Talk:Interstellar (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding tone

How can the tone of this article be improved? There are only two sentences which the tone stub is addressing. Please let me know how you think it can sound more "encyclopedic". --Erik 18:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article and comparing it to the guide to writing better articles, I can only assume that the word "leading" was what violated the formal tone of the paragraph. Otherwise, I can't see what else needs to be improved. If it was that one word, then I encourage you in the future to make edits yourself instead of inserting a tone template, which is a more complicated matter. Also, I double-checked the fact about Koepp rewriting Thorne's script treatment at the provided citation and found no such information, so I went ahead and removed that. --Erik 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

for AfD

Rationale to quote is:

Pure speculation. References cited include IMDB, which happily tells you that *they* aren't sure about it either, and an interview with Spielberg in which the project is mentioned in passing towards the end. Film is supposedly due in 2009. We can be almost certain that the US will have a new president by then, and almost certain that the memory of the Olympics in Beijing will be fading from our minds. We can't say the same about a film, no matter who's running the show. WP:NOT a crystal ball.

Responses go to the AfD itself, not here. 81.104.170.167 06:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for AfD nomination can be visited here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar (film) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 06:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sliders

- If this is a movie about wormholes and other dimensions. When there is conformation about this shouldn't we put here some links to existing movies/series with this theme, like Sliders ? Karces 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign)

Citation for use

• Warped in La La Land —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Working Draft

I've created a working draft for this page in a subspace of my sandbox, and your help expanding it as and when information becomes available would be appreciated. Thanks. drewmunn talk 13:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Crew members

I sought to add a list of key crew members in the "Production" section as seen here because the film infobox does not have fields for all the crew members, such as the executive producer, production designer, costume designer, and visual effects supervisor. Like the infobox's "Starring" field identifies only some of the cast members where the "Cast" section shows a fuller list, we should be able to provide a fuller list of crew members in the "Production" section. Koala15 says MOS:FILM#Production does not say anything about such a crew list and thus should not be included, but this is not true. The Manual of Style for films has been explicit about what not to include, and a crew list has never been one of these elements. Most of the crew members have their own Wikipedia articles (and I believe the visual effects supervisor's could be created also), and I think it is a boon to Wikipedia to encourage cross-navigation so readers can look up crew members just like they can look up cast members, especially if elements of production stand out to them like actors' performances stand out. I have not seen a good reason so far that such a crew list would be detrimental. If it is about use of space, then we could talk about collapsing the list like we sometimes do with soundtracks' track listings. The crew list is not a common element in film articles because we've traditionally believed that the infobox was the only place to do it. I'd like to break away from that kind of thinking and be able to be more comprehensive, especially with so many valid blue links available, in identifying the crew. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hrm. The thing that worries me about this is that we may be setting a precedent where anyone can argue that any film credit is appropriate for inclusion in a film article, and I don't think we really want to see that kind of bloat ensue in film articles. Put another way, where do we draw the line between credits significant enough for inclusion and those that fall short? And do we hardcode such a distinction into the MOS or just deal with problems as need be?

If we are going to include additional credits I'd greatly prefer to see them added as a(n ideally collapsible) infobox or something that implicitly limits the potential for bloat. We already have issues with Cast sections where editors will add too many non-principals; I'd prefer to avoid making it easy to create an identical problem. DonIago (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The crew members I included here were culled from the press release for Interstellar, so that is one rule of thumb to follow. We could come up with other rules of thumb like what we have at WP:FILMCAST. For example, some film reviews mention crew members like what I listed here, and these positions are also the kinds that win awards (production design, costume design, etc). I don't think we can ever establish a good cutoff point like with "Cast", but we can encourage similar rules of thumb. The thing is, I don't want to add actual guidelines to the MOS just yet. This is a new approach that I'd like to encourage naturally, not necessarily everywhere, but for articles where there are plenty of blue links for cross-navigation. An indie film with red links for crew members would not warrant this approach. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding collapsibility, this was something I experimented with at Panic Room before I decided to show it in full. Maybe some variation of that? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I like that! It provides useful info but people who don't care about it aren't presented with a huge chunk of information they have to scroll past. DonIago (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Koala15: What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i guess we can do that if everyone else agrees. Koala15 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll let the discussion sit overnight. No rush to add the list. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of finding a way to place positions such as Production Designer and the other three you mentioned in film articles, and this seems reasonable. I see no need to make such a list collapsible. Not unless it's much longer than the version you linked to at top. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have it collapsed by default, personally. I'm not going to be interested in this info (nor will I suspect a lot of readers) most of the time, and if it's not collapsed then I suspect we'll set ourselves up for people asking whether it can be collapsed. Expanding it requires a minimum of effort if a reader wishes to do so, and I think it stands out enough that the danger of someone overlooking it is minimal. But, just my opinion. DonIago (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The chances are very high a reader unfamiliar with WP collapsible templates is going to overlook it. And given that it's only four lines, collapsing it is quite unnecessary. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Four lines in this case, not necessarily four lines in every case. Personally I think it's not easy to overlook, but it would probably be best to ask that question of a wider audience if it's considered a concern. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I just restored the crew list in a collapsed template for now. I would rather not collapse it, but readers/editors may need to warm up to this approach first. I don't think it takes up too much space. At Panic Room, I think it is a nice break from having a wall of text. I assume that we can all see three columns of crew members' names? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

