Talk:John Wick (film)

Ford Mustang Mach 1

Clearly identifiable as a Mach 1: https://www.hotcars.com/the-true-story-behind-john-wicks-mustang/

Ford's authorized copy of it is a Mach 1: https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/classic-restorations-1969-ford-mustang-mach-1-hitman-2899981/

Iosef is a stereotypical punk who doesn't know what he's looking at, and would call a Camaro a Corvette if he didn't have a name badge to look at. DiogenesNY (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I posted this above "Can I just say that I am not a car afficionado, but saying that it is clearly one thing and not the other when one looks like this and one looks like this is probably not fair to say? Either way I've previously said that if the car is not what they say it is, in the film it very much is a Boss 429 or whatever they said. It's a technical error but I'd question if its notable enough to mention as its otherwise unimportant." This, "Iosef is a stereotypical punk who doesn't know what he's looking at", is WP: OR, you are creating a justifcation without any evidence. I quoted the scene in my comments when undoing the edit but Wick corrects him on the date, he does not say that the model is incorrect. Also as I said, if you google "John Wick's car", Boss 429 is what comes up. To be clear, I'm not questioning if you are right about what car it is in OUR world, I don't know and I don't care, but I'm not sure what you aren't getting about the multiple times I've said that if the production used the wrong model that is a technical issue, it's background trivia and could be mentioned in a hidden note with reliable sourcing, but it doesn't change what the car is in the plot section because they call it a Boss 429 and there is no evidence in the film that "Iosef is a stereotypical punk who doesn't know what he's looking at, and would call a Camaro a Corvette if he didn't have a name badge to look at." Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

In one of your sources, this is the research he had to do to explain the difference between the cars: "Although the man called his car a Boss 429, it is actually a Mustang Mach 1. The biggest giveaway that Wicks’ car isn’t a Boss 429 is that it features an automatic transmission. All 1969 Ford Boss 429 Mustangs were equipped with a 4-speed manual transmission. We can see that it is clearly an automatic transmission in the second movie." He had to look at the transmission in the second film, it's comical. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• deep breath* I can see that you've changed it again in the plot. I'd really appreciate you undoing that based on the pretty reasonable discourse I've tried to have with you about this element. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Keep reading the article, Blake: "In addition, the car features the non-functional hood scoop equipped standard on the 1969 and 1970 Mach 1. The design is completely different from the prominent hood scoop of the Boss 429. Furthermore, John Wick’s car has a chin splitter and rear spoiler that was not available for the Boss 429. Lastly, the interior of the car has the appearance of the Mach 1, but includes a steering wheel from the Shelby Mustang for added flare." Ford is authorizing reproductions as a Mach 1 - are you seriously saying that Ford can not identify their own cars? And using a Google search for proof? Really? Is it so hard to admit that Iosef misidentified it? DiogenesNY (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like you are not reading my comments at all. This must be the sixth time now that I've said that if the car in the film is not a Boss 429, that is a technical issue with filmmaking like a plane flying over the stadium in Gladiator. It is a Boss 429 in the context of the film. You are making stuff up to claim Iosef misidentified it like you know anything about what a fictional character knows about cars. Both your sources say that the film calls it a Boss 429, that it is a Boss 429 in the context of the film is not questionable and you can't name it something else in the plot because people like the editor above will come here and ask "why are you calling it a Ford Mach 1 when they call it a Boss 429." You are deliberately ignoring what I am saying to you including that you can't make up character quirks like an inability to recognize cars. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And you are treating Iosef's inability to identify models of Mustang as gospel. The first article states point-blank, "Although the man called his car a Boss 429, it is actually a Mustang Mach 1." The *headline* of the second article is, "Drive Like an Assassin: A Ford Mustang Mach 1 Just Like John Wick’s Can Now Be Yours." I'm not ignoring what you're saying, but it's obvious that Iosef misidentified the Mach 1 - "character quirk" or not. DiogenesNY (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You really need to read WP: OR. Nothing you're saying is present in the film, you are inventing a character for Iosef that is not presented to us in John Wick. I am not claiming Iosef is a master mechanic, I'm stating facts, the film refers to it as a Boss 429, Iosef refers to it by the wrong year, John corrects him. Practically, John would not correct the date but leave the model incorrect. There is nothing else in the film that says it is anything but a Boss 429, you are identifying it OUTSIDE of the film as a different car. AGAIN, I am not saying that it is not a Mach 1, I'm saying you cannot refer to it in the plot as such because as far as the film is concerned it is a Boss 429, and I suggested using a hidden note with reliable sourcing for this out-of-universe information. I've suggested that several times and you've instead changed it again and done so across other John Wick articles, which isn't the conduct of a collaborative editor willing to listen to others. As suggested below, if you are going to continue to invent plot threads and character quirks, the best option is to refer to it as a car and nothing else. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Came here from WT:FILM#RFC at Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1. I would suggest you cut the Gordian Knot by referring to it as a "car" and then move on. You could perhaps add some adjective like "precious". TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's my next step really, just seems a shame to lose the more clear description for the sake of one editor. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It amazes me that the Ford Motor Company - which built the car in the first place - calls it a Mach 1, but you're putting outsize credence on the word of a yobbo. DiogenesNY (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake is, imo, correct that if the film called it a Boss 429 even if in reality it's a Mach 1, then the plot summary should call it a Boss 429 bc that's what it is in the world of the film. When a film is set in New York but visibly filmed in Vancouver (which happens literally always), the plot summary does not state that location is Vancouver, the plot summary says it is New York. The plot summary cares about the reality of the film, not our reality.

