[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:Top Gun: Maverick: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 112: Line 112:
How do we write that in a concise manner?
How do we write that in a concise manner?
I dunno.
I dunno.

</brk>
.
.
[[User:LP-mn|LP-mn]] ([[User talk:LP-mn|talk]]) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
[[User:LP-mn|LP-mn]] ([[User talk:LP-mn|talk]]) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:51, 6 June 2022

New editor removing information

I restored this information a few times already, because a new editor, apparently first editing as User:2600:8800:4a80:44ef:60c9:c6a4:8d10:c791 and now as User:Dibol is hellbent on removing this. The claim that this is not sourced is not true: sources are heraldjournalism.com and www.augsburger-allgemeine.de. IMDb also had this, but somebody took care to remove this over the last 24 hours. 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  • See my talk page. It's not vandalism if I'm removing INACCURATE INFORMATION. None of the sources you mentioned EVER confirmed that these actors are playing the characters from the original film, and last time I checked, the IMDB entry you mentioned is a USER-SUBMITTED information. Wikipedia policy actually labeled IMDB as a NON-RELIABLE SOURCE.Dibol (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't scream. I can read you well without the capitals. I mentioned three sources, and since you are absolutely right regarding IMDb - even though it is sometimes used as a source on Wikipedia - that leaves us with two more sources. So please stop the removals. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: I can't read German, so I can't speak to the reliability of that site. However, heraldjournalism.com publishes user-submitted content, and though there is some sort of editorial system in place, it doesn't seem high quality. As a case in point, the headline for it's article reads "Tom Hanks Is Continuing Top Gun 2." To my knowledge, Tom Hanks has nothing to do with the movies, as it stars Tom Cruise! No reputable site would let that kind of mistake slide by. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point. Still, I am not sure if that mistake would be enough reason to decide that that the site is not reliable in general. And there are many more sources available, which I will now add. In any case, the editor should talk this over here or at WP:RS/N, instead of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue in question is all of the sites you mentioned are USER-SUBMITTED INFORMATION. That is the main issue. It's repeated erroneous information from IMDB with very little citation given made from these "reporters" in question.Dibol (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m coming into this debate from the edit squabbles over at List of Ed Harris performances. The sources that are being provided are beyond poor. And are also just from the same two non notable websites making the assertion. And if @BilCat: is correct in saying herald journalism is user submitted, then this should realistically be open and shut: unreliable sources, they shouldn’t be included. It’s why we don’t use IMDB as a source. Rusted AutoParts 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but it certainly seems to me that Herald Journal takes user submissions. Excerpts from their editorial policy:
  • All submissions are altered for accuracy, clarity, quality, and length. Herald Journalism doesn’t guarantee that authors can review their work before publication thanks to time constraints inherent within the production method.
  • Submit solely exclusive content that has not been printed elsewhere (e.g., on websites, blogs, newsletters, magazines, books, etc.). Herald Journalism tends to need 1st right of refusal and can copyright all works selected for publication. There aren't any exceptions.
  • Herald Journalism does not tend to publish any inaccurate, misleading, or distorted News. We only present factual content in a way that does not mislead a significant audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information. Make every possible effort to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 5 sources for each of the changes I made. Okay, so Herald Journal is not good. What about the other 4? Debresser (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fact of the matter is none of those sources work due to their un-notability. When Hamm and Harris were cast their character names were not disclosed by the reliable sources that confirmed their additions. Where are these names generating from? It’s very clear to me that someone added those names onto IMDB, these sources saw that and included the names, but since then the names on IMDB have been removed. So those sources are not valid in this situation considering. Rusted AutoParts 19:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may be "very clear" to you, but I call that "conjecture"! Debresser (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, at this point since there's at least three editors contesting these edits perhaps you need to understand you should maybe stop forcing the content back in. Rusted AutoParts 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. The movie does not exist. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose it for WP:AFD. I will offer this little tip about the world though: Just because you cannot see something does not mean that it does not exist. Something for you to ponder on. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess we will just have to take your word for it. You say it exists, so it does. OK. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can still WP:AFD it, if you disagree so strongly. I'd love to watch that exchange happen, TBH.  :) Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The movie has been released now. Hopefully we can all agree that it exists. The claim it didn't exist was totally unwarranted, and likely just trolling. BilCat (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of course it was trolling and pisspoor trolling at that 2603:800C:500:3615:F0AB:5C58:E1B6:A479 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hold My Hand"