One...two...three, three columns! Ah ah ah!!!! DonIago (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Jordan Goldberg and Jake Myers as executive producers since they don't seem notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. I think maybe we can keep Kip Thorne in the list, but switch the focus to say that he is a consultant as well as an executive producer, the latter being more of an aside. I'm working on cleaning up the filmography for each person. One neat thing about Lynda Obst is that she was executive producer for Contact, another wormhole-themed film. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I created Paul Franklin (visual effects supervisor). I added a "Filmography" section for Nathan Crowley. We need a similar section for Mary Zophres. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible?

Presently, the article has a crew list in the "Production" section that is collapsed. DonIago thinks it should be collapsed, whereas Gothicfilm thinks it does not. I personally would like it not to be collapsed, but it is not critical for me. Here are the versions in collapsed and un-collapsed forms. Do other editors have a preference? Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I'm wondering whether we should ask this at a location where it might attract a larger audience, especially if we're looking at adopting this as a wider option going forward. That said, I should note that I don't have strong feelings about this, just concerns that if the crew list gets significantly large for a given article then it will be an annoyance for readers who aren't interested in the information (I don't mean to be a downer but I believe this will be the majority of readers) and that a significant number of said readers will also not know how they can collapse the list. I don't know what the general opinion would be about these concerns though, so it's definitely good that we're looking for a wider range of feedback. I'm not planning to contest whatever the consensus proves to be in any case, barring any remarkably "creative" reasoning. DonIago (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a discussion that we need to hurry. The crew list being collapsed is not detrimental; it has a colored bar, after all. We can give this a week and then reach out further. I'd rather keep the consensus localized as not to create an impression to have crew lists everywhere. I'm still mulling over the criteria for that. For example, for this film, we have an all-star crew in addition to the all-star cast. Most other films don't have that kind of crew, so in such cases, their roles could just be mentioned if there is context to provide, like the production designer building a unique set. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! DonIago (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd prefer to see at the bottom of the section. Collapsed looks OK for now at the bottom, but I suspect that will change when more content is added below. Until that time, however, I don't think it makes that much of a difference, but I'm generally averse to using collapses in articles at all.  drewmunn  talk  07:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All, I've removed the collapsible feature from the crew list per WP:COLLAPSE. Apparently we should not be using it in the article body. This would probably affect articles' soundtrack listings more. I've posted a discussion about this at WT:FILM#Collapsibility. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Legendary Pictures

A couple of editors have tried to add Legendary Pictures to the infobox's "Studio" field. However, Legendary has a role as a co-financier, similar to Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. (both which will also distribute the film). The Hollywood Reporter says, "Legendary negotiated to retain a hefty stake in Christopher Nolan's sci-fi tentpole Interstellar... Legendary will finance 25 percent or more of the big-budget project... The move adds a third backer." It also says later, "Back in March, it was reported that Legendary would not have a financial role in Interstellar... But when its Warner Bros. divorce proceedings began, Legendary came to the bargaining table... Sources say Warners CEO Kevin Tsujihara wanted to keep the studio's DC Comics properties to itself and instead offered Legendary a stake in Interstellar... Legendary CEO Thomas Tull jumped at the opportunity." The film infobox does not have a field for companies that co-finance film productions, so the best we can do is mention them in the article body where applicable, and that is done here with Legendary. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Logos confuse people. If you haven't already (sorry, I'm not just lazy, my internet's quite slow), a hidden note there may help!  drewmunn  talk  20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I just added a note. Thanks for the suggestion! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised to see you raising this now. Legendary Pictures, Dune and other co-finance companies have been routinely added to the "Studio" field of dozens and dozens (probably hundreds) of WP film infoboxes. I don't remember any Film Project editor challenging it as a policy. I tried on a couple where they weren't even mentioned on the film's poster. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, a Project discussion might be useful to bring this to the community's attention and ensure we have consensus on which way to progress. Erik's point is sound, in that it's not actually a studio, so it's whether we want to digress from that in favour of (possibly ill-informed) precedent or not that's important now.  drewmunn  talk  21:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can be a vague mix of corporate roles. I was talking to Betty about this last month with the film 12 Years a Slave (film); you can see the discussion here. It is not easy to discern what company did what, and a seemingly notable company may not actually have a place in the infobox, like Legendary in this case. I'm not sure what we can do in terms of the infobox. Maybe like with the crew list, we can list the companies in the article body, though I'm not sure if there is a good way to identify what company did what in general. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Poster?