Either call it a Boss 429 in the plot summary with an {{efn}} noting that this car is represented by a Mach 1 or just, as TompaDompa suggested, don't specify model at all. The plot summary should not call it a Mach 1. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

TenTonParasol beat me to it! We can specify the model that the film specifies in the plot summary per Darkwarriorblake, and then add an {{efn}} with additional clarification of the actual model per DiogenesNY. Win-win for both sides. We just need to make sure to include cited references within the efn. You can see a good example of this in the 1st paragraph of Fallen Kingdom's plot summary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Winston informs John that Viggo is preparing to leave the city by helicopter – there is critical information missing here!!!!!!11 What model helicopter is it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hahaha! While I do think the style of car is intentionally chosen to help convey a character trait in this film, we do sometimes take it a tad overboard! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

DiogenesNY: Saw that you tried to change this yet again. Did you forget about the discussion above? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"Arbitrary", eh? I thought we had come to a suitable compromise - referring to the vehicle in the Plot section as a Ford Mustang, with the identity debate (Mach 1 vs Boss 429) annotated as a footnote. I had no issue with that. Then, on 13MAY23, Darkwarriorblake reverted the reference to the Boss 429 designation. As a reference, he used an article that states:

"Wick’s signature set of wheels is a 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1, a legendary muscle car and a performance-focused iteration of the standard version that first dropped in ’64. It came with a large bonnet scoop, a front splitter, a rear wing, bonnet pins and a go-faster stripe down the side, perfectly suited to Wick’s aggressive driving style. Its burbling V8 would have produced between 250-300 bhp stock, while its menacing looks and classic ‘60s styling ensured it looked the part too. It is not, as the first film suggests, a Boss 429 model."

