Talk:One Battle After Another: Difference between revisions

Line 135: Line 135:

::I noticed you didn’t remove the edit with projected losses under your same reasoning, such as it is, so I removed it for you. [[Special:Contributions/216.168.91.112|216.168.91.112]] ([[User talk:216.168.91.112|talk]]) 12:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

::Your invocation of WP: crystalball is just plain wrong. The edit isn’t saying that the movie is a flop. It’s saying that some reporters are calling it a flop, which is absolutely factual. Your grasp of Wikipedia guidelines is shitty. Why are you even allowed to edit here? [[Special:Contributions/216.168.91.112|216.168.91.112]] ([[User talk:216.168.91.112|talk]]) 15:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

:::First and foremost, disagreeing with someone is no excuse for your needlessly insulting remarks on my grasp on things and ability to edit. Please don’t ever belittle me or anyone else on Wikipedia like that again per [[WP:No personal attacks]] as well as [[WP:Civility]]. Secondly, adding flop remarks before the theatrical run concludes came off as an attempt to enable/validate hasty assessments. My point on WP:CRYSTALLBALL was we shouldn’t treat speculation on future/overall total grosses as a guaranteed outcome. Third, I actually DID [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Battle_After_Another&diff=prev&oldid=1317025074 remove projected losses], which aren’t the same thing as somebody guessing a movie needs a certain amount of earnings to be profitable. Let’s not conflate those matters. Fourthly, another user named Rulue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Battle_After_Another&diff=prev&oldid=1317009091 took out premature remarks also because the movie still is playing]. [[User:SNUGGUMS|SNUGGUMS]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|edits]]) 17:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no confirmation this is the title of the film. Change it NOW. 2600:6C50:147F:BF5A:C054:BC08:2EF6:D38B (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 2.97.219.149 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why has it not been changed? 2600:6C50:147F:BF5A:64D4:76E8:8299:BA2F (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the title The Battle of Baktan Cross be removed seeing as no official source or studio has ever said what the film was called plus variety just did an article talking about films and their box office potential which clearly lists the film as Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson Film. The Battle of Baktan Cross could end up being the official title but until it’s announced what the title is, I think it needs removing. (UTC) https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/box-office-2025-predictions-superman-jurassic-world-4-wicked-2-1236261990/ 2.97.219.149 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2025.

fixed, not sure why it got that name as it is against article naming convention Ramdom-kid-editor (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The film has a title, and more details. IDK how to edit the title: https://thefilmstage.com/paul-thomas-andersons-one-battle-after-another-test-screens-confirmed-to-be-modern-update-on-vineland/, https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/1/24/pta Ketlag (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove “Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson film” and replace with “One Battle After Another” Ktb393 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title confirmed as “One Battle After Another” and confirmed as Thomas Pynchon “Vineland” adaptation. https://thefilmstage.com/paul-thomas-andersons-one-battle-after-another-test-screens-confirmed-to-be-modern-update-on-vineland/ Ktb393 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are reporting the title, so I suspect the request is for a page move. Barry Wom (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone do that or is there some process? Ketlag (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m more curious as to where the two titles originate from because i have not seen a single news outlet (that’s trustworthy) or studio officially announce the title.

https://deadline.com/2025/01/warner-bros-executive-exits-2025-movies-1236256895/ ‘The Batman 2’ Now Opening Fall 2026 in Theaters] (deadline article)

this official article from an official source that has proven trustworthy spoke about the film and it did not mention one battle after another.

Could we perhaps remove the title.

With regards 78.148.94.78

78.148.94.78 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article is nearly a year old. Barry Wom (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this might be more accuate to what i am saying.

Why Warner Bros Shook Up Executive Ranks As It Prepares For 2025 Slate deadline articule and this was what was listed. the title one battle after another was not mentioned.

with regards 78.148.94.78 78.148.94.78 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://deadline.com/2025/01/warner-bros-executive-exits-2025-movies-1236256895/ there that should i hope clarify what i was saying just now 78.148.94.78 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article is six weeks old. Movie title has been announced. Barry Wom (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not by an actually reliable source or studio it’s world of reel which is almost never reliable to quote Krimuk2.0 ” World of Reel seems to be the source for the title change. Unfortunately, that site often makes up info. I’d suggest moving it back to untitled until there is some official confirmation” 78.148.94.78 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has any official source confirmed this title? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No offical source has i’m afraid. 193.60.143.41 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could it perhaps be moved to untitled Paul Thomas Anderson film User:Krimuk2.0 78.148.94.78 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bit more complicated. I see even Variety is referring to the film as One Battle After Another. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Meanwhile, Paul Thomas Anderson’s long-secretive project is finally taking shape. Though still untitled, the film boasts a reported $115 million budget. The star-studded cast includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Regina Hall and Teyana Taylor. Early test screenings reportedly clock in at nearly three hours — with eight noms on PTA’s resume, this makes for an instant Oscar conversation starter” nope they have not mentioned a title 193.60.143.41 (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i stand corrected my aologies 193.60.143.41 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WGA page previously linked 404s and the project is not listed on Paul Thomas Anderson’s page. There’s no official confirmation presently: https://directories.wga.org/member/paultanderson/

Basically anything citing the BC Project info from the WGA site should be removed for now. Iheartmylibrary22 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard – made the changes myself. Iheartmylibrary22 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was already confirmed that was inspired by that novel, of course. Possibly nominate Best Adapted Screenplay. GeniusTaker (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The project spent about a week at the end of February filming at various historic spots in San Juan Bautista, CA.