Who found that poster and is it real? Cause i can't find it anywhere online. Koala15 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

According to a Google By Image search (hopefully viewable at this link), it's appeared on a good number of sites, including ones that would be classed as reliable sources. As a purely incidental exercise, I'll ask the original poster to add a source to the image.  drewmunn  talk  18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I found the poster on numerous sites, and as stated by Drew, some are classified as reliable sources. I've added the link on the file description page. - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that!  drewmunn  talk  21:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks fake. It's in the same style as Nolan's previous films (Main character's back to camera). Also the font for "Matthew McConaughey" looks like its ripped straight from 'Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind'. I think it is a fan made poster as I haven't seen this poster on any movie news sites in the past 24 hours. If it was official it would be on those sites by now.lankeymarlon (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Purely semantic, but it's actually front-to-camera. On a more serious note, however, it comes from a reliable enough source for it to remain until it is proven fake. Claiming it to be fake is OR without evidence.  drewmunn  talk  19:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I also think it is fan made, it looks like someone website just googled "Interstellar poster" and used a fan made one. We should remove it as fast as possible. Koala15 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew's name appears as such, due to the resolution and size reduction I conducted using ImageOptimizer to help satisfy WP:NFCC. It should not be removed because there is no evidence that supports your claim. The poster comes from a reliable source, and should stay until you can actually back up your claim. - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My problem is for a high profile film like this wouldn't the poster have been widely reported? Cause it clearly wasn't, and since when do films have posters before they start filming? Cause this poster was on that site the day filming began, how would they have time to shoot a poster that fast? Koala15 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's whole point/concept of a teaser poster. It's pure advertising. This by no means is the theatrical release poster, but it is the film's teaser poster. An example of a teaser poster would be the one seen on X-Men Days of Future Past. It's a poster released by the distributor, publisher, or the graphic artist of the film, as is the one seen on Interstellar's page. - Mainstreammark (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Google Image is not a source and that doesn't make the poster real. You could Google Image search thousands of fan made posters. None of them being official. It should remain off the page until the film studio releases an offical Teaser Poster. Mainstreammark I'm starting to think that you have created this poster and want your artwork up on the page.lankeymarlon (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, dude I am the worst artist like ever, but if you feel this strong about it, we can wait till another official teaser poster is released. I might be taking a wiki-break soon, and if the poster that's on the page right now is confirmed publicly, would you mind re-adding it? Good day for now! -Mainstreammark (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Google images was not the source. The source is given on the image page. The website is accepted within many articles as a reliable source, so there is no problem with the source (which is not, strangely, Mainstreammark). By removing it, I'm going to assume that you're invoking WP:BRD, so I'll open a discussion below on the inclusion of the image.  drewmunn  talk  11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss

A user has now removed File:Interstellar Teaser Poster.jpg from the page, and so I'm invoking discussion on its inclusion so as to reach consensus on whether it should be in place or not. The arguments of both sides are as follows:

• For inclusion: The poster can be found on multiple sites (ranging from reliable to not) with publish dates prior to its inclusion in this article.
• Against inclusion: The poster has not been officially recognised.

Your views are welcome on this, and as I can't currently find the guidelines specifically on film posters, it may be that someone can point out if one position contravenes any such guideline. If not, we'll need to be reaching our own consensus, and then maybe opening it to community agreement as a guideline.  drewmunn  talk  11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Has this poster appeared in any theaters yet? Has it been published by any of the major Hollywood trades i.e. Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly? I don't think we should include images if we cannot verify they are issued by the film's distributor. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For inclusion: I've spoken with an admin, and he's stated that on the grounds that the poster comes from a reliable source (which it does), it should stay in the article. Proof here. This is not something difficult to understand. The poster comes from a reliable source, and so can be verified as an authentic teaser poster for the film. - Mainstreammark (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Against inclusion: If it were a real poster it would have been widely reported, and not on MovieFone 2 weeks after the movie began filming. Koala15 (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For inclusion: If you're logic is correct, why was it posted on various reliable websites? It's also avaliable for purchase at MovieGoods' website, and other sites as well. Teaser posters don't have to be widely reported, theatrical release posters do. An admin has given an evaluation, and I believe we should follow that evaluation. - Mainstreammark (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion above, and so far nobody seems to have noticed that the credit block at the bottom of the poster is from Inception (see larger image here: here; if you zoom in on the NFCC compliant image, you can see that the credit block closely matches the larger versions). So, on those grounds alone, I'd say you should wait (I suppose that puts me in the Against inclusion camp, but this is a !vote). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow you are right! It says "Inception" in the credits so that just cements that it is fake. Koala15 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No one checked the billing block? Seriously? Rusted AutoParts 20:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The original image may have been too small to be easily legible, and seeing it in use on websites would tend to make it less likely to be a fan-made poster. I can see where that might get overlooked. WP:AGF. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I too didn't notice it, having only checked it in the reduced size and confirming existence via an image search. Probably something I should have looked at previously...  drewmunn  talk  08:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I never bothered to check the credit block cause I assumed that if someone was trying to trick us they would have gone to the bother of changing that. Oh well just shows you can never be too careful. lankeymarlon (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I cropped out the helmet insignia, brightened it a bit, and zoomed it (see here). I don't recognize it, except that it kind of looks like a wolf's head looking sideways. Wondering if the entire "pilot" image isn't a football player carrying a helmet that's been turned into a silhouette. Sadly, Google image search doesn't let you search for shapes (or at least my Google-fu is lacking and I can't get it to let me search for an outline of the pilot to see if maybe it's been ripped from another image). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right in that Google's By Image search doesn't allow for shape-search (that would make our life too easy, now, wouldn't it?). Having analysed the silhouette , I think I know how it was made, it seems to be a picture of a fighter pilot wearing a g-suit (see this image). There is also a little inconsistency between the helmet sizing and body scale in the shadow, so I think that it's either added in entirely or otherwise manipulated. The fact that the shadow is at 90 degrees to the shadows across the rest of the image is either artistic choice (unlikely in a professional image, but possible) or a mistake caused by the stock image used for the surface. Anyway, enough from me.  drewmunn  talk  08:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Looks like there is a new poster making its rounds online. I uploaded it to replace the film logo, but I saw some comments that it was fake. Can anyone confirm either way? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Vertical logo?

