Talk:El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie/Archive 1

Page moved too early?

I know it is very likely that So Camino is the name, but the fact the page is removed and the key source right now is from Reddit means this fails verification. The middle source just restated the Reddit post and doesn't fact check it. --Masem (t) 12:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you could be right. From what I found, there hasn't been an official confirmation of the title by Netflix, AMC, Gilligan etc. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

So with the NYTimes article stating this was to be announced on Aug 26, not worth the hassle of the moveback since we have a strong RS affirming the title. --Masem (t) 22:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Title half italic

Why is the Breaking Bad in the main article title not italicized? Rusted AutoParts 22:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it either in this context; I understand the usage of un-italizing a work (film, album, book, etc.) within italic text (eg. a quotation that is formatted with italics), but I don't think this is the correct usage. It also looks awkward. The title is El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, just because Breaking Bad is included in the title, doesn't mean it should not be italicized. We don't un-italize The X-Files in The X-Files: I Want to Believe just because The X-Files is in the title. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe I’ve fixed it. Rusted AutoParts 02:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If the title of the work is already italicized, as with a reference for a book, report, or dissertation or thesis, then the item that would otherwise be italicized is reverse italicized (meaning that it is in roman type within an otherwise italicized title). Breaking Bad is already italicized, therefore it should not be italicized in this title. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense in this context. This is a film title, how is El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie any different than the example I gave (The X-Files: I Want to Believe) or say, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. If we're using that logic, then every single film article that contains an already italicized title (eg. any sequel film, or franchise film series) would have to be formatted like that. This makes no sense. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a change like that requires a consensus because this’ll need to be implemented sitewide, not selectively enforced here. Regardless it breaks the format and looks unsightly. Rusted AutoParts 20:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Television movie

I believe this is a television movie, its based on a TV series, and is airing on Netflix and AMC. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: Yes, it will air on AMC but at a later date and I don't think that being on Netflix can make this a television film. Big titles like Roma and The Irishman are distributed by Netflix but they are never reffered to as television movies. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference from Netflix productions and NEtflix distributed films, like The Wandering Earth - the latter are definitely not television films. Whereas this film was produced to be on the small screen (we knew NEtflix would get original first run back in Feb) so this type of thing would be a television film. --Masem (t) 17:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Both of those examples you listed either had, or will have a theatrical release. The Optimistic One (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Ridiculous 6, for example, never got a theatrical release and it is still referred to as "film". Tau is a similar case. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Never watched either of them, but I'd still consider them to be television films, or something similar. Because they were made by a network, and didn't have a theatrical release. How is this any different than the countless movies made by other networks? The Optimistic One (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Netflix deal for me makes it more than a television film. If it were I would imagine it airing on AMC first, rather than the other way around. Rusted AutoParts 01:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I also concur with identifying it as just a film. We are not calling films that premiere on Netflix television films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're both missing my point. AMC will air the movie as well; it's not a Netflix exclusive. I also didn't say that all movies that premiere on Netflix are television movies. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

AMC will air the movie sometime after the Netflix release. If the film would have aired on AMC before the Netflix release then I would probably agree with you. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind that the Oscars presently do not consider streaming a theatrical release - its why Netflix has a few very limited-run films they will show in LA to get enough theater time to qualify. I think that if the intent of the film was for Netflix or other streaming services only, then its a television film. --Masem (t) 22:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s still a sticky area too. If that’s the decree, what does that say for The Ridiculous 6, or Mute or Death Note? Rusted AutoParts 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That they should be television films if there never was an intent to show in theaters. A more practical example: The Cloverfield Paradox is NOT a television film as it was intended for theatrical release but ended up Netflix broadcasting it first. --Masem (t) 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Still kinda sticky for me. It’s clear that Netflix wants to be in the discussion for major film awards, given their big push for Roma and now this year with the likes of Marriage Story, The Laundromat, The King and The Irishman. Where do we begin to tell which is a film film or something that’s considered more akin to a television movie? Rusted AutoParts 23:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

How is it sticky? Films like The Irishman and Roma had, or will have a theatrical release. This very site defines television movies as: Feature-length motion pictures produced and originally distributed by or to a television network, in contrast to theatrical films. Would you consider Sharknado to be a TV film if it was made by Netflix? The Optimistic One (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There’s another thing, Netflix is a streaming service, not a television channel. It produces shows they want to be contenders for Emmys and films they want to be contenders for Oscars. That to me is a sticky situation because then with every Netflix film release it has to be weighed whether it constitutes being a film film or a television film. As I and others have said prior if it were a straight up television movie it would’ve been more likely to just air on its native AMC and cut out Netflix all together, but since that’s not the case, that is why it’s a sticky situation. Rusted AutoParts 01:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you name one Netflix original film that didn't get a theatrical release at all and got an Oscar nomination? Also, I heard last year Netflix movies are exempt from competing at the Cannes Film Festival. There's cleary different classifications for them and theatrically released pictures. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

My only input here is that it should be noted it was produced by Sony Pictures Television (like the TV series), and not one of Sony Pictures' film companies. Not sure if that would help in classification. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this clearly means to the producers that this project has more of a television feel to it. To them it's probably just a prolonged episode. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Netflix part still leads to quibbles for me. Like I said before, Netflix’s general intentions with movies are to be considered film films. Debuting prior to airing on its native channel I don’t think discounts its film nature. Won't You Be My Neighbor? aired on PBS pretty soon after it’s debut, and it’s still considered a documentary film as opposed to a documentary tv special. So I still think it’s a film film, regardless of the backing. Rusted AutoParts 02:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That documentary originally had a theatrical release beforehand. I've asked you a question above, but I don't think you seen it. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

My point with the awards aspect is to demonstrate that the films Netflix are producing are intended to be considered like traditional films you see in the cinema. It doesn’t mean that every film has to be put in theatres for awards consideration. Not every film is designated as being considered for awards. Rusted AutoParts 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether the documentary had a theatrical release prior is irrelevant in my point about it. It was used to illustrate it went from theatres to airing on television in a relatively short amount of time. Typically films air on television at least two years after it leaves theatres. Rusted AutoParts 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Netflix films are exempt from competing at the annual Cannes Film Festival. Also, as Masem stated above, "The Oscars presenty don't consider streaming a theatrical release." That particular film still had a theatrical release beforehand, regardless of when it aired on television. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You’re getting hung up in the semantics. My point is simply Netflix wants their films in the convo like regular movies. They submit certain titles for awards consideration like regular movies. So the films they air are considered general films. Decreeing a film a television film when it doesn’t air on television first is something I consider to be incorrect. Rusted AutoParts 02:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Cannes and Oscars have a different classification for them, and there clearly is. So what do you consider them; film films? Television films? Web films? The Optimistic One (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I still feel you’re hung up on the qualifying aspects needed for festivals or awards. I’m only pointing out Netflix wants to be in the discussion like other studios, so they perceive their releases as straightforward movies. This particular movie may be airing on AMC shortly after debuting on Netflix but it’s still debuting first on Netflix, which sees itself as in competition with other studios. So as it stands I view this as a film film on that basis. Rusted AutoParts 03:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Netflix might like to think their films are film films, but that doesn't change the fact that they're technically not. I could produce my own film and release it online and believe that it's just the same as any other film that gets released in cinemas, when in reality it's just a web film. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But seeing as we don't have a web film template..... Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. Care to explain? The Optimistic One (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It seemed like you were starting to make a case that regardless of how Netflix sees their catalog they aren’t technically film films. You made a parallel to making your own you upload online and how that’s nothing more than a web film. However in that example it forgets that there isn’t a web film infobox. So even if we were to make that decree for El Camino or any other Netflix film, there is no web film infobox to put in there to identify it as such. So we have the film infobox. That swings us back round to the general core of this debate: is this a film film, or a television film? You already know my answer. Rusted AutoParts 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree more with the hypothesis being that the film is a web film rather than a film film. There currently isn't an infobox for them, but that doesn't stop people from including the word into the film's lead section. Do you have any problem with me inserting it in? The Optimistic One (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of calling it a "web film", it makes it seem like it's some cheap movie filmed to be streamed on YouTube or something. I say we just stick with "film" for now and defer to what reliable sources are referring to it as. Netflix does refer it to as "The Netflix Television Event" per its press website. More food for thought. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think until we have an RS that can clearly provide objective measures for the difference between "(theatrical) film", "television film", and "web film", and how Netflix - which could be either TV or web - should be treated, let's leave it as "film". For all purposes a "television film" is still a "film", just not necessarily a "theatrical film". And this may be a question we can't answer now because there is no right answer yet as no one has really defined it in such a matter. Streaming media as well as Netflix's larger gameplay blurs so much of this together. --Masem (t) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

El Camino is getting a limited theatrical release, so this debate is should be settled. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled Breaking Bad film" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Breaking Bad film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