His own reference contradicts what he's stating - and you back *him*. DiogenesNY (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Key part you chose to ignore is "It is not, as the first film suggests, a Boss 429 model." Plus the other reference there which is also used in the design section to document that it is explicilty meant to be a 429, they just couldn't afford one. It is, as it always has been told you to, a technical issue not a plot one and I've documented it in two places. That should be more than enough and is in agreement with the suggestions above. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And the part you ignored was, "It is not". DiogenesNY (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as "they couldn't afford one" - a rudimentary Google search reveals over a dozen Boss 429 Mustangs for sale, starting at around $10K. To suggest a film with a $30 *million* budget could not afford a Boss 429 when one car - even multiple cars - can be bought so cheaply strains credulity. They could even have made cheap fiberglass copies of the Boss 429, as they did for the Turbo Interceptor in the movie "The Wraith". DiogenesNY (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder if a film where the star had to put his own money into it to make it work and that was almost cancelled because the financier was sending dodgy checks and was filming in one of the most expensives places to film could afford to destroy a bunch of rare cars that all have to match. I didn't ignore it, the statement says the film says it is a Boss 429 and that's the crux of your argument and nothing in the article hides what the car is, yet you continue to be obstructive over the fictional film plot and it's declaration that the car is a Boss 429. Even the note you added still tried to imply that it is meant to be a Mach 1 in the film and Iosef just misrecognized it. I've extensively detailed the car model and decisions and I've sourced them, at this point just stop your complaining. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Bah - you're hinging your entire argument on one sentence from a guy who doesn't know cars (or who John Wick is). DiogenesNY (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe this far in you're still hinging all of this on your belief that Iosef is a "punk" who doesn't know cars which is never established in anything but your own head. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The Ford Mustang Owners group says it's a Mach One. Muscle Cars Illustrated states: "The 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 that John Wick drives in the first two movies is a classic muscle car that is often mistaken for a Boss 429 in the films." Ford Motor Company is selling licensed replicas as Mach Ones. Why is it so hard for you to accept that calling it a Boss 429 is the mistake of a chav? DiogenesNY (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The other reference is an opinion piece - from a man who, by his own biography, "has won no awards for his work, nor received any plaudits for his professionalism, demeanour, or ability to hold civil conversation" - that brings to mind the old joke with the punchline, "You were born a steer, raised a steer, and now you're a fish". DiogenesNY (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the film asserts that it is a Boss 429. Therefore it is fine if the plot section, the section that is considered with the fictional reality of the film, states that it is meant to be a Boss 429—which is supported by the film and even the quotes even provided above. I have a mind to interpret further changes as an attempt to push a particular agenda about the cars. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting rejoinder - what would be my "agenda"? DiogenesNY (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear, not this again. I suggest removing the information about the specific model, including the explanatory footnote, from the plot section altogether. These minutiae don't belong there anyway. As I said above, "precious car" would have been just fine. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I know that overall it's pointless but it's about the principle at this stage, I don't see why when several editors are telling someone they are wrong we should be bowing down to them because they refuse to accept that in the world of the film it's that model of car and they're making up things about characters in the film to justify how it isn't actually that car in the universe. The editor needs to be corrected at this long-in-the-tooth stage not the article. It's sourced when it doesn't even need to be in the plot because it is what they say it is for the purposes of the plot and still the editor refuses too accept this. Maybe we should pop over to the Ghostbusters article and change Proton Packs to "fire their combinations of rubber and plastic parts put together to resemble a ghost-fighting gun" if the editor is that concerned about the real-world ramifications of fictional narratives. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that you've had your allotment of running off at the mouth, show me one reference that the producers intend that Mach 1 to be a Boss 429 without referring to that single, two-word sentence in the script. You obviously won't have the opinion of any source to which I reference - from the Mustang Owners Club to Ford Motor Company to your own blessed reference - so you *must* have one. DiogenesNY (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

When I said I was of a mind to interpret changes as an agenda, this is what I was suggesting. That it feels to me that you are interested in having a particular personal interpretation of the script reflected in the article. You have to provide a source that the intended reading of the film is that the character is wrong, because the plot as-is does not suggest that. We cannot insert our own interpretations, or that of people I am not confident satisfy WP:RS (and who don't even necessarily get all the plot details right either). Should we say that Rumble in the Bronx takes place in Vancouver, as identifiable from several on-screen elements?