I found that there is also a vertical logo that appears for smaller screens and mobile browsers. Since this has roughly the same length as a poster, does anyone think that this would perhaps be better suited for the infobox? – Zntrip 19:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I prefer the current horizontal logo. I think the vertical logo's length is longer than a standard poster image. I'm not sure if it will look good in standard page view, though it may look fine in a mobile page view. It would be nice to be able to do both for different views, but I don't think the underlying code is capable of that. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Teaser trailer

Yesterday, I removed the "Marketing" section since it was not obvious that the teaser trailer for Interstellar was available for most screenings of The Hobbit. Now that the teaser is available online, though, I am wondering if we should restore the "Marketing" section or not. Per MOS:FILM#Marketing, "Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters." I am looking at articles about the teaser, and none of them say much beyond describing it and summarizing the film. It just does not seem that the teaser has been interesting enough for there to be real commentary about the reaction to it or about the nature of the film. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right in your assessment of the MOS in that it shouldn't be included. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw this today. Does anyone think this could be used in the article? It's finally something deeper than just the general description of the teaser trailer. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Should be stated...

The film stars an ensemble cast. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a distinction between an ensemble cast and an all-star cast. (Sometimes both can combine like the Ocean's Eleven films.) From what I can tell from sources, it is more an all-star cast than an ensemble cast, though it may turn out to be both combined. Considering how little we know about the story and what roles the actors have (e.g., Damon has a bit role for sure), I don't find it necessary to mention that at this point. I'm open to what others think, though, and we can work it in if needed. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Cooper

Should we say in the "Cast" section that McConaughey's character is Cooper? It looks like that name pops up in coverage during March 2013 about McConaughey's casting. My concern is that the name does not seem to appear in more recent coverage, and considering Nolan's secrecy, it is possible that the name could just be a placeholder. Filming did begin five months later, after all. What do others think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that McConaughey's character is named Cooper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.11.74 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

None of the recent sources go out of their way to mention Cooper, though. It is a pretty early piece of information (from last March) that could plausibly be outdated or now incorrect, and it is not much of an addition to have the name in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Studio field

I've been thinking about the "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields lately. I think there is a misunderstanding that "Studio" must name the production companies involved. The major studios can be involved in production and distribution, or just distribution. In cases where studios produce films (with the use of production companies), they should not just be listed in "Distributed by". Why? There is a different situation where films are produced independently, and studios purchase rights to distribute the film. In such cases, the "Studio" field would be the companies that produced it independently, and the studio distributes it after the fact. In this case, we are dealing with a film by major studios, so it should be Paramount, Warner Bros., and Legendary. (I'm not quite sure if Legendary needs to be included; the billing block says Legendary is "in association" with the other two.) The "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields may need to benefit from the addition of a "Production companies" field to name Syncopy and Lynda Obst Prods., unless we are okay with keeping it in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For the studio it should be Legendary/ Syncopy/ Lynda Obst Productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4ben24 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Theatrical trailer

The Washington Post reported this about the theatrical trailer. Do others think that this is a unique enough event to report in the article? I'm a little bit on the fence about it. If we do report it, I think we should also report the teaser trailer information to put all the marketing in context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This mentions the Internet speculation over the trailer, which could be useful commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

More trailer commentary here. Probably would not mind a "Marketing" section based on these accumulated sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability of Cast Section