^[1]

^[2] 2600:6C52:6000:4D9:B85:5A7F:B505:664C (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 21:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

This film is the sixth collaboration between P.T. Anderson and Adam Somner, not the fifth. RedSkyRider (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki page is missing Borrego Springs, CA where over three weeks of filming occurred for “One Battle After Another.” The shooting occurred in May 2025. Then known as the B.C. Project. Jdeanloring (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:FILMLEAD: Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.
Oversimplification won’t work, most sources refer to the comedic nature of the movie. CABF45 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost but not quite, see also MOS:LEADSENTENCE, WP:FILMGENRE with particular note to WP:WEIGHT. Weight is not an excuse to cherry pick some reviews that happen to mention the genre you prefer.(diff) in fact it is the opposite, weight means the primary genre most important and holds most weight. Although a film may include mix of other genres the subgenres do not hold enough weight to be forced into the first sentence. They can still potentially be mentioned in the Production/Writing sections, or Critical response, they just aren’t important enough to be forced into the very first sentence of the lead.

The WP:STATUSQUO of this article was that the primary genre is “action thriller” (or synonymously a “crime thriller” according to the BBFC). That fact that other subgenres are also mentioned by reviewers does not change the weight of the primary genre and it does not change the fact that there is no need to overload the first sentence with self indulgent fancruft that doesn’t actually server the needs of normal readers. The fact that this film also contains darkly humorous elements can be addressed elsewhere, the Critical response section for example, there is no need to overload the first sentence. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the key elements, the first sentence especially so. Imagine you’re trying to explain the key points to a grandmother: it is an action thriller, it is directed by Paul Anderson, it stars Leo DiCaprio. Overloading the first sentence with multiple genres doesn’t help normal readers. This is not supposed to be a fansite, or a film review, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. — 109.79.161.185 (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFI calls it action crime drama. — 109.79.161.185 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but are really trying to deny a comedy movie is a comedy movie? PepGuardi (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we’re trying to restrict the number of genres in the lede to the main ones only. Barry Wom (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads that “Through his vehement anti-immigrant efforts, Lockjaw has become a colonel in the United States military,” but does the film show him leaving the police and joining the military? The police are certainly militarized, but are they military? I watched the movie again last night and Lockjaw and his soldiers are always wearing POLICE on their armor, right through the end. The only mention of him being in the military is that when he’s meeting with the Christmas Adventurers Club and Virgil Throckmorton says membership is sometimes considered for “members of the military.” —Psammeticus (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure the ‘mercenaries’ in the penultimate paragraph of the plot section wouldn’t be better described as a militia? I feel it fits what we see in the movie more. Admittedly a very minor thing though, I admit. Didn’t want to edit without getting the opinions of others. As far as I know, there’s no source in the plot section, as is common, but don’t know how to decide it then. Saeleriela (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it seems the group is based on other militias like the three percenters and is intended as a satire of the American militia movement. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone explain to me what’s wrong with this info, which editor(s?) are repeatedly removing based on nothing more than their(?) personal opinion:

Some movie news reporters have called the movie a box office flop.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Thanks. 216.168.91.20 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it was removed because those links were basing “flop” remarks entirely on the first weekend, which is premature and frankly a bad habit each linked piece indulged in. Treating opening weekend totals as a guaranteed make-or-break is overly presumptuous and violates WP:CRYSTALBALL when there’s no way to tell for certain how much will later be grossed. Don’t listen to anybody who suggests otherwise. You carelessly are ignoring how none of those links say anything about subsequent earnings. On the other hand, if somebody were to make “box office flop” remarks AFTER a theatrical run has ended, then that would be easier to take at face value. It therefore wasn’t actually “valid information” which got deleted. I also know I’m not the only one who removed the assessments on this basis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Such articles are commonplace in the movie reporting industry and they don’t need to wait until movies “after their box office run” or whatever. YOU are the only one making that determination. Even Variety is on board with this. Knock it off. 216.168.91.112 (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn’t remove the edit with projected losses under your same reasoning, such as it is, so I removed it for you. 216.168.91.112 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your invocation of WP: crystalball is just plain wrong. The edit isn’t saying that the movie is a flop. It’s saying that some reporters are calling it a flop, which is absolutely factual. Your grasp of Wikipedia guidelines is shitty. Why are you even allowed to edit here? 216.168.91.112 (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, disagreeing with someone is no excuse for your needlessly insulting remarks on my grasp on things and ability to edit. Please don’t ever belittle me or anyone else on Wikipedia like that again per WP:No personal attacks as well as WP:Civility. Secondly, adding flop remarks before the theatrical run concludes came off as an attempt to enable/validate hasty assessments. My point on WP:CRYSTALLBALL was we shouldn’t treat speculation on future/overall total grosses as a guaranteed outcome. Third, I actually DID remove projected losses, which aren’t the same thing as somebody guessing a movie needs a certain amount of earnings to be profitable. Let’s not conflate those matters. Fourthly, another user named Rulue took out premature remarks also because the movie still is playing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment