Talk:Gore (film)

"Upcoming"

It is not currently upcoming if the distributor has dropped it, and there are no announcement that a new one will be sought or are likely. If that changes, then it can be described as upcoming again. But for now, cancelled is a correct description. -- KTC (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that way. Hollywoodreporter.com says "Additionally, the streamer has scrapped a Gore Vidal biopic starring Spacey." Although mercurynews.com is less clear, saying "The movie is described on IMDB as: “A young man spends a summer in Italy where he meets his idol, Gore Vidal, who teaches him about life, love, and politics... With a description like that, presenting an unfortunate parallel to what’s going on in Spacey’s real life, Wallenstein [Editor of Variety] said “it’s hard to believe that this movie is going to see the light of day at Netflix — and perhaps not anywhere else either." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Netflix has said it will no longer be releasing it. Obviously a statement from Netflix isn't going to say anything about other distributors. That announcement will come from the new distributor in due course. THR's statement is just their interpretation of the Netflix statement. If they had aborted during shooting or before, "cancelled" would be a correct description. — Film Fan 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear, isn't it? So why not leave out both "cancelled" and "upcoming" and just put "an American biographical drama film"? The article can explains the situation? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

To me "an American biographical drama film" implies that it is none of upcoming, in production or cancelled as "is a ... film" is how articles about things that have been out years are described. The simplest way to solve this in my opinion is adding the word "unreleased", which is true whether it will be released tomorrow or never. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that seems perfectly acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Netflix had full ties to the project and had cancelled its release in its early post production phase. It is correct to refer to it as cancelled. Also Mercury News is not as reliable as the likes of The Hollywood Reporter. Their phrasing should not be taken into account. Rusted AutoParts 22:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any good sources with the word "cancelled"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Linked onto the page. Rusted AutoParts 22:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Variety source which says: "Netflix, meanwhile, said Friday that it... would cancel the Gore Vidal biopic, “Gore"..."? So have they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Their statement is supplied with THR. It seems you’re taking the phrasing’s of each article very literally. “Not moving forward” and “cancelling” are the same thing in this case. Since the film is not finished, it’s not in a position of just being shelved, it’s going to go uncompleted. Which is why cancelled is perfectly accurate to refer to it as. Rusted AutoParts 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, THR says: "We have also decided we will not be moving forward with the release of the film Gore, which was in postproduction, starring and produced by Kevin Spacey." I guess it's impossible that any other production company could now step in and move forward with it. We could even call it "dropped", I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's far from impossible.

Don't alter the sentence again without discussing further. You don't have consensus here. — Film Fan 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't ever altered it? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I provided sources. You provided inference. And from what I see myself and KTC are for correctly calling it cancelled, Martinevans seems for whatever. It appears it’s just you who’s against using the word cancelled. Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm for not using "upcoming". I *think* cancelled is an accurate term in this case, but don't have the energy to fight for it, especially when I've been waiting for this to settle down to consider if there's enough notability concern to nominate the entire thing for deletion. -- KTC (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let’s look at our options, since even sourcing doesn’t seem to suffice:

• cancelled - indicates the production was nearing completion and as such will no longer be completed. Gets the point across that this is no longer happening.

• unreleased - this implies that this has the potential to see release at some point. Netflix, being the primary production company behind the project, had announced its no longer going forward. Inference can be suggested that it’s highly doubtful in this climate that other studios are willing to buy the production which has an alleged sexual predator as its star. Especially considering their statement left no suggestion they were shipping the project around to other studios.

• unfinished - implies there’s a possibility for it to be finished, but since Netflix is no longer moving forward with the production it’s an implication we can’t make. It also doesn’t work as any film in its shooting or post production phase can be considered unfinished.

Cancelled to me is the correct term. This fixation on how the sentence is phrased is silly as “not moving forward” and “cancelled” walk hand in hand with this film’s situation. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a counterpoint or revert your edit @Film Fan:. Rusted AutoParts 23:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

All Netflix has said is that it won't be moving forward with the release. The film is close to completion, and (as far as any of us know) may well be finished elsewhere. And it will. But we don't have to know that it will happen to know that it's possible. Cancelled is not the correct term. Both unreleased or unfinished are fine. — Film Fan 23:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That’s your inference. Again, no indication was made they were offering the rights elsewhere. As it is it won’t be released or finished. Cancelled is more appropriate. Rusted AutoParts 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Film Fan: Your point could be see if they had made the indication they were going to see if there was any interest from other studios to see if they’re anted to take it on. But as of now that isn’t the case. The case is it’s been shut down with no plans to complete it. So in that case, cancelled, or even halted, are more applicable. But again, with halted there’s an indication demonstrates that it could be resumed which at present time isn’t the case. Rusted AutoParts 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course it could be resumed. You're the one making assumptions saying that isn't the case. Also, no distributor that drops a film ever mentions that another company might take it up. That's not their business. That's not how it goes. — Film Fan 13:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Film Fan: please provide an article to support that there's potential for the film to be picked up by another distributor. At this moment the project has been clearly described as not moving forward. That means cancelled or halted. As I've pointed out unreleased or unfinished are too open ended to use as it gives an expectation of plausibility it could be resumed, which would be unsourced WP:OR at the present moment. Rusted AutoParts 00:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No such article is required. The project has not been described as not moving forward. The distributor has announced that they will not be moving forward with the release. Big difference. Cancelled and halted also mean different things. Neither "unreleased" or "unfinished" give an expectation that it will be resumed. That's simply a conclusion that you have come to. Nowhere in the article are we saying anything like "the project will find another distributor." But it will. We're not suggesting it will in the article, but it will. How I know that is irrelevant. No distributor is going to announce anything in the next few weeks (maybe months) till this has all blown over a bit. — Film Fan 09:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Film Fan, I don't think it's acceptable to use the word "upcoming" on the basis of your own personal crystal-ball gazing. I mean, it's not even WP:OR on your part (like you had heard privately from an employee or whatever), it's just a pure hunch. To me Thryduulf's suggestion of "unreleased" is best. If things change, as you predict, "in the next few weeks", the article can, of course, be very easily updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't even suggesting that anymore. "Canceled" just isn't the word. — Film Fan 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the word is "unreleased". There seems to be a vague possibility that it will be seen eventually. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@TropicAces: Netflix has stated they’re got going forward with it and there was no mention it was being shopped to other distributors. It’s also not dated so it’s not upcoming. Rusted AutoParts 01:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Film Fan, just out of interest, could you give us an example of another film that was "not taken forward" by one distributor but was then taken forward by another? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Film Fan: you keep throwing people here but no consensus was formed. There is nothing incorrect about “uncompleted”, considering post Production was not finished prior to cancellation. Rusted AutoParts 07:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Film Fan: are you not going to answer why my edit was reverted? It was not an incorrect edit. There’s no consensus for any phrasing. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)