We might want to mention Lady Gaga's song "Hold My Hand" and add more detail about the soundtrack in general. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original Release Date

The top of the page states that the film was originally to be released on July 12 2019 but delayed due to post production and Covid-19. Under marketing it says that the first trailer was posted online and premiered on July 18 2019. Both are sourced but obviously one of them is incorrect.--Cassiodorus585 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both statements are correct, and are not contradictory. BilCat (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title character article

Is the main character of Pete Maverick Mitchell notable enough to have an article after two films or does it take a trilogy before it is worthy. Comparison might be to a Ghostbusters character after only two films which had character articles for Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and others long before the last film to make it a trilogy.. or Tony Montana after an original and a remake. Perhaps there are others like Marty Mcfly however that’s a character in a trilogy. Is Mr Mitchell notable with enough info considering how well known the original is and upcoming sequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C21B:900:9E2:59F2:DF8F:B484 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your barrier is WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Intro

don't be fooled like i almost was cuz it is nearly identical to the original complete with the aesthetics and fonts for the actors names similar to the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:500:3615:F0AB:5C58:E1B6:A479 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which one's better, "superior to" or "superior over"?

The former seems wrong to me, but that may as well just be my conscience being triggered. GreenGrenier (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Superior to" is more grammatical. Seinfeld429 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seinfeld429 Alright, that seems reasonable enough. Someone's done the edit for me to make it clearer while still keeping "superior to". GreenGrenier (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Balfe?

So we all know Lorne Balfe is score producer but the music by should only be for composers only. For example Hans Zimmer was score producer for 13 Hours and Terminator Genisys which were both composed By Lorne Balfe but they don't mention Hans in the "music by" list so why even put Lorne Balfe in the music list.

So in future just please remove Lorne because in my opinion "music by" is for composers only not score producers MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an edit with a note stating Balfe's involvement in the film as a score producer— someone did it, not me. GreenGrenier (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Score box in Reception

I’ve only ever seen boxes full of Metacritic scores and individual reviews in music and video game articles and think they aren’t needed for films, but to avoid an edit war I’m taking it to the Talk page to see what the community thinks. Thanks y’all! TropicAces (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the idea to keep that Infobox as is, or is it to grow to one dozen reviewers, two dozen reviewers, three dozen reviewers, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Barbero starring

I don't know why people are claiming she's not on the billing block of the poster. Where is this research being conducted? I don't see the billing block linked or referenced in the article, and she's clearly main cast, as much as Pullman, Powell or Harris. The infobox instructions state that in absence of a billing block poster, use the top billed actors -- which she is. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 03:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my searching can find, all references to the billing block are original research -- all the movie posters list no cast at all, not even Tom Cruise. Unless anyone can come up with another official source, I think the list should be based on the movie's website *Starring* section, and I think the Template:Infobox parameter description supports this. I have made this update. Any other list, barring a referenced source, seems like WP:Original Research to me, and therefore arbitrary and should be avoided. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 04:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poster with a billing block was given only to cinemas, it was not easily available. Here is a regal cinema poster with a billing block. Pause and read the block. Poster billing block.. if there is a HD copy online it would be great. and Regal cinema Poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C21B:901:ED54:3968:4DAE:99C1 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connely's image in Critical Response section

There seems to be a dispute on whether the image should be included or not. But the critical response section praises various points, and there is no common special mention of Connely. So in my view, it need not be included. Kpddg (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connely did receive praise for her performance. She is seen also as deflecting from the "homoerotic" aspects in the original Top Gun as covered in this article's Critical response section by critics. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But her name is not even mentioned in the Critical Response section, other than in the image. Kpddg (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deadlline Hollywood is the opening review in this section and it states: "Penny who now runs the local bar. Jennifer Connelly takes on the role and brings a lovely natural touch to the relationship." ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with: "...then pushes further into high-hypersonic speed, destroying it."

I have a problem with the phrase: "Maverick flies the prototype to its speed objective, then pushes further into high-hypersonic speed, destroying it."

It can be argued either way about pushing it from 10.0 to 10.1, personally I'm on the side that the Maverick character did push it intentionally.

Where I disagree with is 10.2 and 10.3; I think the character's facial expression was clear that the plane was taking itself to those speeds, and that the pilot (T Cruise) had not intended (at least right then) to continue to those speeds.

How do we write that in a concise manner? I dunno.

. LP-mn (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]