Talk:65 (film)

Requested move 17 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Agreed. (film) is a sufficient disambiguator. Pichpich (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. El Millo (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, this appears to be non-controversial... BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support since this is the only mention of "65 (film)" in enwiki. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What the...?

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)

Content removal

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)

Film genre

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)

First sentence

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)

MOS:FILMLEAD, a policy document, already says "Succeeding sentences in the first paragraph should identify other elements, such as the director, the star(s), and any writers or producers who are well-known." The directory is quite clearly prioritised over the star(s) in the order. Despite being described as 'policy and guideline details', the page linked to above is actually an essay, and explicitly notes at the top that "This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I am inclined to favour a lead that conforms to MOS:FILMLEAD in placing the director before the actor. 2A02:C7C:CC26:9300:300A:74B2:B503:DDDE (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a misreading of the guideline. What is after "such as" is not a defined order. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And yes, it is an essay, so I don't have to summarize every time which policies and guidelines justify how to write the first sentence with noteworthy contexts. Do you want to try to compare sources to see if reliable sources describe this film with mentioning Adam Driver upfront, or Beck/Woods upfront? We can compare this and this, for starters. Many more mainstream reviews are headlining Driver than Beck/Woods. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

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)

The poster? The trailer? Mike Allen 05:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

attempted addition of plot summary

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)

It was a copy and paste from a website (probably their own website). It's been deleted and the IPs blocked. Mike Allen 16:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2023

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)

I do not see it being billed as a time traveling film in the page at all? Mike Allen 21:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "(he) realizes he's stuck on Earth 65 million years in the past" clearly implies that the character knows that (i) he landed on a specific planet that he knows is called "Earth" and (ii) he has somehow landed 65 million years in the past. Saying that he "realizes" he is in the past implies that he is referring to a point in time in the future he knows of. So yes, clearly, this sentence implies that the character somehow lands in the past of a planet called Earth and knows it. Hence time travel. 2A02:A03F:6129:CF00:B4BC:56CD:5433:D06F (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, watch the movie and pay attention, it is not a time traveling movie. Just wanted to emphasize this! 2603:6080:2001:602E:413E:9175:21F4:28D3 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I cannot see the relation between my message and your reply. Neither I nor KStraith2 said it was a time travel movie. 193.58.1.131 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What I will say is this: Adam Driver's character obviously speaks English for the sake of the audience, which would normally be chalked up to "yeah, that's how sci-fi movies work, just go with it" EXCEPT a language barrier between the two characters is a pivotal plot point, so while I agree this is not a time travel move, I think it was mishandled in that regard. Actually, I think it would've been better if the two could have a real dialogue. Why the "lost in translation" aspect? But I digress Ditch ∝ 04:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, quicksand is not a real thing and is a movie trope, and this movie went ALL IN on it. Questionable to say the least. Ditch ∝ 04:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"65 (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Alya

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)

 Removed Mike Allen 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fasolasuchus

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)

I've just indefblocked the poster of this message due to maturity issues. The above post presumably refers to two of their edits that were made in July this year. Graham87 (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The article must to explain

how and why he looks human. SFandLogicReader (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The same reason all the aliens on Star Trek look human. The more serious question is, why do these aliens have exactly the same screwed up privatised health care system that the US does now? They can build FTL starships, but don't have universal health care? 163.53.145.27 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)