I very agree with TompaDompa that this entire thing is very silly, but I also agree with Darkwarriorblack at this point that this is about the principle of the thing at this point, about communicating the concept of WP:OR, and making sure we all understand the difference between "the fictional object in the fictional world" and "the real object used by the real production". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Diogenes, both sources that are present in the hidden note and present in the Design section mention it's intended to be a Boss 429 or presented as a Boss 429 but they used a Mach 1 as a practical model. I have done the research to support your desire to convey it's a Mach 1. As TenTonParasol says pretty well above, if something is filmed in Vancouver we don't pretend it's not New York as presented in the film, and as one of the references I added says, we don't pretend John Wick isn't actually an assassin since he's really Keanu Reeves. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• DiogenesNY, following the earlier discussion above that seemed to conclude on April 6, it seems the rough consensus was to describe it as a Boss 429, but then use the explanatory footnote {{efn}} to describe secondary source analysis of the model that was actually used. This seemed like a great compromise and one that was in place for a month and a half until you decided to venture back in and abruptly change it to your liking. That's disruptive unless you truly forgot about the discussion, which is why I pinged you back here. If you didn't forget, then the prudent thing to have done would have been to continue the discussion instead of trying another bold edit.
  Personally, I think this is a wasted effort over such a minor issue. We could be focusing this kind of energy on other articles in more dire need of some cleanup. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not entirely correct. I had revised the plot on 5APR23 so that the vehicle was described as a *Ford Mustang*, with the Boss 429 vs Mach 1 issue addressed as a footnote. I thought that was a good compromise, and nobody (at the time) revised it. Then, on 26MAY23, I stopped by the article to see it had been changed back to the Boss 429 reference again. Believing someone had made the change without reviewing the history, I changed it back to a Ford Mustang. This elicited a shouty response from Darkwarriorblake, who turned out to be the one who changed it on 13MAY23. None of you have shown me a reference to prove that the producers used the Mach 1 as a "practical model" for a Boss 429 - that's your supposition. I don't buy for a minute that the producers could not have bought or rented a Boss 429 if they wanted it to be a Boss 429. As my fellow Mustang owners have commented (in the real world), Iosef mistaking the Mach 1 for a Boss 429 helped establish for us that Iosef was an idiot, which would explain why he thought stealing the Mustang was the natural next step when trying to buy it didn't work. So, if you want to complain about someone, complain about Darkwarriorblake, who decided to "abruptly change it to (his) liking". DiogenesNY (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I incorrectly assumed that Darkwarriorblake made the discussed change shortly after April 5th, when the initial discussion ended. DWB didn't circle back to the Mustang claim until these edits on May 13th. I stand corrected, but despite this revelation, the full timeline is more helpful:

  • April 5: The discussion wraps with these comments. 3 editors are fine with Boss 429 in running text with an {{efn}} explaining the actual car used. 1 editor is opposed, and 1 editor suggests a completely different solution ("precious car").
  • April 6: DiogenesNY boldy changes the text to "Ford Mustang", which wasn't discussed. Not even a follow-up note on the talk page after making the change.
  • May 13: DWB restores "Boss 429" with an efn as previously discussed.
  • May 26: DiogenesNY reverts it back to "Ford Mustang".

  Regardless of how we got here, the back & forth reverts are becoming disruptive, especially over such a minor concern. The rough consensus favors the current version. Move on or seek other forms of dispute resolution. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to give incorrect information, go ahead. It's obvious you're happier that way. DiogenesNY (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why the Mach 1?

FWIW, this source states the average sale price of a Boss 429 is over $312k according to Classic.com (SlashGear essentially concurs), opposed to the average sale price of $74k for the Mach 1. Add that to the fact that less than 1400 Boss 429 variants were produced compared to 70,000+ Mach 1s. The SlashGear article even offers some legitimate reasons why the Mach 1 was selected by the props team:

Sometimes film sets simply can't find certain vehicles and are forced to do their best, a process that's made even harder when you add rarity into the mix. Given the sheer number of Mustang Mach 1 cars out there, compared to the limited availability of Mustang Boss 429 models, it's perhaps no surprise that the props team responsible ... opted for something more attainable. Especially when you consider the expensive prospect of inadvertently destroying an original car on-set, or the possibility of time delays should something on a rare vehicle simply break.

