a little while back deciding that it was notable to include them if their contributions were significant and verifiable. I was unaware of this consensus, and after reading through that discussion, I feel a bit bull-headed for thinking no one uncredited should be in the infobox. I'm now all for adding Leitch's credit to the infobox and the lead section, though we should probably add a footnote explaining that his work went uncredited. Sock (
tocktalk) 13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Speaking of not giving credit to those who deserve it, you were right from the start, Gothicfilm, and I apologize for making this could-be open-and-shut issue into an argument. Sock (
tocktalk) 13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Very good. I've restored it to the infobox, as well as the lead. The DGA decision is in the Development section, so I don't think we need a footnote in the infobox. As you can see, I was a participant in that "little while back" discussion too, as well as several others on this subject. As I said then: Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 02:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would suggest including the footnote. People might be confused, coming from the film, seeing that there are two directors when there's only one credited. Sock (
tocktalk) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- My preference is not to add refs or notes to the infobox if the info is in the article body. Here it's in the Development section, and touched on in the lead. This always occurs with "(uncredited)", and there's usually no note in the infobox. Readers who care know to look further into the article. But if you want to add a note, I won't object, as long as the "(uncredited)" also remains in the infobox. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Gothicfilm ( talk) 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
— The name of the film does not require a parenthetical, the franchise should. — ScottSullivan01 ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add neo-noir with action thriller. 39.49.136.228 ( talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Wick (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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | John Wick (film) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
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 |
![]() | On 24 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to John Wick. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Clearly identifiable as a Mach 1: https://www.hotcars.com/the-true-story-behind-john-wicks-mustang/
Ford's authorized copy of it is a Mach 1: https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/classic-restorations-1969-ford-mustang-mach-1-hitman-2899981/
Iosef is a stereotypical punk who doesn't know what he's looking at, and would call a Camaro a Corvette if he didn't have a name badge to look at. DiogenesNY ( talk) 21:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Came here from WT:FILM#RFC at Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1. I would suggest you cut the Gordian Knot by referring to it as a "car" and then move on. You could perhaps add some adjective like "precious". TompaDompa ( talk) 21:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Winston informs John that Viggo is preparing to leave the city by helicopter– there is critical information missing here!!!!!!11 What model helicopter is it? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DiogenesNY: Saw that you tried to change this yet again. Did you forget about the discussion above? -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 23:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh dear, not this again. I suggest removing the information about the specific model, including the explanatory footnote, from the plot section altogether. These minutiae don't belong there anyway. As I said above, "precious car" would have been just fine. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, this source states the average sale price of a Boss 429 is over $312k according to Classic.com ( SlashGear essentially concurs), opposed to the average sale price of $74k for the Mach 1. Add that to the fact that less than 1400 Boss 429 variants were produced compared to 70,000+ Mach 1s. The SlashGear article even offers some legitimate reasons why the Mach 1 was selected by the props team:
Sometimes film sets simply can't find certain vehicles and are forced to do their best, a process that's made even harder when you add rarity into the mix. Given the sheer number of Mustang Mach 1 cars out there, compared to the limited availability of Mustang Boss 429 models, it's perhaps no surprise that the props team responsible ... opted for something more attainable. Especially when you consider the expensive prospect of inadvertently destroying an original car on-set, or the possibility of time delays should something on a rare vehicle simply break.
They ended up destroying 5 cars during filming; another point worth noting. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 11:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
...received a great deal of supposition and conjecture in return" – It may appear that way, because you have asked a question that you need an answer to, but the answer itself doesn't actually matter to a plot summary. Plot summaries describe the events of the film as they occur. One character clearly calls it a Boss 429. The other character, John Wick, doesn't correct him or react in any way to imply that the label is incorrect. The model is even identified in the script by Kolstad:
Having shaved and showered, wearing an old -but well-fitted-gray suit, John pushes open the garage door......to reveal a legend in dire need of a total overhaul: a black, 1969 FORD MUSTANG `BOSS 429'.
Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about the truth? Instead of saying the film was directed by Chad Stahelski and then having to explain that he *actually* co-directed it, why not say the truth; that it was directed by Stahelski and David Leitch, then indicate why the DGA refused to acknowledge it? Leitch should be listed in the lede and in the infobox, since he actually co-directed the film, no matter what the DGA says.