The position that Jessica Chastain's character is 'Older Murphy' is speculative and uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierancremin (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the character names since they did not have references. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Character name of Murphy did have a reference: Interstellar Official Trailer, Warner Bros. UK 16 May 2014 Should this be reinstated? Kierancremin talk — Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to use video references and would prefer a print reference. Maybe there is one that has detailed the trailer content that we can use. Unless others are fine with the video reference. I just find myself wary on depending on trailers for verifying content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What is historically wrong

1. The first person who crossed the sound barrier was a German in world war 2, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier. The trailer shows wrongly that it was an US citizen who was it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.33.214.177 (talk • contribs) 09:24, May 19, 2014

Since we do not have trailer coverage in the film article, I think this issue is moot. However, if we did have trailer coverage at some point, I suspect that this detail will not be revisited beyond what was in the teaser trailer. With that being the case, I did not see anyone complaining about this bit of historical inaccuracy in coverage about the teaser, so it would not be noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Legendary Pictures

@176.25.151.143: Legendary Pictures is not serving as a production company for this film. It is a co-financier along with Paramount and Warner Bros. If you look at Godzilla here, it says, "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures present a Legendary Pictures production." In that case, it is serving as a production company. Not here with Interstellar. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Thank You for clearing that up. Would it be right to label Legendary as a sales agent or a financer. Legendary co-financed it and is also being used on the advertising front as can be seen in the trailers. Thanks. WARNER one (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the infobox is not flexible enough to account all the different companies' roles for a given film. That's why I made sure that Legendary was mentioned in the lead section as co-financing the film with the two major studios. What did you have in mind about how else to mention Legendary? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said last year, Legendary Pictures, Dune and other co-finance companies have been routinely added to the "Studio" field of dozens and dozens (probably hundreds) of WP film infoboxes. I don't remember any Film Project editor challenging it as a policy. I tried to remove them from a couple film pages where they weren't even mentioned on the film's poster. I'm not against including them in the infobox when they are credited, especially as they do sometimes get involved in development and production (and it's often not obvious when), but they should be listed last, not first as many too often are. Films only have one production company that actually runs the production. Here it's Syncopy. That should be first. Lynda Obst was important in development. That is notable and should be listed second, which also reflects the film's billing. Legendary came in later. It should be listed third.

Since editors cannot reliably tell from the credits alone which company is most involved in the production, let me propose a guideline: companies listed under the production credit come first, in this case A Syncopy/Lynda Obst Production. Those listed as in Association with, as Legendary Pictures is here, would be listed next. I propose this because Legendary may well be involved in development and production decisions even when it only has the Association credit. The fact it had a production credit on Godzilla is not a reliable indicator that it has to have that credit to be involved beyond financing on other films. Legendary's billing on Interstellar is too prominent to be dismissed. We have seen a number of people want to list it. Edit wars should be avoided. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Legendary should be explicitly considered a production company, especially considering the clear-cut distinction in the Godzilla example. I'm sure it is involved with the production instead of just writing a check, but so are Paramount and Warner Bros. It's just that the film infobox doesn't have every kind of corporate parameter. That's why it's mentioned in the lead section. What about doing some kind of company box in the "Production" section that mentions all five companies? Syncopy/Obst would be just production company, Legendary would be just financier, and Paramount/Warner Bros. would be financier and distributor? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The infobox, the lead and the article should primarily follow the film's credits. AFI, BFI, and other RS usually list Legendary as a production company. For them it's not about what is explicitly considered a production company. Paramount and Warner Bros. are listed as distributors. We don't want to be redundant. You may have sources on this film that talk about financing, but that often isn't the case. We should establish a guideline for all pages. The lead's info is usually also in the infobox. I do fully endorse your inclusion of a Production section as seen on this page with main crew credits beyond the infobox. I don't know if we want to include companies there (though I wouldn't protest against it). Again, most WP film infoboxes do list prominent co-financing companies like Legendary. I think it would cause the least amount of edit wars to simply put it there, after the principal production companies. I really don't think it's worth repeatedly reverting people who add it in. They see it on multiple other pages. Its Association credit is quite prominent on the poster. I don't see the point of the endless back and forth over it. It makes the article appear less stable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there really a difference between a financier and a producer? The functions are the same and any differences are too trivial to quibble over. I think the easiest standard to be adopted (not just for this article, but for all film articles) is to include all the companies listed in the billing block of the poster. – Zntrip 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there is a difference. I found this by The New York Times. Check out the paragraph under "Opening Credits" in the left column. It says the "in association with" credit "is usually given to a body that helps finance the movie". This is distinction from the "production" credit. In the light of this, I feel like putting Legendary in the infobox at all is misleading. People are adding it because they misunderstand the companies' roles, and honestly, we shouldn't give in to that misunderstanding if it is verifiable to be off the mark. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I still maintain that financing is just an aspect of the production of a film. Therefore, I do not think that it is misleading to state that a company that financed 25% of a film helped produce that film. – Zntrip 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Would we not want to include Paramount and Warner Bros. as production companies under that criteria, though? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That is true. The reality is that in most cases the distributors of films will be involved in their production. However, to list a distributor twice in the infobox does appear redundant. In some older films where one company produced and distributed, the production company/studio parameter is omitted from the infobox (see The Wizard of Oz). However in others, the distributor is listed twice (see Godzilla and Citizen Kane). Thus in my opinion, it would not be a stylistic deviation to either list the distributor only once on this article's infobox or to list it twice. – Zntrip