GA

Seeking any potential objections to nominating this page for GA status. My contributions to the page and, hell, creating the damn thing apparently isn’t enough for me to just put it up myself. So if there’s any objections please voice them. Rusted AutoParts 04:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth pinging the two main contributors by text, I think, Flowerkiller1692 and Masem. I've got an interest in reviewing this one—I only found out this movie existed when I saw it on the GAN page before withdrawal—if there's someone who can commit to addressing feedback within a week (I see an earlier GA review had no respondents). — Bilorv (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv I had previously nominated this as GA but got a bunch of feedback that I didn't know how to respond to. Said that I "cited the same citations over and over again" in the production section but it was this core of like five articles where most of the information comes from. And there were many other articles cited (around 35 in total), so again, I was unsure how to respond. I have been working gradually to de-reference some of those articles and find other sources to gather the information but was not sure whether it would be enough. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say that I was quite surprised when I read the review. I don't know that I'd bring up the same comments if I was to review it. If you're interested in going for GA status again, I could review it within the next couple of days and see what work I think there is to be done before you do anything further. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv I can renominate it then unless @Rusted AutoParts wants to. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ll put it up. Thank you for your guys’ input. Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 21:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll do this one, per discussion on the talk page. Hoping to get the first round of comments done by the end of Thursday. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: just to let you know, in response to this edit, you can get a bot to archive all links in the page if you wish on this page. — Bilorv (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That certainly saved me a load of time, thank you. Rusted AutoParts 17:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've done a full run-through of everything. If these comments are addressed (and if you disagree with any, please reply to them and we can reach agreement), and I do a round of source spotchecking with few or no errors, then I'll be very pleased to promote this one. Forgive me if my comments are a bit terse; overall, the article is very thorough and easily meets the majority of the GA criteria.

Referencing:

• Ref #39 says it's from TVGuide when it's actually from Forbes, but more significantly it doesn't seem to verify the second thing it is cited for: To prepare his score, Porter rewatched the series in order to select musical cues that he could revisit for the film. The closest I see is: [I had to] jump back [on] half of that timeline to the end of Breaking Bad again and pick up from there but I don't know that it literally means Porter rewatched the series, just that he adjusted his mindset from Saul to BB.

 Done Fixed the source. It was also the Vulture article that says this: "It’s been a few years, so first I had to go back and rewatch the series."

• This one's less of a big deal, but ref #39 also doesn't mention the songs "Sharing the Night Together" or "Static on the Radio", only verifying the text Licensed tracks were used sparingly in the film in the last paragraph. Perhaps the film itself is an acceptable source for the songs featured, but a secondary source would be even better.

 Done added new sources entirely.

• Followers were encouraged to share the countdown with the hashtag #WaitingWithHuell, in reference to the character. isn't verified by ref #55 ([1]).

 Done removed the statement altogether.

I'll keep doing rounds of spotchecks on the sourcing until there are few or no errors in a batch, so it may be worth looking through the rest of the referencing as well.

Content:

• is a 2019 American neo-Western crime thriller film — "crime" is obvious; "thriller" could do more with sourcing but seems like a good term; "neo-Western" would need more sourcing, as the A.V. Club doesn't use the term strongly enough for it to be a main label, leaving Hollywood Reporter as the lone source for it being a neo-Western rather than invoking Western imagery. I suggest adding a footnote for "thriller" with a couple of references, or an extra mention of the word "thriller" in the body (bonus points if it's someone in the production describing it as such), and removing "neo-Western".

Do we really need a source for "thriller?" I mean it's listed as one in the lone bad review by Hugh Montgomery "what we get is a fugitive thriller without the thrills..." and that is quoted verbatim in the critical response section. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Also added sources for "Neo-Western". They are located in the source I added in the image box of the actors reprising their roles, as well as a different source I added in the notebox stating that the Walter White flashback took place during "4 Days Out" Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• A Breaking Bad feature film was rumored ever since the series' finale in September 2013 — Point me to where this is mentioned (and referenced) in the body, if it is.

Seems that's a different way of putting the opening section of the Development section. I have reworded it to better reflect that. Rusted AutoParts 02:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• and noted the film as closure for fans of the series — Not sure this is a major aspect of the critical reviews quoted. I would replace it with something representative of the accolades (perhaps "and the film won a Critics' Choice Television Award and Satellite Award").

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Jesse finds Saul Goodman's "disappearer," — Needs more explanation for those who are less acquainted. Maybe "Jesse finds Ed Galbraith, a man he knows from Saul Goodman who can set people up with new identities and lives. Ed wants ...".