They ended up destroying 5 cars during filming; another point worth noting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine - show me a reference from production staff (producer, director, etc.) that a Mach 1 was deliberately chosen to "portray" a Boss 429, and I'll concede the point. So far, I've provided evidence that the vehicle is not a Boss 429, and received a great deal of supposition and conjecture in return. DiogenesNY (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Noone has to do this to satisfy you Diogenes. I told you I had added two sources, both sources say it's meant to be a Boss 429 and one has information saying why they used a Mach 1 practically. I'm afraid you and your mates deciding that Iosef misidentified the car and Wick just played along is not going to trump references and it's concerning this far into the game that you're not grasping that. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"...received a great deal of supposition and conjecture in return" – It may appear that way, because you have asked a question that you need an answer to, but the answer itself doesn't actually matter to a plot summary. Plot summaries describe the events of the film as they occur. One character clearly calls it a Boss 429. The other character, John Wick, doesn't correct him or react in any way to imply that the label is incorrect. The model is even identified in the script by Kolstad:

Having shaved and showered, wearing an old -but well-fitted-gray suit, John pushes open the garage door...

...to reveal a legend in dire need of a total overhaul: a black, 1969 FORD MUSTANG `BOSS 429'.

In their world, it is a Boss 429 as far as we're concerned. To assume anything else is the very "conjecture" we should be avoiding in a plot summary, which isn't meant to flesh out hidden meanings and interpretations that happen off screen. If the script writer, director, "production staff", etc., wanted it to be a Mach 1 in the film, then "Boss 429" wouldn't have been written into script, especially the character's dialogue. There would be no point unless that character was ultimately corrected by another character. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And that is the reference for which I was asking on 31MAY23. Point conceded. Pity Darkwarriorblake chose to be hostile and snarky instead of providing this solid reference. DiogenesNY (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Directors

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about the truth? Instead of saying the film was directed by Chad Stahelski and then having to explain that he *actually* co-directed it, why not say the truth; that it was directed by Stahelski and David Leitch, then indicate why the DGA refused to acknowledge it? Leitch should be listed in the lede and in the infobox, since he actually co-directed the film, no matter what the DGA says.

If the MOS says we follow the DGA, that should change. Wikipedia is not beholden to the DGA (or it shouldn't be) and should be devoted to reflecting reality. 2002:620D:3AF:0:D82D:A054:991C:AEA8 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We're not following the DGA we're following the credits and Leitch isn't credited as a director. We don't know what hte DGA rules are but we know from Phil Lord and Chris Miller that they can credit two people which typically means that Leitch's contributions weren't the type or amount to warrant a full director credit. So that's why we follow the credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The credits are a product of DGA rules, and therefore are stricter than the reality of film making. Their rules are explicitly different than the truth. The truth is that there were two directors on the film. DGA rules are that you only *credit* one director unless it's a previously established group. Those credits and those rules however, are not authoritative over Wikipedia. Definitely agree it should list all directors explicitly. Queso2469 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't know what rules were applied to the decision unless you have a specific source, but we do use the available credits and that's what the credits say. The entire article clearly states they were co-directors and goes out of it's way to mention Leitch's directing career since John Wick. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Director credit

This was settled in 2014 in favor of listing both directors in the lead and infobox, with Leitch as "(uncredited)". Many sources show they worked as a team through the entire production. Darkwarriorblake says above The entire article clearly states they were co-directors - so it follows that this information should be clearly present in the lead and infobox, which are supposed to summarize the article.

