Talk:A Star Is Born (2018 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Star Is Born (2018 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1349280/Beyonce-Clint-Eastwood-team-A-Star-Is-Born-remake.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817131751/http://deadline.com/2016/08/bradley-cooper-lady-gaga-a-star-is-born-warner-bros-remake-1201804358/ to http://deadline.com/2016/08/bradley-cooper-lady-gaga-a-star-is-born-warner-bros-remake-1201804358/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing producer name

Jon Peters is a producer on this movie. His name has been removed and needs to be put back up Jorose3223 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia rule as to who should be listed as a producer on a film article? Peters has a "produced by" credit on the film, but not a Producers Mark (p.g.a.) which indicates actual production work; news sources indicate his credit is purely contractual (he produced the 1976 film and owned the remake rights). However, from what I've seen in Wikipedia film articles, pretty much any "producer" credit seems to count; it's not limited to the Producers Mark even on post-2012 films (the Producers Mark didn't exist until then). Still, due to the #MeToo controversy around Peters I'd like some external validation before adding him back in. --RBBrittain (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the official credits on the film's website, Bill Gerber, Bradley Cooper & Lynette Howell Taylor have the Producers Mark; the other "produced by" names are Jon Peters & Todd Phillips. There are six additional "executive producers", but AFAIK those are usually irrelevant in the film industry. --RBBrittain (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

In the lead sentence, "It marks the third remake of the original 1937 film (which featured Janet Gaynor and Fredric March), which was adapted into a 1954 musical (starring Judy Garland and James Mason) and then remade as a 1976 rock musical with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson" add Aashiqui 2, Hindi remake. This makes the film the fourth, not third. Source: the Times of India. 2.51.22.8 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added the word "American" in front of the word "remake", for clarification. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be some inconsistency remaining, I think some sections use third and some fourth. I'm just passing through and can't say where ,someone that edits this more might want to take a look. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary

I already saw the film at its premier this week. Is it time to add a plot summary or do we wait for wide release? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Full name of Lady Gaga's character?

Is there any source giving a name other than just "Ally" to Lady Gaga's character? Looking at the name of Bradley Cooper's character vis-a-vis their predecessors in the 1937, 1954 & 1976 films, I have a feeling Ally's last name is either Blodgett or Lester. The male lead is named Norman Maine in the 1937 & 1954 versions; John *Norman* Howard in the 1976 version; and Jackson *Maine* in this version. The female lead in the 1937 & 1954 versions was born Esther Blodgett but changed her name to Vicki Lester; in the 1976 version she was Esther Hoffman. Anyone have a source to either confirm or deny this theory? --RBBrittain (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018

Change "As she is performing, Jackson is about to leave, but instead he begins taking pills." to "As she is performing, Jackson cooks a steak for his dog, implying that he is going to take his own life. He pulls his truck out of the garage and swallows pills he had left in his truck before he went to rehab. He then hangs himself with his belt in the garage in a similar manner to how he described his first attempt when he was nearly 13 to his therapist." Vbcbandr (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Too much detailing, it is fine as it is. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Brandi Carlile

Resolved

The cast section currently mentions some cameo appearances, but does not mention Brandi Carlile, who performs with Cooper in the film. Should mention of her be added? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I see someone has added her name in the part about camera appearances, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

After Bobby is punched he explains that the land was sold AFTER the father's body washed away. Bobby also explains to Jack that he was notified but has forgotten due to drunkenness. Then Bobby quits. 72.130.126.158 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear request. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Change the sentence "It marks the third remake of the original 1937 film (which starred Janet Gaynor and Fredric March), after the 1954 musical (starring Judy Garland and James Mason) and the 1976 rock musical (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson)." In the edit request made on 30 September 2018, it was asked to change third to fourth as is the case; there exists an Indian remake Aashiqui 2. This was first resolved by adding "American" before remake, but this is missing now. Also, I don't know, just excluding the only other remake from the lead because it isn't American may border on systemic bias and misinterpretation (some people tend to ignore the "American"). Or perhaps remove the entire sentence altogether, but that may not be the perfect solution. 2.51.17.15 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Note: I restored the original change from the edit request on 30 September 2018 with more detailed explanation in the edit summary on why it was made. If it is removed again instead of submitting another edit request a discussion to reach a consensus on the issue may need to be required. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Libatique cameo

Matthew is the cinematographer of the movie and he appears in the photoshoot scene when Ally hears the news of her Grammy nominations. He even kisses her as a congratulation.

I think we should add this to the last paragraph in "cast" Jacksonma1ne (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

replace "languished in development hell for several years" with "spent several years in development hell" Username for attention (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Done. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested change 12 October

The current text is:

"Rez visits and privately tells Jackson that he will eventually ruin Ally's life due to his history, even if Ally remains the more stable one. She explains to Jackson that she is going to cancel her concert tour early so that they can have the summer all to themselves. As she leaves, Jackson states that he will come to her last concert. However, after Ally leaves, Jackson takes pills and hangs himself."

Suggestion for change:

"Rez privately meets with Jackson following a request from Ally that Jackson accompanies her on the upcoming tour. Rez convinces Jackson that he will eventually ruin Ally's career due to a relapse, which Rez believes to be inevitable at some point, even with Ally as the stabilizing influence in Jackson's life. After this meeting, Ally excuses her plans of cancelling the upcoming tour to Jackson by saying her label wishes her to record another album. As she leaves, Jackson states that he will come to her last concert. However, after Ally leaves, Jackson takes pills and hangs himself as he knows she is sacrificing her tour for him."

