Talk:Bullet Train (film)

Requested move 19 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: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Bullet Train (upcoming film) → Bullet Train (film) – The 2012 film Tezz is not commonly known or translated to Bullet Train, it's just based on a film of that name, so I'm requesting we move this article to "Bullet Train (film)" and redirect "Bullet Train (upcoming film)" once its moved. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 21:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Heart ^(talk) 16:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - At the moment, Bullet Train (film) redirects to Tezz. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 21:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. The fact that the Bollywood film Tezz had Bullet Train (film) redirecting to it was based on an unsourced fact that it was being earlier named as Bullet Train. No need for that now. Roller26 (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Heart ^(talk) 16:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:33, 28 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.

Controversy

As currently written, the Controversy section is problematic. Wikipedia articles should present views published by reliable sources. This section states "characters are whitewashed" based on one source which uses more subtle language like, "possible whitewashing", "whether the movie ... is whitewashed", "allegations of whitewashing", and "charges of whitewashing". IMO, it needs to be rewritten with more sources and more careful language. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It still needs more sources. One source hardly seems sufficient. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Controversy sections are not good. I renamed it to Casting criticism, which is more specific. Reading the references, there only seems to be one significant complaint from Japanese American Citizens League. (Personally having seen the film I am a little disappointed that Karen Fukuhara and Masi Oka didn't have more to do but at least the film actually hired Japanese Americans and didn't treat different Asian ethnicities as interchangeable as Hollywood far too often does.) I would actually cut the section down significantly and move as much of the adaptation development and casting as possible to the Production section where it belongs. I might do that later. -- 109.78.196.57 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a potential source to use in such a section. Considering that it is not outright criticism, it may be worth renaming the Wikipedia section into something that encapsulates different arguments per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep it simple. Keep that section for the criticism. Avoid the back and forth. Make a better encyclopedia article by moving the film makers talking about how they considered moving the story to another location and how they went about making the casting diverse in other ways casting and how the author felt about his work being adapted to the Production section. Further complicating it with a long verbose section heading is easier, not better. -- 109.79.174.68 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:STRUCTURE. Keeping that section is POV forking, which you are advocating for. The "length" of the section heading is not as relevant as having a heading that isolates what seems to be only criticisms (at first glance). If a longer section heading ensures that the overall presentation is broadly neutral, that is better than a short POV-slanted presentation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK because that is what the section has turned into. -- 109.78.206.101 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Budget sources

How reliable is The Numbers for budget? I know that Rebecca Rubin from Variety is usually the reliable source for budget numbers. Wheezythewave (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range. " It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which sources are right or wrong or to exclude sources. Both figures should be included. Also I would point to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article The article body (usually the Production section) should do the best it can to explain the different budget figures if at all possible. (Variety is not infallible either, they've posted different budget figures for the same film as recently as this year, and they do not appear to have published any retractions or corrections or explanation of any kind.)

The budget figure of $85.9 million is oddly specific. (If this wasn't an American film made in California then I would guess that it was a large round number converted from a non-dollar currency but in this case my educated guess is that this represents a net spending figure after tax rebates.) There are not any reliable sources to explain the figure as far as I know.

In any case Hollywood accounting is so unreliable and misleading we should aim try to teach readers to remain skeptical and remind them that the numbers are not an absolute measure of success (especially when we don't know how much money was spend on other costs such as marketing) only a relative indicator of success or failure. -- 109.76.132.226 (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the budget range. Some editors totally ignore {{Infobox film}} when it says don't cherry pick, and remove reliably sourced information anyway.[1] We simply do not know why the two figures are different. Editors should not presume they know better or that one source is more reliable than the other and exclude information from one source. -- 109.78.202.76 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Production companies

