Talk:Baby Driver

Potential COI issue?

Noting that the user name of the page creator seems to be tied to the film project. Page neutrality appears neutral tho, no template placed. @Baby Driver 1980: are you directly involved with the production? If so, might want to review WP:COI just to make sure there're no issues. JamesG5 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Baby Driver (film) → Baby Driver – The film is the primary topic. Currently the target is an unrelated non-notable novel. A hatnote works fine. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, I created Baby Driver (disambiguation) earlier today.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing comment: Yes, and it was then moved over the base name redirect while this discussion was in progress. So I've just moved it back. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and move dab to baseline Given the amount of coverage for the novel and the two songs, might be best to wait for the film to be released. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Per the film being the primary topic. Right now, the search term "Baby driver" redirects to Jan Kerouac. On Baby Driver (disambiguation), the following topics are presented: this film, a novel by Kerouac, a song by Simon and Garfunkel, and a song by KISS. The main articles for each of the other three topics are Jan Kerouac, Bridge over Troubled Water, and Rock and Roll Over, so only one with its own article is the film, thereby making it the primary topic. –Matthew - (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. No other topic with this name is sufficiently notable to even have its own article on WP. This film already dominates the Google results when searching for "baby driver". Clearly already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the relatively obscure other uses. --В²C ☎ 19:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose... for now. Please see WP:ONLYONE: just because an article is the only one of that name does not automatically make it the primary topic. I think there's every chance the movie will quickly establish notability in terms of both usage and long-term significance -- but that's WP:CRYSTAL, isn't it? Right now it's notable for usage, but not necessarily for significance. And again: not every ambiguous name has a primary topic.

I suggest redirecting Baby Driver to the dab page for now, and re-addressing once the movie is actually released.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• NapoliRoma, Perhaps you're unaware, but until a few years ago usage was the only criteria considered when determining primary topic. Long-term significance was added to provide a basis for those occasional situations where some topic had exceptional long-term significance and editors want to treat it like the primary topic because of that even though usage stats did not warrant it. That situation is not present here; not even close. It was never supposed to be a requirement for a topic to meet both criteria in order to be considered primary, a requirement you seem to be imposing in this case. The only criteria that is relevant here is usage and this film is clearly primary for Baby Driver on that basis. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I hesitate to get all crystal bally, but if this isn't moved now due to recentism, I really see no way this film won't be the primary topic in the future (very notable director, very notable cast, no other Baby Driver has an article...). Might as well save some time. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes and recentism is meant to address news events that are briefly popular (measured in days or weeks) - that is never the case for films. Recentism should never apply to something obviously lasting like a film. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The only topic of this name with an article or more than a mention at any other article. All evidence suggests it's the primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inaccuracy in Cast Section

I work for Rubenstein on behalf of Media Rights Capital. Meryl Streep is not a cast member of this film. The CinemaBlend article used as the citation does not support the claim that Streep is a cast member and she is not listed as a cast member on IMDB [1]. Would an editor mind removing her name from the cast section? NinaSpezz (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting the character's true names in the cast section constitutes spoilers and as such has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.231.89 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a Musical

While music is an extremely important factor in the film, it's not a musical. The characters don't sing any of the songs, which is what defines a musical. JDDJS (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does not describe the musical aspect of the movie

The film is based around the way it syncs to the soundtracks. I can't think of a good way to integrate this into the article, but it's clearly a major aspect of the movie, if not the primary aspect, and is notable enough that it must be mentioned. cnte ^(talk) 03:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

American Sign Language

Take a look at the info block for the page for There Will Be Blood; it includes American Sign Language as one of the languages, mainly towards the end of that film.

Since there is sign language used throughout the film (despite there being subtitles unlike in TWBB), shouldn't it be included in the info block next to language for Baby Driver? If not, then why is it listed in language for TWBB anyways? - Theironminer (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox film language guideline, only the primary language should be listed. Both films primarily use spoken English. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Speculation over ending in plot summary

"The final shot of the movie shows Baby being released from prison with Debora waiting for him on the other side of the gate as the two embrace, leaving the audience to decide if this happy ending is a figment of Baby's imagination, or Baby actually being released after serving a short prison sentence."

