Talk:The Creator (2023 film)

Poster with billing block

I was walking by my local theater yesterday when I saw that they had up a version of the theatrical release poster with a billing block at the bottom. I have been unable to find a copy of this online; does anyone have better luck? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Bummer. It seems every theater I pass by has this version of the poster up, and yet I am still unable to find it online ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I work at a movie theatre and I was able to get my hands on the poster. I took a photo of it just in case (here), which I am working on tweaking in Photoshop to remove any extraneous elements caught in the shot. I'm not the most proficient, and doubt it could be used. Not sure if you need the billing block from that specific version, though I did notice this version or this one (both non-theatrical versions but still close contenders) has the billing, if that may be of use? Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading that photo, Trail. I ran it through Google Images and got this ... which is in Danish. There's also this, but it's framed and uses "cinemas" and "coming soon". I don't know whether we would be able to get away with using a Photoshopped version of your image, but I guess if it's fair-use reduced, perhaps no one would notice? (Gosh dang it, why won't they just release it online ...) As for the other two posters, we have the billing block order, I just don't think we should be using a non-theatrical poster for the infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Gotch'ya. The theatrical one is the most preferred in my mind. I saw the Art of the Movies page though it was for a different version. I think that may be the best bet here with some cropping. (They really should just release it properly!) I admittedly didn't expect I would get the poster this early. I can try to see what I can do in Photoshop (thank you art school!) for both of them this week, though I may get busy with my other commitments and work given TSwift weekend. I should report back by the start of next week if I make any progress. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I may just try framing my poster and go from there. I'll test a few other options. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had much luck or been able to work up anything that seems viable on my end. I found it rather difficult to translate the poster over as it still seemed choppy. We'll likely just have to stick with the current version as is. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, we can live without it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this the theatrical release poster? http://www.impawards.com/2023/creator_ver6.html it does include a proper billing block. -- 109.77.197.70 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem is that the poster is international version instead of United States version. LancedSoul (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film says "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox." but the USA poster is not available. Is the international release poster with billing block not preferable to preview poster without one? -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The one currently being used in the infobox is the theatrical release poster. It's just that it's missing a billing block, and we normally shoot for a version with a billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Box office bomb

And it's not labeled a "Box Office Bomb" because why? 2600:8800:395:B000:4052:6367:9C43:3035 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

His dad is Denzel Washington and every movie he has starred in has been a bomb. JettaMann (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

BlacKkKlansman earned $93 million on a $15 million budget. Ergo, not a bomb.CRBoyer 07:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It turned a 25% profit on theatrical release. Bombing at the box office means not earning production costs back. Any profitable movie with one or more Academy Awards nominations is destined to improve the reputation of the principal creators and actors. 72.253.196.24 (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Films must earn twice their budget to be considered profitable. The Creator did not.CRBoyer 07:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in "Plot" section

The current version of this article states that "AI triggers a nuclear explosion over Los Angeles," but isn't that inaccurate, since it's revealed in the film that the explosion was actually due by a simple (human-caused) coding error? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That it's a human error is addressed later in the plot when the twist is revealed.CRBoyer 04:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Box office

Box office listed as $529 million which doesn’t seem correct Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Gross

There is no good reason to list the box office gross figures inconsistently. Whatever level of rounding editors want to use should be used consistently in all three places. Please note that The WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD are supposed to summarize the article.

Futhermore MOS:LARGENUM clearly states Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way. This has been discussed at WP:FILM, and editors acknowledged that it was odd to qualify that the budget was "over" (or conversely that it was "under").

I do acknowledge that User:Nyaros was a lone dissenter in the previous discussion, he seemed to believe that guideline did not apply because "over" was not specifically prohibited by exact words the guideline, and that it was not exactly the sort of qualifier that the guideline was talking about. There was nothing to suggest anyone else agreed with him. (For anyone reading not familiar with Nyxaros he has a track record about being less than polite when he disagrees with people, just look at his harsh edit summaries, and throwing unfounded accusations of sock puppetry at editors he doesn't agree with.)

Again Nyaros accuses me of disruptive editing because he disagrees with my edit.[[1]] I am editing in good faith only without an account as Wikipedia policy expressly allows me to do.