 Done Edited this. Hopefully this does not get reverted. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The script quickly grew to the length of an hour-long episode and eventually to two hours. Realizing that it would be more cost-effective than shooting a short episode, Gilligan decided to make his script a full-length film. — These sentences are out of chronological order, and I think the problem is fixed by just swapping their order. Additionally, from both of the sources, it seems less like [a film] would be more cost-effective than shooting a short episode and more like "A short film would not have been cost-effective".

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Gilligan stated that he hoped these scenes, along with an extended sequence with Jesse and Jane during their road trip, would be available as bonus features when the film was released on home video. — What he actually said was: When the Blu-ray comes out, we’ll have that as a deleted scene. But I think this is all a bit meaningless, as we'll find out if it is or isn't when the Blu-ray does come out. For now I'd take all that out, just leaving in a mention that an extended sequence with Jesse and Jane was filmed.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wording/nitpicks:

• The video would go further into detail — Better just as "The video went further into detail".

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• admit[ting/ted] is used a few times in the article. This word is a pet hate of mine. A tabloid favourite, it implies that readers should in some way be shocked at what they're reading; "said" or another SAID-approved word is a better substitute.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox says >$6 million and ~$40,000. I think just for formality those should be "more than $6 million" and "at least $40,000" (the $40K is from reporting by 12 of the 125 theaters that screened the film, so surely it's not roughly $40K, but likely majorly in excess of it).

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article should mention the currency is U.S. dollars on the first currency mention, $125,000 (plot), rather than the second, US$6 million (pre-production).

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• accounting for the ones that did not finish watching the entire movie — I think this clause is redundant and the rest of the sentence, It was also reported that at least 8.2 million viewers watched at least a few minutes of the film during its first three days of availability, speaks for itself.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Though the bloody handprint still remained on the prop, Gilligan admitted he did not have the "heart" to clean it off, and the mark is still visible in the final cut. Gilligan stated that while the visible handprint resulted in a continuity error, as the compound flashbacks occurred before the events of "Felina", he chose to leave it in the film as an easter egg for fans to catch. — Twice as long as it should be. Could be written as: "His handprint was not removed, instead left as an intentional easter egg for fans, despite it being a continuity error."

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Days before the film's announcement, Bob Odenkirk ... — Again, too lengthy for a man not actually involved in the film. I'd shorten the quote to just "They've done an amazing job of keeping it a secret."

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Aaron Paul claimed that the initial cut — "claimed" is loaded, just "said" or a synonym is better.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• TheWrap should be in italics.

 Done Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• In refs #13 (Time), #16 (Vulture) and #40 (Vulture), the website names should be in italics, I think.

What I'm seeing is italics aren't able to be added. An error message came up for me. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I should have been clearer. When you use |publisher, the name is put in normal text and when you use |website, the name is put in italics. I think these are websites so should use the latter. — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Potential further improvements:

This is just a comment that would hopefully be helpful for further improvement, whether for FA or just to make the article even better. There's no action required here in regards to this GA review.

• Critical reception is the hardest part of a film article and Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is the text to consult on it. The section is already GA quality and it's got a sensible structure of the comments, highlighting the connections between them. However, it's not quite FA quality. There's a bit of overquoting where paraphrasing or snappier quotes could do e.g. as Jesse grinds out the hard road he’s chosen, Aaron Paul emerges as an even more magnificent performer than his multiple Emmys attest is a sentence with more flair than critical analysis. (But it's important not to go too far the other way either i.e. not to misconstrue or exaggerate what a reviewer actually said, or write anything that's close paraphrasing.)

@Bilorv: What else could be fixed to make this an FA? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be the main issue I can see. Images should have alt text and tables should have relevant headers to comply with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I think some of the other sections of the article have slight tendencies to use overly long quotes, particularly when it comes to Gilligan. If there are any more developments such as Blu-ray release, the article would need to keep up-to-date with those. Another go-over from top to bottom checking that the sources match up perfectly with the things they are cited for would be good. But overall there's not much stopping the article from being listed at FAC. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Let's go for broke then. I added some more insightful sources that should highlight the reviews better, removed or lessened many of the quotes in each section, and I can do alt text and tables later on. @Rusted AutoParts: want to nominate this for FA? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've listed the criteria the article currently meets in the collapse box below and once the comments above are addressed, they'll all be met. I'll give it a week for comments to be addressed, so the review is officially  On hold.