The production companies in the infobox (Columbia Pictures, Fuqua Films, 87North Productions) do not match those on the IMDb company page of the film (87North (US), CTB Inc. (JP), Hill District Media (US), Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) (US)). I suspect that the WP infobox contains old information (2020 / early 2021). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Some reviews are good to look at to reference them. Variety, Screen Daily, and The Hollywood Reporter mention Columbia Pictures and 87North, with Sony Pictures Releasing distributing. I'll change accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't explain why Japan is a production country (which would be consistent only with the IMDb's list of companies). Note that like the IMDb, the French cinema magazine Télérama says "Japon - États-Unis". — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Columbia Pictures, it is a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment, so I suppose that either can be given (the IMDb chooses the latter). But CTB Inc. is also given by AlloCiné and L'Indépendant. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

And concerning "Fuqua Films", it was renamed in December 2021 to "Hill District Media" (see Antoine Fuqua#Career), which is listed on the IMDb. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't put any stock in what IMDb says. Furthermore, it is always possible that database-style web pages may crib from IMDb. The industry-periodical sources I linked above are pretty authoritative in identifying the relevant production companies, more so than most reviews. Lumiere is another authoritative source that has been used for identifying companies, but this film is too new at this point to be listed there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: For companies, it seems that the IMDb is rather reliable. Also, note that this Deadline article (used as a source on the WP page) says: "Antoine Fuqua developed the project originally with Fuqua Films’ Kat Samick and they are producing along with Leitch and Kelly McCormick (Atomic Blonde) through their company 87North. Ryosuke Saegusa and Yuma Terada of CTB Inc are exec producers and rep Isaka and the IP." ("Fuqua Films" is the old name of Hill District Media.) — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider IMDb to be reliable per WP:IMDB. Regarding that Deadline Hollywood article (which is from 2020), I am not seeing Kat Samick listed as a producer, and that name is the one connected to Fuqua Films. I'm trying to find a billing block for Bullet Train, which lays out the names of people and companies more clearly, but I can't find one. Regardless, I think these industry periodicals only mentioning Columbia and 87North in their very recent reviews shows that's what the companies should be. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: Kat Samick is listed by various sources, including Variety, which you gave above: "Production: A Sony release of a Columbia Pictures presentation of an 87North production. Producers: Kelly McCormick, David Leitch, Antoine Fuqua. Executive producers: Brent O’Connor, Ryosuke Saegusa, Yuma Terada, Kat Samick." — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, Samick is not listed as a producer but as an executive producer. Executive producers in films tend to be more involved with business issues. It's possible that the additional companies beyond production-focused Columbia and 87North are the more finance-focused companies that the executive producers come from. We would not list the executive producers or their companies in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: OK, this clarifies the situation. BTW, The Crew United page of the film (which gives a lot of information) lists only Columbia Pictures Corporation [us] and 87North Productions [us], i.e. excluding executive production companies. (The choice is different in the French WP, where all companies involved in the production are usually given.) — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I know this discussion is just a bit under a year old, but I figured I'd weigh in as the country of production has changed again with citations to AllMovie.

Country of production

• AllMovie (Japan, United States) link
• Screen Daily (United States)

[ https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/bullet-train-review/5173142.article here]

Reading both press kits here. There is no mention of any Japanese production. Just 87North Productions.

This is Leith's American company.

Per the above, I'll change it back to United States with Screen Daily as the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"the film stars Brad Pitt as an assassin"

Brad Pitt is emphatically not an assassin, "strictly smash-and-grab". Drsruli (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Ladybug is a former assassin who is trying to avoid any further unintentional deaths or collateral damage. He is trying to change but he is a trained killer. His specific task in the film is a smash and grab job but that doesn't make him not an assassin (and the fact is he does kill several people). -- 109.79.65.152 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Variety "the newly nonviolent tough guy"[2]; Sight and Sound "An assassin who refuses to carry a gun "[3]; NYT "Brad Pitt plays an amiable assassin"[4]; WashPo "As Ladybug, a member of an elite assassination force "[5]; etc. etc. -- 109.79.65.152 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He states explicitly, more than once in the film, that he is not an assassin. Also, his job isn't to kill anybody. Drsruli (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read again what I wrote. Please look at the film more carefully. He no longer wants to kill anyone, that is his intention. At best that makes him a former assassin, but he is a trained killer who kills repeatedly. That the character is trying to change his ways is not a good reason to change the summary in the lead section and replace the clear and meaningful word "assassin" with the more vague and less informative word "operative". I've shown source, please do not change again without clearly specifying your sources. -- 109.76.195.175 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"the film stars Brad Pitt as an assassin" - He is not an assassin in the film; he is an ex-assassin. He doesn't assassinate or attempt to assassinate anybody as part of the plot of the film. The fact that he is no longer an assassin, IS a plot element of the film. The statement is incorrect as it is. Drsruli (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"ex-assassin" would be a clear and concise way to write it, but changing word assassin in the lead section to the more vague and euphemistic "operative" was not clear. The lead section should be as clear as possible and summarize, it is supposed to explain like an encyclopedia, it is not supposed to tease readers like a clickbait headline. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Credits