Nyxaros in his edit summary said "What MOS:LARGENUM is talking about is different, this was explained to you months ago and you were warned." Which is to say he personally claimed the guideline did not apply (no one else that I saw said any such thing, certainly not in that discussion). He got angry that I disagreed with him but I do not recall anything resembling a real or official "warning" but by all means show your receipts and maybe other editors can convince you to stop adding this the unnecessary qualifier "over" that goes against what the guidelines are saying. -- 109.77.199.224 (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were reverted, yet instead of maybe opening a discussion you kept reverting. Changing the specific info from the source ($104.3 to $104 m) and seeing "over" (not used for rounding) as a synonym for "approximately" won't change anything. It's getting boring writing the same things and seeing you trying to attack me in vain. Do something else, no one cares. ภץאคгöร 12:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I did start a discussion, that I didn't start it early enough for your liking is beside the point and again arguing the user and not the edit itself. (A big part of the reason why I edit anonymous is because I want to make it about the encyclopedia, not the person.) It is not clear why Nyaros cannot understand the clear intention of the guidelines and still seems to think choosing an unncessary {{vague}} qualifier over/approximately is somehow better writing for an encyclopedia than simply being _specific and consistent_ for the benefit of the readers. In any case other editors have overwritten his changes removing the qualifier "over".[2] Nyaros continues to write angry aggressive edit summaries, suggesting he does care very much, but I still wish he might learn to be bit more polite and edit more collaboratively and stop reacting to every disagreement or different interpretation of the guidelines as if it was a personal attack. WP:GOODFAITH. -- 109.77.199.224 (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, disruptively editing before starting a discussion is about "my liking" and everyone who registers as a user "makes it about the person". You are the one who continues to write about users, which is irrelevant to the topic, and make excuses for anonymous editing/IP hopping to divert attention away from yourself. The real issue here is not whether "over" should be deleted, but the deletion of the value mentioned in the source ($104.3 m) from the page under the pretext of being "consistent" by a problematic IP making bad excuses. ภץאคгöร 14:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You continue to make accusations. Please take it to the admins because they will tell you that I only edit from one IP at a time (whatever the ISP gives me) and that is allowed by the rules. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus and never has been. Starting the discussion by attacking me and then desperately writing that I "attacked" you will not change your actions or make my imaginary attack real. I don't need to waste my time taking it to the admins, as you continuing to use P2P VPN for Ireland and making these edits with bad excuses will lead to the same result. ภץאคгöร 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@TropicAces: I would invite TropicAces to explain why he felt it necessary to add another level of decimal precision(diff) in only the Infobox but not the lead section or artilce body but he rarely explains his edits.

Update: (diff) why only two out three places? Why truncate the figure only in the lead section but no where else? @TropicAces:

This truncating the figure in the lead section leads to problems elsewhere as editors who do not understand how to round numbers properly have been truncating the numbers in cases where it should be rounded up. Truncating creates problems. Keeping all three numbers consistent helps avoid such problems. -- 109.77.199.224 (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

e.g. very recent failures to use the same level of decimal places in the lead section or correctly round up.(diff) -- 109.77.199.224 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: would appreciate a your opinion if you could spare a moment. -- 109.77.199.224 (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This situation seems familiar. Wasn't the other situation's outcome (I don't recall the article) to have the infobox and the lead section have the same presentation with one decimal? (However, I would argue that it is a problematic synthesis to put production budget and box office gross side-by-side as if to insist in comparing directly, when there are other costs involved, like P&A, that are needed to indicate of a film broke even. It's overly simplistic to do just budget vs. gross.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

For the same reasons that Erik argues that budget to gross comparisons are problematic (or misleadingly simplistic) because of the other largely hidden or unknown costs, I also believe that an extra decimal place of precision in the Infobox is not actually helpful to encyclopedia readers. But if editors want an extra decimal place in the Infobox they should at least make that same change in the article body and lead section. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't any one article, it was and still is recurring issue. People keep changing the decimal precision of the gross in the Infobox, without also updating the article body and lead section to match. People keep truncating the box office gross figure in the lead section, instead of rounding up or down in the normal way. This truncating often results in a mathematically incorrectly number in the lead section. An encyclopedia that persistently fails to get correct the very basic childish mathematics loses trust.

I asked on Project film if people agreed that the guidelines said what I think they said. Almost no one seemed to disagree. Nyaros was the only exception, seemed to think it was a personal attack (as above) and got angry, and insisted that because the guidelines didn't specifically say not to use "over" and claimed they didn't apply. Other editors noticed that we don't say "under" for figures rounded up and conversely there is no need to say "over" simply as a matter of good writing. I was trying to make it clear that the guideline MOS:LARGENUM already says "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled." and most reasonable people would agree "over" is a similar qualifier to be avoided. I was also trying to make it clear that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize what is actually in the article. The article body should come first and the Infobox should match.

If editors such as TropicAces feel that the extra decimal place is needed in the Infobox, that would be fine if they also make that same change in the article body and the lead section. In this case TropicAces did come back and changed the article body to match the Infobox(diff) but did not update the lead section to match. If this inconsistency is deliberate I'd like to know why, it sure seems deliberate because it keeps happening. If is not intentional then I would hope that editors would be more careful to update the article body before updating the Infobox. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)