GA criteria

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail:

— Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow I woke up this morning expecting to get going on more of these but it appears some help came through. Thank you @Drovethrughosts: and @Flowerkiller1692:. Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: all of your points have been fixed or addressed. Let us know what needs be done next. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a couple of tiny changes here, in response to the edits made during the review. Spotchecks done on sources: #1, #9, #64, #69, #84, #88, #94, #97. Only issues are with the last two, and they're not major issues, which is good enough for me to check off 2(c). The issue seems to be one throughout the awards section: the references are all of nominations lists, rather than lists of winners. Presumably this is because nobody remembered to update them after winners were announced. So the two wins are not referenced, and it would also be preferable to have lists of winners on the nominations, to show that they were nominated and didn't win, which is what we use {{nom}} for (vs. {{pending}} or {{won}}). Once the awards issue is fixed, this'll be a pass. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: that has been fixed. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and that's a pass for GA. It's been great to see the collaboration on this article and during this review, and if the article reaches FAC then I'll definitely comment there. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Bilorv: for overseeing the review. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: and @Rusted AutoParts: I am quite excited also! Glad this came together well. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Proof of the total amount of money in Todd's fridge

Earlier, I was curious as to how much money was in Todd's fridge door, and how that would lead to a certain third of the amount that left Jesse $1800 short in the first place. With a closer look at the details on-screen, I was able to figure out that Todd's total money count was $720,000.

First thing's first - when Jesse attempts to open the fridge door lining for the first time, the first stack of money falls out the bottom. The strap reveals that each stack is worth $5,000 in $50 bills. Now, if you go back to the scene where Jesse opens the inside of the fridge door to Neil, you can see that horizontally, there are 4 stacks of cash. Seconds later, we cut to a low-angle shot where Jesse is retrieving the garbage bag from the floor to collect his money, revealing that vertically, there are 12 stacks. So that's 12x4 stacks (48), meaning there's 48 stacks upfront. Now you're probably wondering, how would that amount to $720k? That's easy; it doesn't. When we cut to Jesse proceeding to take more money RIGHT BEFORE Neil stops him, you'll notice that behind each stack upfront, there are three more behind each one. By those means, 48x3=144, and 144x5,000=720,000.

Now, for the matter of how Jesse's third wasn't enough to obtain a new identity at first, here's the easy part. A third of 720,000 is 240,000, and Jesse needed to pay $250,000. You can see where this is going from here. Once he's counted $240,000, he grabs the money that Skinny Pete and Badger gave him - the $8,200. Of course, 250,000-248,200 is 1,800. Jesse was short $1,800. Neil only let Jesse take 48 stacks, so we can assume he could tell by the way the money was organized 12x4.

This all adds up crystal clear, and I know the information is right. As for keeping this detail of $720,000 within the plot section, I think its main purpose of staying should be in case viewers are already confused as to how much was in Todd's fridge in the first place, so when they see the amount in the plot section, then they can easily put the pieces together based on how much Jesse was short $1,800 and make sense of this plot element. - Theironminer (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is textbook original research for fiction - it requires freeze-framing and making assumptions about certain things (that there's actually $5000 in each stack, for example). We can there's a considerable amount of money hidden in the fridge but we absolutely cannot say how much it is without engaging in original research. --Masem (t) 05:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Masem, it's absolutely not appropriate to say this. Please do not edit war or make radical changes to an article going through the FA process. Your revert re-introduced several other errors which I have previously pointed you to. — Bilorv (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

FA

Well this seems to have passed GA status fairly quickly. Having made some of Bilorv's additional edit suggestions, I think this could be a good Feature Article Candidate. Shall we move forward and nominate this? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Are we sure it’s not a bit premature for that? It’s only just qualified as a GA. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You pretty much better make sure to have a skilled copy editor review before thinking of FA. --Masem (t) 06:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I know every source inside and out, and I am still improving the critical reception section to include better quotes...and @Bilorv: said this all but looks good as a FAC so may as well. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv I have significantly revamped the critical reception section. If I nominate this as an FAC would you be the editor? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the critical reception looks very good now. I believe this would stand a good chance at FAC. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the editor"—FACs need several editor reviews to succeed, but I would be happy to do one of them. I've found FACs don't gather reviews naturally; you have to review someone else's FAC submission and ask if they could review yours (but be prepared for them to say no anyway, and make sure your reviews are thorough and no more generous than if you were doing it without wanting a favour done afterwards). Masem comments that you need a skilled copy editor review before nominating but my only FA was copyedited by me alone; unless Masem sees a particular problem throughout the prose of this article then I don't think this should hold up nomination. (Regardless, you could get 100 different expert copyeditors to go over the article and there would still be comments about changing parts of the prose at FAC.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that WP:FAM exists for first-time nominators. — Bilorv (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: was more referring if you'd give the same edit suggestions you gave for when this was nominated for GA. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be happy to re-review it with the FA criteria in mind and make comments at the nomination. — Bilorv (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I'll nominate it then. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Seems like no one seems interested in reviewing it despite nominating it three days ago. Is this common for FAC's? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. See my comments above. The process takes months and to accrue reviews you often need to review other people's nominations. — Bilorv (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Just on the copyedit comment, in the past (I thikn my last FA was 5-6 years ago), I've always generally been asked to point to where a copyedit from a uninvolved editor has been made. I know FA doesn't *require* it but what I remember is that showing who did it and when smooths the gears in processing it. --Masem (t) 19:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been able to get much traction in terms of getting edit suggestions, and I have not had the bandwidth to scour other pages and make edit suggestions myself. So it looks like chances may be slim. Oh well, I learned a lot about the process on what it takes to become a Featured Article, and I will continue contributing to the page (currently trying to plan "Themes" and "Cinematography" sections). Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cinematography sub-section in Principal Photography help.