Here's what was said back then:

Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together. Every source that talked about this film up to its release listed two directors, and some continued to do so after its release. There are interviews of the two together. They both belong in the lead and infobox, with Leitch listed as uncredited. A good source should be found for how this happened, but there's plenty that back up it did happen. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with him being included in the lead, but uncredited people do not belong in the infobox. This has been a broadly held opinion for quite some time, and I don't see why it should change now. I'm absolutely fine with listing him where appropriate, including the lead, but belong in the infobox he does not. Sock (tock talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion over Gone with the Wind is very similar, in that there were several people without on-screen credits who weren't added. I should note that I absolutely agree that Leitch should get his credit in the lead and in the article, but the infobox is for credited contributors only. If Leitsch had directed it and then went "Alan Smithee" or something, I think that's the only time it's particularly appropriate to add uncredited contributors to infoboxes. Sock (tock talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was a later participant in that discussion. This is more notable than that. One did not fill in when the other was absent, like Gone with the Wind. Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together as a team. They were credited together on every source I saw up until just before the release. Your standard is not reflected in many film articles. Numerous sources list uncredited people in infoboxes. When clearly notable, as it is here, it should be included as long as they're properly labelled. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We could add a footnote similar to the one at Edge of Tomorrow (film) (for screenwriting) to explain that David Leitch was involved with directing too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be better than nothing, but the involvement of the now uncredited director is considerably more than that would imply. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we don't have any sources stating why he's now uncredited. There was clearly a reason behind it, but it's unknown to us at this point. There's a chance he wanted to go uncredited and focus more on getting Stahelski boosted into the spotlight. Maybe he hated the film and wanted to take minimal credit for it. We really can't know without a source, which isn't accessible at the moment. I would say that the footnote would work nicely, acknowledging that he was considered a director but was not credited when the film was released. I apologize for my heavy-handedness in terms of the "no uncredited people" argument, but I do stand by it and think that it's unnecessary inclusion nearly 100% of the time. Sock (tock talk) 21:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock, Gothicfilm, this basically says the Directors Guild of America does not support recognizing more than one director for a film. Looks like Cloud Atlas (film) went through something similar as covered here, though not sure how they get away with identifying three directors there and only one here. Politics? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I also do not believe that we are absolutely required to use official credits in the film infobox. The official credits are the appropriate baseline to follow, but I don't think we should be constrained by that if verifiability triumphs over officiality. We can check about the consensus for this, but I would support listing both names with a footnote for the officially-uncredited one to explain what the DGA did here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After combing through the archives of WT:FILM, it appears that you are indeed correct, Erik. There was a discussion a little while back deciding that it was notable to include them if their contributions were significant and verifiable. I was unaware of this consensus, and after reading through that discussion, I feel a bit bull-headed for thinking no one uncredited should be in the infobox. I'm now all for adding Leitch's credit to the infobox and the lead section, though we should probably add a footnote explaining that his work went uncredited. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of not giving credit to those who deserve it, you were right from the start, Gothicfilm, and I apologize for making this could-be open-and-shut issue into an argument. Sock (tock talk) 13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Very good. I've restored it to the infobox, as well as the lead. The DGA decision is in the Development section, so I don't think we need a footnote in the infobox. As you can see, I was a participant in that "little while back" discussion too, as well as several others on this subject. As I said then: Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest including the footnote. People might be confused, coming from the film, seeing that there are two directors when there's only one credited. Sock (tock talk) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My preference is not to add refs or notes to the infobox if the info is in the article body. Here it's in the Development section, and touched on in the lead. This always occurs with "(uncredited)", and there's usually no note in the infobox. Readers who care know to look further into the article. But if you want to add a note, I won't object, as long as the "(uncredited)" also remains in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Gothicfilm (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can say something decided 10 years ago between mainly 2 users was settled. There's a footnote confirming Leitch's contribution for the infobox. Without getting into a long drawn out back and forth, my opinion is above, he isn't credited as director. There are plenty of dual director credits prior to John Wick and for whatever reason Leitch wasn't credited here. It could be he was more involved in directing stunt scenes, for instance, ultimately we don't know, unless a new source can be provided that clarifies. However, the infobox should follow the credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We do know - many sources, including interviews like this, show they worked as a team through the whole process. The DGA has allowed previously established director teams to be credited, but not always and not here. No source says it was because one did less than the other. Usually I agree the infobox should follow the credits. But here leaving one out when we have the ability to put him in encourages unwarranted speculation he must have done less when the sources actually show the opposite. Most casual readers aren't going to click onto a footnote link, and again, the lead and infobox are supposed to summarize the article. Three editors agreed on this years ago, one referencing this discussion. It should not have been changed later without consensus - in fact two others last year advocated for this as well, likely without even knowing of the earlier archived discussion - that makes five who have agreed that Leitch should be included as "(uncredited)". - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, a small group of editors, 10 years ago, does not make an enduring and unassailable consensus, but your comment also implies I should have known about this ten year old discussion before changing the article? I do not believe, at all, that his lack of infobox credit infers he did an inferior or lesser job, but whatever he did, the DGA determined his contribution could not warrant a credit. We do not know specifically what he did or why the DGA chose not to credit him. I'll also point out that in the second discussion you linked me to, you yourself said "As said before, the infobox and the lead should reflect the film's credits. I believe most uncredited writers do not belong in the infobox". As with my original comment I don't wish to get into a protracted back and forth as we disagree with each other and it will just be us going around in circles. I did make the change and I did so 15 months ago I didn't even make the change it's been there since at least 2018 so you're arguing against a 7 year old status quo, and while it didn't get passed the FA process because of some conflict over referencing it being called a great action film, the crediting was never raised as an issue. My advice would be to leave a note at WikiProject: Film and ask for third party input, because I don't believe I'm wrong in the decision I've made here I don't believe the long term status quo is incorrect, sucks as it may for Leitch the lack of a director credit hasn't harmed his career or his mentions in this article. We can't pick and choose when the rules are applicable, we have to be consistent.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – I'll just add my 2¢. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the general purpose of an infobox is to summarize an article's key facts, allowing readers to quickly view those key facts at a glance. If Leitch receives significant coverage as an uncredited director in the article's body, then that would definitely be a key fact that belongs in the infobox. If a past discussion at WT:FILM has implied that the Film infobox is special and adheres to a special set of rules other areas of Wikipedia aren't privy to, perhaps that consensus needs to be revisited and/or challenged. Important key facts that are well-sourced and discussed throughout the article, especially one involving an uncredited director, should NOT be omitted from the infobox in my humble opinion. Doing so defeats the purpose of aiding readers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in the infobox, and given greater detail, context, and clarification than "(uncredited)". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems rather hidden in the note, although you're right, it does have plenty of explanation. Personally, I think the way it existed back in 2015 (shortly after the old conversation above) serves the purpose better of aiding readers at a glance. Nothing's hidden or buried. You could still tack on the footnote we have now for further explanation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• John Wick (film) → John Wick
• John Wick → John Wick (franchise)