Are there credits for the grandson (son of Yuichi), the grandson's assassin, the grandson's nurse, young Yuichi, Kimura (Elder)'s wife, the old Yakuza Don, the train driver, whoever was under the creature suit (I assume it wasn't Zazie), Wolf's wife, Wolf's boss, young Wolf, young Lemon, young Tangerine, White Death's wife ? -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia film articles do not necessarily include the whole cast list, usually only the main cast. Please see WP:FILMCAST. You will need to look at the film itself or sites such as IMDB for a longer list of cast.[6] -- 109.76.205.82 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Credits

Unless there is something I did not understand in the movie David Leitch’s character is not killed in Bolivia but in Japan as the son of White Death is being rescued 82.132.218.198 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe you're correct. That doesn't really belong in the cast section anyway so I've trimmed it back. -- 109.76.205.82 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Bullet Train (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bullet Train (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Bullet Train (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

References title grammar

Several of the references use an upper case "Of" instead of "of" and "To" instead of "to". The references should be looked at to see the original title used the reference's news article. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:6D6A:AF20:54F6:DD8 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Follow the Wikipedia style guide for article text for sure (MOS:CAPS) but it is not important or worth your time to change the case of text included inside references. Trivial typographical errors (MOS:SIC) can be fixed if you really want but it is not worth worrying about it. -- 109.79.175.24 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bullet Train

Template:Bullet Train has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

The article previously mentioned the factual inaccuracy of the use of boomslang venom in the film.[7] In reality it is a slow acting venom rather than fast acting. It would be nice to note this somewhere but the sources weren't good enough. -- 109.76.132.217 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• The "in reality" you refer to is about boomslang bites, not injection by what is presumably a concentrated version of the venom. So I assume most, if not all, of the documented cases involving boomslang poisoning are irrelevant to the film's accuracy.
• And yes, I'm sure "boomslang" was picked for the name and not the realism. 129.68.129.213 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Plot Summary Error

"After seeing that The Son was poisoned in the same way as his entire wedding party, The Wolf mistakenly believes Ladybug to be their killer." That is not why Wolf mistakenly believes Ladybug to be their killer. I don't think Wolf even ever sees how The Son was poisoned. He attacks Ladybug immediately upon entering the train. Wolf remembers Ladybug having been at the wedding, the guy who bumped him. 2601:980:C004:5410:105D:FAC0:2F93:3578 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Former hitman

I cannot tell if it one editor using different addressess or multiple editors who are making the same misunderstanding (like this edit) but Ladybug is a "former assassin" or "former hitman" . His efforts not to kill, and his assignment as a courier, does not change the fact that he is a hitman attempting to reform (who nonetheless does kill several people). Please stop trying to remove it. Please do restore it if editors have attempted to remove it again, it is an essential plot point and it should be unambiguously clear that "operative" means he is a trained killer. -- 109.79.65.152 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Twins

The film presents two very different looking people and calls them twins, but the film never explains why they look so very different. This is a joke,[8] but the film does not explain and also Fraternal twins exist. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so we should not speculate (WP:OR) or add any doubt by using "scarequotes" (MOS:DOUBT). -- 109.79.66.134 (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The film calls these two assassins brothers, if editors believe this statement is "wrong"[9] please show reliable sources (the book perhaps?) because from the film itself we have to take it at at face value that they are brothers as the film says. -- 109.76.196.193 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)