Er, is that a thing? Because I think that's the writer's interpretation rather than a concrete fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.85.122 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone has removed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely speculation that the ending is real and not a dream. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.57.174 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not speculation, the dream is clearly in black-and-white earlier in the movie. It turning into color and revealing the prison in the background is supposed to show it's real. 81.233.184.201 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's open to interpretation as stated by Edgar Wright. Quote "I think the end scene is up for interpretation. And I sort of learned quickly through the test screening process that I should let people interpret it how they want. I think it's an important thing with movies where you don't have to state your actual intention because nobody's response to it is wrong. I think that's a good thing to do; you don't want to have anybody say, 'No, you're wrong, you read that wrong.' It's better if you have two different interpretations." I'm reinstating the original line as it appears to be correct. Hippiemancam (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The film shows him meeting Deborah. Whether or not it's "real" is immaterial; the plot summary is not for speculating or explaining different interpretations. If we have a reliable source, such as the Wright quote, we can cover the different interpretations elsewhere in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Is "action comedy" the right description?

Baby Driver is a 2017 action comedy film... There's certainly a lot of witty dialogue, but I'd call it an action film rather than an action comedy film. JH (talk page) 21:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this film a remake of "The Driver"?

Is this film an uncredited remake of the Walter Hill Ryan O'Neal 1978 film The Driver?Foofbun (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

1st heist in UK?

I watched Baby Driver on the plane today. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention but I thought the first heist with the best driving was in UK? Bellagio99 (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baby Driver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DanielleTH (talk · contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Will be taking a look at this article shortly. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, proper review time. I'll do the obligatory mention that I, too, have a Good Article nominee, but, of course, you are under no obligation to review it. Do so only if you would like.

Anyways:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Overall

As of December 27, 2018: This is very close to GA status. Minor clarifications are needed for sourcing and prose. My biggest concern right now appears to be neutrality and original research in the Analysis section, detailed blow. Please see full comments.

As of January 4, 2019: Just missing the finalized fixes for the Critical Reception and one phrasing fix.

As of January 11, 2019: All concerns addressed here. Article is well-written, broad in the discussion of the film, and is non-biased.

"Reasonably well-written"

• Plot summary
  • "Baby produces mixtapes sampled with recorded conversations and cares for his deaf foster father, Joseph (CJ Jones)." This sentence is particularly unclear in context, I think because it combines two separate ideas.

Revised

• • "The two immediately bond over their musical interests, so much that they vow to leave the city together." The "so much" is awkward. Maybe use a clearer "causing"?

Strongly disagree. I’d like to keep it, if you don’t mind, as I think "as much" is concise for what is intended.

The article is, in the end, your writing, so if you'd like to keep it this way, that is fine. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "At the debriefing for the follow-up assignment" what assignment? The heist mentioned before? This needs to be a tad clearer.

Correct. Revised.

• • "Doc nixes the heist plans as not only will the dealers' murders intensify the heat on him, but also the dealers were dirty cops on his payroll." Quite wordy and confusing to follow. Try breaking it up or just reducing the number of words in the sentence.

Reworded.

• • "Hostility flares when Buddy and Bats confront Baby over his tape recordings moments before he can depart Atlanta with Debora, though when they play the mixtapes for Doc, the crew are reassured of Baby's loyalty." Confusing, maybe try breaking it up?

Revised.

• • "He lends the couple cash and an escape route out of the country." He lended an escape route? Maybe say "and suggests an escape route"?

Revised.

• • Parking garage most definitely does not need to be linked, as most people know what it is.

Revised

• Cast
  • Jon Hamm's section: "Hamm partook in a table read well before Baby Driver was commissioned by a studio." "Well before" is a little vague. The source doesn't give a year unfortunately, but it does say "several years" at the very least. That's more specific than "well before", so that may be preferable.

Revised.

• • Jon Bernthal's section: "assorted thugs"? What do you mean by assorted? Is simply saying "thugs" not enough?

Revised at second glance. Probably redundant since it's already been established that this is a rotating crew.

• • Other cast members: Semicolons separate related-but-separate ideas. Simple commas would be better suited here.

Revised.

• Development
  • "On a £25,000 budget, Wright developed the music video for Mint Royale's "Blue Song" in 2003, featuring a backstory gleaned from Baby Driver." Featuring ideas from Wright's early concepts of Baby Driver? If yes, please clarify that.