If the MOS says we follow the DGA, that should change. Wikipedia is not beholden to the DGA (or it shouldn't be) and should be devoted to reflecting reality. 2002:620D:3AF:0:D82D:A054:991C:AEA8 ( talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This was settled in 2014 in favor of listing both directors in the lead and infobox, with Leitch as "(uncredited)". Many sources show they worked as a team through the entire production. Darkwarriorblake says above The entire article clearly states they were co-directors - so it follows that this information should be clearly present in the lead and infobox, which are supposed to summarize the article.
Here's what was said back then:
Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together. Every source that talked about this film up to its release listed two directors, and some continued to do so after its release. There are interviews of the two together. They both belong in the lead and infobox, with Leitch listed as uncredited. A good source should be found for how this happened, but there's plenty that back up it did happen. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with him being included in the lead, but uncredited people do not belong in the infobox. This has been a broadly held opinion for quite some time, and I don't see why it should change now. I'm absolutely fine with listing him where appropriate, including the lead, but belong in the infobox he does not. Sock (
tocktalk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)- This discussion over Gone with the Wind is very similar, in that there were several people without on-screen credits who weren't added. I should note that I absolutely agree that Leitch should get his credit in the lead and in the article, but the infobox is for credited contributors only. If Leitsch had directed it and then went "Alan Smithee" or something, I think that's the only time it's particularly appropriate to add uncredited contributors to infoboxes. Sock (
tocktalk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was a later participant in that discussion. This is more notable than that. One did not fill in when the other was absent, like Gone with the Wind. Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together as a team. They were credited together on every source I saw up until just before the release. Your standard is not reflected in many film articles. Numerous sources list uncredited people in infoboxes. When clearly notable, as it is here, it should be included as long as they're properly labelled. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- We could add a footnote similar to the one at Edge of Tomorrow (film) (for screenwriting) to explain that David Leitch was involved with directing too. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- That would be better than nothing, but the involvement of the now uncredited director is considerably more than that would imply. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that we don't have any sources stating why he's now uncredited. There was clearly a reason behind it, but it's unknown to us at this point. There's a chance he wanted to go uncredited and focus more on getting Stahelski boosted into the spotlight. Maybe he hated the film and wanted to take minimal credit for it. We really can't know without a source, which isn't accessible at the moment. I would say that the footnote would work nicely, acknowledging that he was considered a director but was not credited when the film was released. I apologize for my heavy-handedness in terms of the "no uncredited people" argument, but I do stand by it and think that it's unnecessary inclusion nearly 100% of the time. Sock (
tocktalk) 21:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sock, Gothicfilm, this basically says the Directors Guild of America does not support recognizing more than one director for a film. Looks like Cloud Atlas (film) went through something similar as covered here, though not sure how they get away with identifying three directors there and only one here. Politics? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I also do not believe that we are absolutely required to use official credits in the film infobox. The official credits are the appropriate baseline to follow, but I don't think we should be constrained by that if verifiability triumphs over officiality. We can check about the consensus for this, but I would support listing both names with a footnote for the officially-uncredited one to explain what the DGA did here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
After combing through the archives of WT:FILM, it appears that you are indeed correct, Erik. There was a discussion a little while back deciding that it was notable to include them if their contributions were significant and verifiable. I was unaware of this consensus, and after reading through that discussion, I feel a bit bull-headed for thinking no one uncredited should be in the infobox. I'm now all for adding Leitch's credit to the infobox and the lead section, though we should probably add a footnote explaining that his work went uncredited. Sock (
tocktalk) 13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Speaking of not giving credit to those who deserve it, you were right from the start, Gothicfilm, and I apologize for making this could-be open-and-shut issue into an argument. Sock (
tocktalk) 13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Very good. I've restored it to the infobox, as well as the lead. The DGA decision is in the Development section, so I don't think we need a footnote in the infobox. As you can see, I was a participant in that "little while back" discussion too, as well as several others on this subject. As I said then: Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 02:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would suggest including the footnote. People might be confused, coming from the film, seeing that there are two directors when there's only one credited. Sock (
tocktalk) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- My preference is not to add refs or notes to the infobox if the info is in the article body. Here it's in the Development section, and touched on in the lead. This always occurs with "(uncredited)", and there's usually no note in the infobox. Readers who care know to look further into the article. But if you want to add a note, I won't object, as long as the "(uncredited)" also remains in the infobox. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Gothicfilm ( talk) 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
— The name of the film does not require a parenthetical, the franchise should. — ScottSullivan01 ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add neo-noir with action thriller. 39.49.136.228 ( talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)