This might sound silly but would it be a possibility to label Legendary as a co-distributor. Legendary and Warner. Bros both contribute to viral marketing and physical distribution of marketing material and the film. This is similar to the Warner Bros. / Village Roadshaw as in The Matrix (though I understand that was only in Aus & NZ). --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrfan Khan

Why is an actor's refusal to be cast due to unavailability mentioned in the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.47.44 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! I assume you're referring to the passage about Irrfan Khan saying that he turned down a role. I added that, but if there is a consensus to remove it, we can do that. My thinking is that this is more relevant than a rumor that an actor may or may not be in a film (and we never find out if there was ever a connection). Here we have a connection, where Khan could plausibly have been in the film. That said, it's still not that critical a piece of information. I'm open to hearing what others have to say. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I see this information on most film articles that it applies to, if another actor was considered for a role other than who ultimately got it. I think it's noteworthy to include, as it's part of the casting history. It's interesting information, but not quite trivia. The casting of this film is certainly one of the most notable things about it (at present), so information about it is worth keeping. I'm sure we would note if someone else were considered for McConaughey's role, but had to decline. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Poster

There are two new posters of the film, both that can be seen here. I initially uploaded the spacesuit one, but it was replaced by the farm one. I reverted it because I think the spacesuit one is more reflective of the film's science fiction genre, and another reason is that this seems like it will be the more common poster compared to the IMAX one, which will not be as widespread. I wanted to start a discussion here to see if editors feel one way or another about what poster image to use. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Now there's two more posters... the spaceship one and the crew-emerging-from-water one. Can we determine a consensus here on which poster to commit to? I think it is standard to stick with the one-sheet (in this case the U.S. one), unless there is an international non-IMAX poster forthcoming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for the spaceship poster. Such a unique beauty compared to the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is a nice poster, but I think we want to choose the most identifying image for the infobox. We want to make sure we use non-free content appropriately for as immediate recognizability as possible. I'm not really sure which poster will be most commonly seen by moviegoers. I think that the current one is the U.S. one-sheet, but I can't tell whether or not the other ones are IMAX. If one of them is an international non-IMAX poster, maybe we could use that. I sure hope there aren't more posters forthcoming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the debate, the spacesuit poster seems the predominant one on Australian cinema websites, based on a (very) quick search of Hoyts/Village/Dendy/Event/etc. -Oosh (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for the spaceship poster too. In addition to looking the best, it also best represents the image of the film. The MM spacesuit walk-around is too literal. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will go ahead and support the spaceship poster as well. Warner REBORN, pardon me for undoing your addition, but you can upload a new version of a file to the same file name. It will replace the original file and keep most of the template and wording the same. That makes four of us in support of the spaceship poster. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Runtime

The runtime is reported to be 169 minutes mainly because this (a theater chain's website) states that. I am finding this source weak, especially when it calls the film a drama instead of science fiction. I would like to exclude it until we have something more widely reported (e.g., initial reviews that state the length). What do others think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To follow up on this, the theater chain actually changed the runtime from 169 to 175. Runtimes should not be dynamic, so I've removed it from the article body. We need a different source to reference for the runtime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Theater runtimes often include trailers. I would wait for reviews and/or the BBFC. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Release date

FirstShowing.net is saying that the film will be released as early as November 4th, but it is basing the information on a listings website like other sources based their runtime-related reports on a listings website. I don't think this is a strong enough source and that we should wait for greater validation before changing the article to report this date. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter mentions November 5th as the earliest. I've updated the Wikipedia article with this information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also this from The Hollywood Reporter that says 240 theaters through 77 markets, so it does not sound like it is just North America, like the previous article claimed. I've updated accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, "77 markets" was not international but rather within North America itself. So it is correct to say that the film will be released in North America on November 5th. This shows the breakdown. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey

This article's reference to '2001: A Space Odyssey' is of interest, and apparent in the recent trailer for the film - both in setting and cinematography.

However what may not be as apparent to some readers is the use of Saturn (not Jupiter as in the film version) as a destination, and going through a 'wormhole' of sorts. In the 1968 novel (Arthur C. Clark) version of '2001: A Space Odyssey' the spaceship Discovery goes to Saturn and visits the moon Iapetus where they find a large TMA-2 (a black monolith) which is found to be "full of stars" (like a 'wormhole') and the trip into infinity continues, including eventual images of a planet where astronaut David Bowman is taken (much like in the film version).