Correct. Revised for clarification.

• • "for not only its artistic direction" specify "the film" or "Baby Driver" here, as the sentence is unclear.

Unclear. Shaun of the Dead is the subject in that sentence.

So the artistic direction mentioned in the sentence was Shaun of the Dead's? The "its" is the only thing I think needs clarification, I can't tell waht the "its" is referring to.DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. DAP 💅 04:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "In addition, Machliss worked on set providing input for the shoot, unusual given that film editors are typically absent from the set of most films during production." Grammar fix: add "which was" before "unusual".

Done.

• Stunts and choreography
  • "They rehearsed at the Atlanta Motor Speedway before receiving clearance to shoot in the city, and the production filmed the stunts with specialized pursuit cranes, small cars with an installed camera crane." Confusing due to being a run-on. Maybe split them up into two sentences.

Done.

• • "This scene involved a number of high-speed jumps, barrier jumps, among other stunts that Prescott and his team carefully coordinated bearing traffic flow in mind, and 50 production vehicles encircled by a sprawling police motorcade, occupying all lanes of I-85." Confusing and unclear, I'm not quite sure what this sentence is going for. Maybe splitting it up would help clarity?

To illustrate the complexity of that shoot. Admittedly not sure how to go about this, since I think the idea is clear enough presently.

Upon a second re-read this sentence is passable. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "Choreographing others sets was sometimes less taxing because some of the actors had prior dance experience." Wordy, and I don't believe "others" grammatically correct. You many want to specify who since the source says Elgort and Fox were the two with experience, and specificity is always better for clarity's sake.

Revised.

• Sound design: "Perhaps the audio team's most complex challenge was the coffee run scene." Too ambiguous, and truthfully, not needed. Same thing with the "so forth" in the following sentence, since it doesn't specify what. Personally, the 25 takes implies that it was a complex undertaking, so you may want to omit the "Perhaps" sentence completely.

Revised the former, not the latter. There were two other things mentioned in that interview that I didn’t include because I struggled with the wording (without close paraphrasing), hence the "so forth".

• Box office: "Although the film's performance faltered in China" how? Why (which would go in the release section)? How much did it make, and what were expectations?

Unable to find any Chinese box office forecasts. Western media picked up the story because China was the only major market where Baby Driver flopped. I can remove it if that is not notable on its own though.

China is a major market and should be mentioned. If that's the only thing you could find about the market, then it's good.DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Filming: "Panavision's Atlanta offices assisted the needs of the production when managing the logistics became challenging. One action scene in particular, staged in a parking garage on the Atlanta Falcons' training facility, was only available for film production at night, and thus difficult to shoot because of the dull lighting. They ended up filming the scene in digital format with the company's refurbished Arri Alexa cameras, which had greater exposure latitude." Duplicate and/or move around sources to have the first two sentences have a citation. Currently just listing them at the end makes it unclear which source provided which information.

Done.

• Visual effects
  • "Few visual effects were used in Baby Driver as a result of Wright's emphasis on practical filmmaking." Citation needed here.

Done.

• • "The London-based studio DNEG created the visuals effects, under the supervision of Stuart Lashley and Shailendra Swarnkar." Duplicate citation #47 and put it after this sentence. The next citation after this line is #49 which isn't sufficient for this kind of information.

Done.

• Home media and streaming: ComingSoon.net doesn't appear to be reliable.
• Accolades: Awards Daily is a self-published blog by Sasha Stone, and cannot be used.
• Sequel: /Flim is a blog and does not appear to be reliable.

Removed Awards Daily, but ComingSoon.net and SlashFilm are indeed reliable, or at least I assume, since I’ve seen many good/featured articles with their sourcing such as Prometheus.

Neutrality

• Development: Sensation --> success. Appears when talking about the music video. Bit of a grandiose word, success is more neutral.

Done.

• Stunts and choreography "So with such a small window" change to "With the limited timeframe". I have concerns with the connotation of this so change it to be more neutral.

Done.

• Sound design: quite ---> more. Appears in the section about Baby's tinnitus. Again, I have connotation concerns.

Done.

• Box office: "exceeded $100M". The source provides the actual number, $102.2M, so to keep the POV neutral, just say the number.