The goal is to emphasize that the manager, Rez, makes Jackson doubt his commitment to sobriety. He is convinced by Rez that he will destroy Ally's career if he remains in her life. This private meeting and the emphasis on relapsing is the most important part of the meeting with Rez.

Exact wording not needed, but message of passage is key as this meeting and convincing causes the suicide.

 Not done for now: There are three people being discussed here: Rez, Jackson and Ally. Though you've taken some effort to limit the use of pronouns compared to the prior version, there are still a few left which makes this confusing. At the beginning of this section Rez comes to "meet privately" but when the prose describes the scene as: "As she leaves, Jackson states that he will come to her", etc. who is she and who is her according to those who haven't seen the film (or who haven't read the entire plot summary) and thus don't know who Ally or Rez is? Are these both women? If one is male and the other is female the reader should not have to assume which name goes with which gender. Ally may be a predominantly female name but the same cannot be said of Rez. If this section can be worded without the use of she's or he's then we're ok. If wording it without she's and he's makes it too odd, because the result would have the prose using everyone's first name over and over again to describe something, then the summary itself needs to be re-written to be less like a shot-by-shot retelling of the scene.  Spintendo  06:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

the movie is inspired from a bollywood movie AASHIQUE 2 CHANDUPATEL123 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune links

I’m not sure what could be done here, but in the Critical Response section, there’s several links to reviews in the Chicago Tribune. Which, for me at least, bring up this message: "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries."

Just letting people know that using weblinks as references is great – but it would be good if there could be a bot to check their availability, so editors can know what they’re "doing to their readers"… --Geke (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You can always check them from the Internet archive and read it up. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As suggested, it is a good idea to use the Wayback Machine at Web Archive for sites like those, and in any citations make sure to include the archive-url, archive-date, and dead-url (=no) parameters.

Sites cannot have it both ways, if they are open to search engines then they are open to all archivers too. It is also a reminder to choose better sources from publishers that do make the effort to respect privacy legislation. -- 109.79.177.186 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the lecture regarding archiveurl is needed here? Wayback Machine will be added when the link actually goes down. Just because some European countries cannot access the link (which is CT's prerogative if they don't want it available). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

CinemaScore

The article includes a reference to the Cinemsacore website which directs users to the front page of that website and instructs readers to use the search box. This is not an acceptable reference (and misuse of the citation quote parameter).

Please improve the article to use a proper source. Various reviews mention the CinemaScore, and the best ones also include useful demographic information and they are the best choice. The easiest choice is to link to the long list of scores or for more recent films using Template:Cite tweet and checking the Cinemascore Twitter account:

Replying to @starisbornmovie Congrats on your A #CinemaScore grade! http://www.cinemascore.com -- 109.79.177.186 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No, this is perfectly valid usage of an url if guidance is given as to how access the score. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Satellite awards

ASIB is the most nominated movie at this year's Satellite Awards: http://www.pressacademy.com/2018-nominees/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyRocketzzz (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Added. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Award list

I think its time to split it out into a new list. What do the others say? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you guys think @SNUGGUMS:, @Another Believer:, @ArturSik:? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

100% agree. The awards season only just started and the list is already bigger than most lists that have their own articles and it’s only gonna get bigger. I say go ahead and I’ll try to help as much as I can with updating etc. ArturSik (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys, split it out into a new list. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

THIRD remake, not fourth

The mistake in the first paragraph is obvious to anyone who can count.

The first film was made in 1937.

The first remake was made in 1954.

The second remake was made in 1976.

The third remake was made this year, 2018.

The 2018 film is the fourth VERSION of the film but it is the THIRD remake.

2601:645:C300:C1C:F96F:34C9:522B:A926 (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you read properly? It clearly mentions that there was a Bollywood remake of the film, thereby making this one as the fourth remake. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Error notice in external link section

Apparently there is a problem with the "official website" template, not just for this article but for every article that has one. I have no idea what fixing that involves. Perhaps an administrator monitoring this article or some other template-savvy person could look into it? Coretheapple (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed Not sure why, but the error message is gone. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unclear pronoun use

In the sentence: "She is visited by Bobby, who explains Jack's death was his own fault and not hers," one could understand that Bobby was saying that it was Bobby's fault, not Jack's fault. I suggest this be changed to: "She is visited by Bobby, who explains Jack's death was Jack's own fault and not hers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A044:CD9:A3C6:7345:46CD:FF22 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastwood

Good movie. I like Clint. But ... why are we putting pictures of people who were NOT involved in the film in the article? We're not putting in pictures of Quentin Tarantino in there are we? OK. Maybe an over-simplification, but still. I can see a sentence mentioning Clint, but not the picture. Don't matter to me - ya'all do what ya want. Just sayin. — Ched :  ?  — 02:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Good question, @Ched:, I wondered the same thing when I looked at the article. It doesn't seem to belong. Schazjmd (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastwood's image is included in the development section because he was initially in talks to direct the film back in 2011. Rfl0216 (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware - I read. I'm sure LOTS of folks were involved in "TALKS"; I'm saying ... oh never-mind. Just suggesting an improvement, but whatever. — Ched :  ?  — 14:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems decorative, rather than "significant and relevant in the topic's context" per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and the article lists a large number of people "in talks". Maybe instead it would be better to include a photo of someone actually involved in the film, such as Lukas Nelson in the adjacent music section? Schazjmd (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and removing. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)