Several of the images from the film Interstellar have a parallel to 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.38.220 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we will probably get commentary comparing the film to 2001 that we can use in the article body. Hopefully commentators will notice what you did so we can reference them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Warner Bros. (International/Other territories)

In the distributor section of the film, I propose changing Warner Bros.' description from 'Other territories' to 'International', as I feel that 'Other territories' implies that the film is being distributed by WB in selected countries. I feel that the 'International' label should be used as it is much more common and offers a broader implication that it is being released in all other countries. I just wanted to check first and get an overall consensus. TheDarkKnight180 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with using "international" is that it is part of the US-centric language to say that the United States is the domestic theatrical run and everywhere else is the international theatrical run. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we need to write for a global audience, not a US one. (That's why we avoid using "domestic" here too.) I personally don't see "other territories" as select, but we could do "remaining territories" as a possible alternative. Open to hearing what other editors have to say. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)}, @TheDarkKnight180 (talk). Difficult. If this was an only American film possibly "international", but it is a USA / UK production. Warner. Bros is not doing the whole world, only most. For Paramount we used "North America", the continent that includes US. This means it is possible to say "Europe" (continent of UK) for Warner.Bros. Per guidelines we only do the distributors for the countrny of origin and a extremely dominant world producer. So feal free to discuss.--Warner REBORN (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sectioning

Josephlalrinhlua786, there is no standard for grouping content by sections, and other articles do not necessarily serve as a good example. Your approach split box office content away from theatrical run content, and doing that severs the context from one another. Why should readers have to look in one place for how the film was rolled out (e.g., number of theaters) but look in another place for how much it made in that rollout? It is more appropriate to group that content together. This means "Theatrical run" is an ideal roof under all this content can be combined. "Reception" is not a term that is tied to box office grosses, either. It is for film critics and for whatever accolades a film may receive. We could group "Critical response" and "Accolades" under "Reception", but not the theatrical run/box office content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Projecting formats

I tried to find information on if this film is going to be projected (or has been filmed) in 3D, but non found. Ref: thecelebritycafe.com. Can we add this information to our page? Thanks. Jlogane (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We could add how Nolan decided not to film in 3D, but we should not have a disclaimer that states that the film is not in 3D. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Release on November 4th

There is a sold-out show at the Tech Museum of Innovation at 8pm tonight. This IMAX theater is located at 201 S Market St, San Jose, CA 95113. You can google the times of the shows. The 11pm show is NOT sold out.WQC (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

After emerging from the black hole, Cooper awakes near Saturn, not Jupiter; pursuant to this revision. Zeantsoi (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)zeantsoi

Done Stickee (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cast" section contains error

William Devane didn't play "Old Tom"; he played a NASA board member. If Tom is still alive at the end, his character is never seen.

See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

173.230.160.146 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

The story is revealed which shouldn't be as it is fake. please do the needful to make necessary changes

59.182.175.220 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Solaris

There has been no talk of referencing the 1972 movie Solaris. Here is a clip from the review of the movie on the AV club. "In more ways than one, this is Nolan’s Solaris. Both movies open with a long stretch set around a country house on Earth, where the protagonist, a widower, must consider a mission to space from which he won’t return for years, possibly decades. In both cases, he’s leaving behind a young girl and an older man—his niece and father in Solaris, his daughter and father-in-law in Interstellar. Both films shift the action into space abruptly, are set partly to organ music (Bach in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris and one of Hans Zimmer’s better scores in Interstellar), feature extended sequences of the protagonists watching and reacting to video recordings, and are about the emotions of people faced with the unknown. And, when it all comes down to it, both films are about how their respective writer-directors feel about the notion of the unknowable and humanity’s relationship to something larger than itself."

both films are about how their respective writer-directors feel about the notion of the unknowable and humanity’s relationship to something larger than itself. (THIS IS THE KEY LINE)

I'm just asking for the film to be included in films listed as influencing Nolan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.114.250 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Motivations of Dr Mann (Matt Damon)

Under the plot section, Dr Mann's (Matt Damon) motivations are wrongly described.

Extracted from the current wikipedia entry: Mann has forged the data about the viability of his planet so the Endurance would come and find him, allowing him to steal their spacecraft and return to Earth. (The bold area is wrong)

Dr Mann never intended to return to earth using Endurance. In the movie he explains that his primary mission was to save humanity as a species and that Plan "A" was a lie and not actually feasible and that the main mission was Plan "B" all along. His actual motivation for betraying the crew and attempted murder of Cooper was to stop Cooper from using Endurance to return to earth which he knew would inevitably doom humanity. Instead he intended to use the ship to pursue a different habitable planet (seeing as the one he landed on was totally non habitable which he lied about so he could get rescued) so that he could successfully establish a colony for humanity. He never had the intention of returning to earth. In addition, returning to earth would make no plot sense because he could have simply followed Cooper who had already decided to. --119.74.75.38

I agree. I've made the following adjustment to the plot section to remedy that. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