Done.

• Critical response
  • The neutrality is my biggest concern. The film was widely praised, so praise can take up the majority of the section, but I still feel criticisms are not given their due weight, especially with certain criticisms being reduced to occasional or deemed less important through word choice (like "nevertheless"). I also feel like the sources don't match up with the text -- the source of "occasional" screenplay criticism does not deem the criticism occasional. The opening statement with "American media" is far too general, though you could say it appeared at #20 on Metacritic's 2017 year end list. Claiming certain praise was unanimous is false, even with the three sources provided, since, even within one of them, Elgort's performance is labeled annoying. It is very unlikely every notable critic who reviewed the film liked the actors' performance. You could say the praise was widespread, though. Basically, just provide a little bit more on criticism to give it its due weight and ensure that words of high praise (and harsh criticism) are cited and directly come from the article, not loosely. Good examples of widely praised films with good acknowledgement of criticism are La La Land and Black Panther. The blockquote also appears to just highlight praise. An image of an actor or crew member widely praised may be better suited.

Revised some word choices. I'll try and spend the next few days making more adjustments, but I'd like to retain the section's current format per WP:Reception.

• Sequel: "began as early as December 2017" needs to be neutral POV. I suggest either removing the "as early as", the information is fine without it.

Done.

The Analysis section

Giving this its own section as I have multiple problems with it. First, it really should be titled themes, since that what the section appears to be, per MOS:FILM. Like the critical reception section, some sources too loosely relate to information, and, neither source labels the story a redemption story. Source 64 mentions redemption, but not in that context. Source #67 does relate to some pieces of it, so it should be named, duplicated, and put next to said information, for clarity's sake. Overall though, this paragraph and the whole section does appear to have a decent amount of original research, which needs to be sourced or omitted accordingly.

A few edits, added direct cites so the reader won't assume that I (or any other editor) aren't the ones making the judgments.

Changes look good! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see above for summary. I await your changes, and great job overall on the article, DAP388! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 20:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi DanielleTH, appreciate you taking up this review. It's been a busy week for me, and hence I haven't had the luxury to devote much time to this as I'd like, so I apologize. I’ll try and finish up over the next few days. In the mean time, let me know what you think! DAP 💅 04:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@DAP388: All of your changes look great, I've adjusted everything accordingly. The only thing that still needs to be fix seems to be the Critical Reception section, and that one sentence in the Development section! Take your time! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DanielleTH, I believe I’ve addressed the issues in the critical response section. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 04:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks great. Congratulations DAP388, Baby Driver is now a Good Article! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Add comment about Autistic Spectrum?

A lot of speculation and debate about the protagonist being autistic / having aspergers in various public forums / social media. https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+driver+autism https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+driver+autistic https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+driver+aspergers

But also in at least one mainstream media source The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/31/from-toy-story-4-to-the-australian-dream-whats-streaming-in-australia-in-february " The film follows a getaway driver named Baby (Ansel Elgort) who is on the autism spectrum and will put his foot to the floor only if he’s listening to audio accompaniment on his headphones. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.192.111 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=batman+autism

https://www.google.com/search?q=batman+autistic

https://www.google.com/search?q=batman+aspergers

Social media theories aren't helpful, every possibility will be considered sooner or later.

Author intent isn't everything and you are free to read things into characters that may never have been intended but there's nothing in the film to suggest Baby is on the autism spectrum, they lay out pretty clearly that he is a great driver who just happens to have tinnitus. This is speculation and not relevant to an encyclopedia. Even if a professional made that diagnosis about a fictional character and published it somewhere reliable I still wouldn't advise including it. I would mention it only if the actor or the writer said they considered autism as part of the character development. -- 109.79.89.22 (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual effects

What are "projectile bullets"? How are they different from regular bullets? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, a bullet is a projectile, so what would a "non-projectile bullet" be like? It would be great to think that someone was interested in the writing quality of this nominally "Featured" article. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

My best guess is that it was an attempt to use "projectile" as an adjective to mean "actively flying like a projectile," though after a quick search I haven't conclusively found that usage as an accepted definition. At any rate, the source on that sentence doesn't use that phrasing so I don't think there's any particular reason to keep the wording. I've removed it. Jedibob5 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)