I've been wanting to make a cinematography sub-section in the "Principal photography" section in "Production." I hope to include this above "Locations." I primarily wanted to build this section using these two interviews with cinematographer Marshall Adams: this and this. The problem is a bulk of these articles use industry talk, which I am unable to understand, in regards to what Gilligan wanted the film to look like. For example, the first article has a statement that said "Adams explains that Gilligan wanted a natural look for El Camino. To help control color contrast and balance along with flares, the filmmakers relied on ARRI Prime DNA lenses." Okay - so what exactly were the contrast and balance that they used and how does it contribute to a natural look? It also doesn't seem to me that Marshall Adams lists enough tangible examples in the film to bolster what he is saying. Either these articles doesn't go into enough detail, or I am not well-versed enough in cinematography to understand that this IS enough information.

It also seems like these two articles go into heavy detail as to the camera and the lenses that Adams and Gilligan chose. For the opening paragraph of the cinematography section I was actually planning on taking the opening line from the "Principal photography" section ("The film was shot at a 2.39 widescreen aspect ratio using the Arri Alexa 65 camera to capture the work in a cinematic manner.") and going into detail as to what lenses they chose and why. But again, I feel that I am not well-versed enough into this equipment to understand what is considered necessary to include on the article, so could someone perhaps help me out with this? Same goes with Dave Cole and FotoKem's role in delivering dailies, but I am unsure of the significance of this.

One thing that DID make sense to me as how they mention that they filmed the "flashback" and "present" scenes differently. I mean this passage says it all: "Flashback scenes had a handheld aesthetic. 'That included anything we did on cranes or dollies,' Adams explains. 'Because the ALEXA 65 is such a big, heavy camera, it doesn’t make sense to carry it handheld. To add a bit of wiggle, the crew used a truck airbag between two plastic plates that could be inflated or deflated easily, with the camera mounted on top and the entire "rig" attached to a dolly on the bottom.'" I've been wanting to include this tidbit of info for quite a long time but I have not found the right section to put it in, hence why I wanted to create this section.

Anyone got any pointers? There is also a podcast that he made here, which I haven't listened to yet, but I am also unsure how to cite information from something from audio.

—Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For citing, we have a {{cite podcast}} template: {{cite podcast |url= |title= |website= |publisher= |host= |date= |time= |access-date= }} Key is that you want the approximate timestamp (the time=) parameter when the specific information is given. --Masem (t) 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: The question is not HOW to cite, it is WHAT to cite. —Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, I misread. The detail on the lens/etc. may be a bit too much (at some point this starts sounding like an ad). The camera type is very significant but lens--- eh unless we've got sources that specifically talk about the film's look, which I don't think we really do. But the idea of the different camera "aesthetic" for the flashback and how they achieved it with the Alexa 65 is good, as that gives a couple pieces of info (an intent for flashbacks, and how they produced it). --Masem (t) 01:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: well this came out yesterday, which gave me the example I needed. Got it written now! —Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