— The name of the film does not require a parenthetical, the franchise should. — ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: move request at Talk:John Wick has been merged into this request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Will just lead to confusion, typing John Wick in could mean the character, the franchise, or the first film plus probably comics and/or games. Although I agree the franchise needs a disambiguator. If anything John Wick should lead to an overall disambiguation page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. -- ZooBlazer 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above

  Oppose John Wick (film) → John Wick

  Support John Wick → John Wick (franchise)

  -- ZooBlazer 23:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree that John Wick should be a disambig page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Usually, undisambiguated titles are occupied by either the first film (particularly if it has high cultural signifiance) or the franchise that it spawned. Very rarely have I seen them point to a DAB page, and the status quo for John Wick is currently not the case either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think you could make good arguments for the film, franchise, and character all being the thing that a good chunk of people first think of when you say "John Wick", so I don't know if we could call any of those three the clear primary topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I've never seen an undisambiguated film-and-franchise title redirect to a DAB page, so this would be a first. It's possible that some people are looking for the franchise or character when they search "Shrek", and it's possible some people are looking for the first film or the novel when they search "Jurassic Park", but neither point to DAB pages despite the similar pageviews [1] [2]. There are dozens of other examples, probably too many to list here. A franchise article is just a disambiguation page on steroids, so I don't think there's any harm in pointing readers to the franchise article even if they are looking for the film. It takes one click to navigate to the film, just as it would do on a disambiguation page, except that a DAB page would mean those looking for the franchise would now have to click once as well. So this would not only not help one side, but also hurt the other side. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Although the first film is iconic and influential, it has not reached the point where it is so culturally significant and impactful that users are much more likely to be looking for the first film rather than the (equally successful) franchise, as WP:PT1 requires. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Now that the two RMs have been merged, strong oppose the second proposal. See my reply to Adamstom.97 above. A franchise page already acts as a de facto disambiguation page, only with more context and information, and a DAB page wouldn't help anyone. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note A related RM has been opened at Talk:John Wick#Requested move 24 February 2024. I would recommend procedural-closing that discussion until consensus has been reached for this discussion, or have the two RMs merged. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose John Wick (film) → John Wick; Support John Wick → John Wick (franchise), instead convert John Wick into a disambiguation page. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd. The film has 119,225 views, the franchise has 100,455, the character has 18,477, the soundtrack has 3,272, John Wick Hex has 3,205 and the game designer has 495[[3]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment !voters should understand that if the second proposal passes, it would be unprecedented and overturn years of consensus for what we have done for dozens, if not hundreds, of franchises that share the same name with their first installments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment "Introduce a little anarchy, and everything becomes... chaos." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The first film is not so prominent as to be the obvious primary topic over the franchise/series of films. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose making John Wick a disambiguation page. The franchise article covers related topics in lieu of a disambiguation page (the same principle as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept articles). I agree with InfiniteNexus. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are several other uses namely people although they get less views it may well be better to just have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  None of which are anywhere near as notable as the franchise and film. The views are negligible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposed moves in this discussion. John Wick should remain the franchise article per above arguments but also because there is precedent for this. Regarding the move to a DAB page, more discussion is needed; we should probably start a separate discussion where the topic of the thread is properly focused on the move being debated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose all proposed moves. A DAB page might be necessary, but right now it's good as is. Vyselink (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

Please add neo-noir with action thriller. 39.49.136.228 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No. That's the sole reason the article is currently protected, neo-noir is not a primary genre per WP:FILMGENRE Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well ... but is "neo-noir" considered a genre akin to "action" and "horror", or is it more of a technical descriptor akin to "animated" or "musical"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Neo-noir is the reimagining of the genre of film noir, which was a term was coined by French film critic Nino Frank in 1946, for movies that had an emphasis on criminal psychology, violence, misogyny, and the. breaching of a previously steadfast moral system.

Neo-noir comes from the Greek "neo," meaning new. So, "new noir."

Mark Conard defines neo-noir as "any film coming after the classic noir period that contains noir themes and noir sensibility." It refers to noir films made after the 50s, particularly in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, through today.

Neo noir is a visual style and type of thematic content, using relating to " grisly murders, gangsters, and gothic romances. Many times they focus on social problems and can have melodramatic overtones." Source

Based on the available sources it is very difficult to properly assign the neo noir term because the thematic elements are so common, such as revenge. Fight Club falls under neo-noir for instance based on the description as does The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) and neither are like John Wick. It's not a primary genre for John Wick, which is action thriller, and again relates to the content of the plot primarily. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree it may not be accurate to call John Wick neo-noir, but I'm saying FILMGENRE may not apply here since "neo-noir" is more similar to "animated" or "musical" than "action" or "Horror". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is it's not even a genre in the sense of action or horror, it's just a category that some content falls into based on its plot. Adding neo-noir adds a third category to the opening that just encourages the people who like to add things such as "military science fiction" or "cyberpunk science fiction". Also to be clear, neo-noir is mentioned in the second paragraph with context, this particular edit-warring IP just isn't content with that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)