There are a number of issues with the "Critical reception" section. First, because Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have certain non-intuitive methodologies in assessing a film, they need to be detailed. We should not assume a reader is going to be intimately familiar with these methodologies like most WikiProject Film editors are. In addition, RT and MC have differing methodologies in the sense that RT is simplistic with no middle ground; it categorizes a review as positive or negative. Metacritic is a fairer distribution, and it should be first. To report solely the aggregate scores is to grossly over-simplify the matter; the distribution of reviews should not be ignored or fudged over. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We should also avoid using slang like "Certified Fresh" that Rotten Tomatoes uses. Fresh and rotten translate to positive and negative, so we should use these clearer terms. Likewise, for Metacritic, we should just say aggregate score instead of Metascore. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Josephlalrinhlua786, we can use this space to discuss the section. Why do you think we should put Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, with its collection of numbers, above the commentary that summarizes the reviews? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe there is no criticism about the book shelf communication absurdity.? Galant Khan (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is:

"like always when American blockbusters become philosophical, pretention, cheesiness and unintentional humor (into the black hole, out at the book shelf of the daughter) are not far" Lars Penning, tip.de

"4 Big Reasons Why Interstellar Is A Huge Disaster" "It’s silly. So very, very silly." "the "ghost" in Murph’s room is a half-baked concept that doesn’t pay off until that ridiculous sequence I lovingly call Morse Code Bookshelf. That scene is comically bad, and an embarrassment for poor McConaughey." SEAN O'CONNELL, cinemablend.com, 2014-11-06

"the plotting becomes increasingly ridiculous, attempting to marry between the spaces of a bookcase shelf the pretentions of alternate dimensions with a family melodrama.", Damien Straker, impulsegamer.com, November 4th, 2014 Galant Khan (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial Plot Summary

I added a Plot section, just to get it started. It's way too long, it's probably off in both detail and sequence in places, and it's short on references. I did it from memory, having seen it last night, but wanted to get something going at least. I don't often add this kind of thing, so if for some reason the community is holding back on a real summary in favor of the existing Synopsis, feel free to remove. (I also could not remember the third Lazarus scientists' name.)

Alex (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. There are guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT about writing plot summaries. I don't think there has been any moderate additions before yours. Someone tried to add a long plot summary days ago, but apparently it was derived from the 2008 screenplay. A very long plot summary was posted yesterday as seen here, but I reverted it because it was way too long per WP:PLOT. Maybe you can combine details from that draft and get the summary to under 700 words. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that other draft has a super detailed plot summary. Thanks for the pointers, will do some more pruning to try and hit 700 (currently 1088, previous was 8933). Alex (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex! FYI, it is very likely that the plot summary will be heavily edited this week and for the next few months. Sometimes it is completely rewritten. This is pretty common for recently-released blockbuster films. Don't be distressed if that happens; try to build a consensus among editors here to see what draft is largely the most preferable, barring any minor copy-editing. I personally focus on other parts of the article since they are less in flux. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI on the plot summary, the planet the wormhole is next to is Saturn and not Jupiter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.83.66 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for mentioning this, but please note that the plot summary also seems to say erroneously that the wormhole is orbiting Saturn. I believe that in the movie it is said that the wormhole is near Saturn, they don't say that it is orbiting Saturn. If you agree with me, then feel free to make a correction in the plot summary. FormalLogician (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism, anyone? Connection with James Lovelock

In light of the overwhelming popularity of this movie would It be worthy to voice a criticism or two?

This movie finds its premise from the antropogenic ideas of futurist James Lovelock. Orson Scott Card disclosed that connection in his work Lovelock. "That the odds on survival here on Earth may be diminishing doesn’t seem to be just Hawking’s view. Consider James Lovelock, also quoted in a Daily Mail story, who points to climate change as the culprit in the coming reduction of Earth’s population from 6.5 billion to 500 million. Lovelock, you may remember, first proposed the Gaia Hypothesis, the notion that the Earth is a balanced system whose parts, like a human body, all mesh to create conditions possible for life."ref Here this connection seems to be omitted, has this been mentioned in any review? I have not seen this connection anywhere? Why?

The problem with the movie being antropogenic and the solution being magical thinking. Has someone reviewing movies made this connection? Yes; ref Sort of. ref Sort of ref

The dialog not being understandable through the soundtrack. ref and the dreaded Millennial moment; “the special chosen one” is special for no other reason that all Millennia's are special (and can like stuff on social networking); and/or Millennials go "rah" on the environment. refref

Or just "Lost in Space" might do? ref With the movie being more a rendezvous with Fantasy Island than a Rendezvous with Rama ref Neil Tyson said. "But if you had actual access to the past, then just write a note and stick it on the shelf, saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.'" ref

Feel free to delete this missive, or consider it as a call for minority opinion about entertainment which seems to be universally liked. --Lfrankblam (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that you're criticising the film on the basis of its merits as a scientific text, and it seems to be motivated by the idea that the film is popular and so needs a section on criticism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)