FA Review

Well, it seems that enough time has passed, and that the page is pretty much complete in regards that no new major sections will likely be added. Does anyone think that this has a better chance of being promoted to a Featured Article? I had tried nominating once beforehand but could not get enough peer reviews for the nomination to go through. I remember @Bilorv: being extremely helpful during my previous attempt. Do you have any pointers as to how to increase my odds of getting this to succeed this time? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, some of it is random chance with who looks at FAC when and picks something to review, but you can always get more people to help out if you review their nominations and then ask if they're interested to look at yours, or approach people directly. I'll have to take a look over the article again but I'll definitely leave a review. I could maybe even review some others and point them your way if you're not comfortable doing FA reviews yet, or I could (meta-)review any reviews you do and see if they look right. — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I don't feel comfortable with my editing skills to review others...if you could do that in order to get more reviewers on our page that would be great! Or if you know of some other editors who had made edits to your FAC's that would be helpful too. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, well if you nominate it again then I'll see what I can do. — Bilorv (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: It'll likely be another month before I nominate this again, as I have a lot on my plate in the real world, but I will be sure to ping you when I do. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. That should be okay timing for me too. — Bilorv (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Might start the nomination process today if that works for you. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great to me! — Bilorv (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I have started the nomination process. I look forward to editing! As I mentioned last month - if it were possible for you to contact some of the editors who made suggestions on your featured article candidates in the past, please send them our way. It would be really good to see this promoted. — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it's now on my to-do list. — Bilorv (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: just wanted to say thanks for all your help in getting more reviewers to get this to FA status. It seems that we have plenty at this point....what are the next steps? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. To be honest I only called in a couple of people and the rest is people deciding to weigh in because the nomination has some momentum, or random chance. FACs are usually open for at least a month, so I would expect the next step is just to wait a few weeks. You might get another review or two in that time. But the co-ordinators won't close it within a few days of it having opened just because hypothetically it's good to give everyone who is active at FAC the chance to have seen the article and given it a good look, just in case anyone finds a major issue that no-one else discovered. It's not unheard of for something to gather a few supports before someone finds a critical problem (though seven independent reviewers would be quite something...), but the reason I'm confident of that not happening here is that I've reviewed the article in quite some detail by this point and I do believe it's very high-quality. — Bilorv (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I saw that you had reached out to some people. And to let you know the latter two are actually people that I reached out to myself, as I saw that they had left suggestions on several other FAC's. But it certainly doesn't hurt. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: We did it!!! — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of accolades received by El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie § List length

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of accolades received by El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie § List length. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Images

@Masem: re this edit, I didn't move the images to "elevate any actor above another", I moved them out of the cast list section because, on a smartphone, the images are squished to the left, leaving a large block of whitespace on the right, (which is why I noted WP:IMGLOC in the summary). I didn't really see the placement as an issue as that's where two of the three actors are initially wiki-linked. You could always just move Paul if that's really an issue, or not... it doesn't matter to me where any images are located, I just wanted to fix the problem with the current placement of those images interfering with the cast list. - wolf 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: That's a problem with either Template:Cast listing or Template:Multiple images. I previously had issues with the cast listing template and I had some of the people who edit the templates get it fixed. You can see my discussion there in talk page of the cast listing page. This is a subject to bring up there if you are finding spacing issues. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't "get it fixed". As I said back in August, it was a compromise. You can have either the auto-column list but empty space below or next to the images, or the text nicely filling up the space, but not both. It's not that long of a list and you're not going to get columns anyway unless you have a very wide monitor precisely because there's the multi-image box, so AFAICS removing {{cast listing}} is aesthetically pleasant and accessible to the widest possible viewership. I consulted Izno, who seems to think it's fine the way it is, but Thewolfchild clearly doesn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and whatever we end up with someone is going to be not happy. Nardog (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: Sorry, looking at who gave me the comment, I think we may have spoken past each other.

What I was referring to the fact that, if you look Thewolfchild's comment above, he says the way that from the way that it looks, it doesn't seem to be appearing correctly on the smartphone he is using. However, it seems to be working fine on mine. So I was saying that perhaps he could refer it to you because perhaps the issue he is facing may be appearing on the smartphone of his type. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just squeeze and expand the browser width back and forth and you'll know what we mean. Basically, we're currently sacrificing most laptop and tablet users and some desktop users for a slight benefit to the desktop users who have the browser wide open. If you have a wide window, you get nice multiple columns, but if you don't, you get either a big empty space next to the images or an ugly, gratuitously long list. Ironically, the height of the section reduces for many users if you remove {{cast listing}}, whose whole purpose is to make lists compact. So why not do that. Nardog (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll just remove the cast listing part then. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Overuse of notes in plot section

Flowerkiller1692 has repeatedly restored notes into the plot section that others such as Aaron Liu and Wtmitchell have found redundant or duplicative. It appears that Flowerkiller1692 has done a lot of great work on this page, but I do not agree with their insistence that all the notes should be kept in the plot section regardless of other editor's views. I think it would be useful to work this out on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. Personally, I do not think almost any of the notes are needed. It is not the role of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to explain every plot connection. However, as Flowerkiller1692 has done a lot of work on this page, I would not object to keeping some of them. In particular, I think we should not add back multiple notes referencing the series finale, as that this is a sequel that takes place immediately after the finale, as explained in both the lead and the first note. Does anyone else have any thoughts? – notwally (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean these have been here snd passed both the GA and FA nominations. So I don't see the reason why you would need to remove them. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I gave my reasons above, as did the other two people in their edit summaries. For me, the excessive notes are redundant and make the plot section more cumbersome to read, especially for screen readers, while adding no value to the reader since anyone who is interested in that depth of information would already know it (if you didn't see the series finale, the movie isn't going to make any sense anyway) and would also be able to go to fan websites to find it more about the plot connections. It's the same reason that all of our TV show or movie series plots don't have a half dozen notes, since obviously any interconnected media could have dozens of these types of notes. GA/FA nominations have nothing to do with permanently keeping content in an article, and so I don't really know why you brought it up. Would you like to provide actual reasons for why you think the disputed content should be in the article? – notwally (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fine. If this is the consensus, go ahead and remove it. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is based on discussions about reasons. If you gave your substantive reasons for finding the content valuable, I'm sure that would make the discussions more productive. – notwally (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you wish you can add the time to the note already there at the end of the sentence with an actually reliable source. Plus FA and GA doesn't necessarily mean every single mistake has been fixed, just that certain types are few enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The footnotes are generally excessive, particularly when there's no secondary source making connections to these past episodes. Masem (t) 01:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There were six years between "Felina" and El Camino, so notes connecting the two seem sensible to me. In addition, many of the notes refer to things that were implied, not stated explicitly, such as Badger and Pete giving Jesse their money. Without the note, the connection to Walt paying them in "Felina" and them giving that money to Jesse in El Camino isn't made. Billmckern (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Billmckern: The only note we have an issue with here (which has already been removed) was one in the middle of the first sentence which already has a note connecting the two at the end of it, and all of the other notes such as the one about the money are intact. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: That's not quite true. @Notwally wanted to remove the now-second footnote that mentions all the references to Felina. So what are you guys suggesting - removing all the notes altogether? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Flowerkiller1692, that's also not quite true. There were four notes that referenced the finale, all in the same pargraph, including note #2 and three uses of note #4 [2]. I had removed the three notes after the first one that mentioned the finale (from 4 down to 1 mention of the finale in that paragraph). I think four notes mentioning the finale, all in the same paragraph, when the film takes place immediately after the finale's conclusion, is excessive. After the most recent edit by Aaron Liu, there are now three notes referencing the finale, all in that same paragraph. I think one is sufficient. Personally, I would prefer removing almost all the notes, as I do not think notes in plot sections making minor plot connections are useful for encyclopedic purposes, but I also think it's important to respect the work that editors have done on articles when they have worked a long time on them. Also, regarding Billmckern's comment, there is no time between the finale and the movie in terms of the plot, and the fact that the film takes place immediately after the finale is in the lead already. In addition, I don't think we should be including notes in any articles for what we assume is implied, as that would be original research. If a connection is not explicitly made in the film or in reliable secondary sources, then we should not be including it at all. – notwally (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Notwally Alright fine then. I'll let you remove whichever notes you don't feel are sufficient. I'll also be moving the notes that were related to the awards further up to where they originally were, as they show the people who were associate with the awards. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Flowerkiller1692, instead of being petulant, you could just engage in a good faith discussion. – notwally (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not upset. You guys seemingly know what you want. I don't want to get in your way, so come up with a consensus and you guys can carry it out as you please. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

And I was stating a matter of fact - the footnote that Aaron Liu said that "we" have an issue was not the one that you wanted to remove @Notwally. So he clearly thinks there is a consensus of which ones to remove when he made the change, when there is clearly not.

And in terms of "good faith" - all of the notes have sources attached to them stating which episodes when they occurred - I'd personally prefer if all of them stayed, but I am in the minority here. So as I was saying, feel free to remove whichever ones you feel fit or the ones you find excessive, I will not get in the way. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Flowerkiller1692. They have definitely helped me understand your perspective more. If the only disagreement about the other footnotes referencing the finale is between you and me, then I am not going to make the change unilaterally. I think removing two references to the finale from the first sentence of that paragraph was a useful change. – notwally (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, OK then. Billmckern (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Car

Which year and model is the El Camino seen in the movie? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Maikel: If this source is to be believed, the El Camino is from the 1981 model year. Billmckern (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)