Talk:Logan Lucky

Heigl replaced by Holmes?

I've noticed that, despite Heigl being announced as cast in the film, she seems to have disappeared off the IMDB cast list and Holmes as being cast. All of this without an official announcement. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources say Heigl was cast, the final film features Katie Holmes. The article probably needs to be improved to make this clearer. At least one editor failed to read even the title text of the linked article and tried to replace Heigl with Holmes. -- 109.79.74.255 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Another editor deleted it entirely. -- 109.77.197.149 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Identity of the writer

The Playlist says with certainty it's Sodebergh's wife Jules Asner, though no other sources seem to firmly confirm it. Nardog (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

They don't say it with certainty so much as they say an unnamed source "confirmed" it. Is that good enough for an encyclopedia? How reputable a publication is The Playlist? I don't think it should wait until the filmmakers eventually admit as much but any addition to the article would need to be very carefully worded. (Given how much people here like deleting things it will be difficult to get it right.)

If you worded it carefully and specifically something like: "Rodrigo Perez at The Playlist cites unnamed sources close to film saying that Rebecca Blunt is a pseudonym/pen name for Jules Asner." That could be cautious enough until other sources confirm it. -- 109.76.168.55 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been several edits to the article that tried remove the claim that several people were speculated to be the writer. Whoever ultimately is the writer doesn't mean that others weren't also speculated to be the writer, so editors should be more cautious about deleting this part.

Someone added the statement to the article claiming it had been widely confirmed but despite that assertion they only used the same article from The Playlist mentioned above, and didn't include any other sources. More sources would be better, if it was widely confirmed that should be easy. So long as there is only one source then it is important to include the caveat as I suggested earlier "According to The Playlist".

They also added a whole lot of circumstantial information about Asner being on set during filming, which is frankly irrelevant either way and not notable.

I edited the text to be more cautious at least until other sources of confirmation can be found. -- 109.79.179.4 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate I don't think a single reference that cites unnamed sources reliable enough to draw a firm conclusion and the intro/lede should only mention Rebecca Blunt and leave any further detail or explanation to the article body. Some editors don't seem to understand that the choice of wording "unknown newcomer" is very deliberate, but it was my way of indicating that there was more to the identity of the writer (not simply any newcomer but an unknown newcomer suspected to be a pseudonym) without getting into detail in the intro. -- 109.76.209.201 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Again since Sodebergh denied the claim that Rebecca Blunt was not a real person[1] we don't have enough information to say anything with certainty. There should not make be any unconfirmed claims in the article intro, but we can show the various contradictory sources in the Production section. -- 109.76.215.235 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Several sources have speculated that she does not exist. We cannot simply present the claims of the director as fact in the lead, and "unknown newcomer" does not reflect the sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Keyword: "speculated", it seems very strange to put speculation in the lead, even if that speculation came from The Hollywood Reporter.

The film itself credits "Rebecca Blunt", that's the primary source. Various sources presented her as a new writer, and calling her an "unknown newcomer" was a accurate summary but at the same time a hat tip to the suggestion it might be more. If we had more reliable sources it would be another matter but what we have is speculation from THR (Asner or Sodebergh), an assertion from The Playlist (Asner), and EW reporting a denial from Sodebergh. It is not clear that any of this needs to be mentioned in the lead, I think a verbose explanation[2][3] gives undue weight to what is only a very small production detail, a mere footnote but with an air of mystery, but still not actually important. -- 109.76.215.235 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP, the identity of the writer is not that important to characterizing the subject as the lead of every article is supposed to do, and those interested in it can simply look in the body. "Unknown newcomer" was the status quo for a long time, so in the absence of a new consensus, a reversion to that wording seems most advisable. Nardog (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Unknown newcomer" is not supported by the sources, many of which questioned the identity of the screenwriter well before the film was released. This speculation was not just a few sources, and includes The Telegraph, Business Insider, and RogerEbert.com: "The screenplay is credited to Rebecca Blunt, supposedly a young first-timer getting her big break, but it’s an open secret that it was really written by Soderbergh’s wife Jules Asner". I can't find a single source that discusses the screenwriter's identity and concludes it's a real person. I'm also not sure how "whose name has been speculated to be a pseudonym" in the lead is a "verbose explanation". Nardog, if you also disagree with including that in the lead, I am fine with that, but I do not think we should put "unknown newcomer" in the lead instead when that is contradicted by the sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see anything wrong with "unknown newcomer", but I'm fine with this solution as well. "Credited to" suggests Blunt might not exist in the same way "unknown" does. Nardog (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

How is an encyclopedia supposed to deal with rumors or open secrets. For a minute there I was almost happy to see you'd found more sources but The Hollywood Reporter article was from July 27, 2017[4] and all those sources are from July 27 or later, clearly reactions to THR. There are plenty of sources stating that Rebecca Blunt is a first time screen writer, but there are also sources saying they don't believe she is anything other than a pseudonym. wallyfromdilbert sees this contradiction as "not supported by the sources" but I see this as a case of one thing happened then another thing happened later. Just like how film articles often have to report officially claimed budget figures that no one actually believes and explain later that actual spending is almost certainly higher than officially stated, we similarly have to first write that the credited writer was Rebecca Blunt, an unknown, first time screenwriter, and that even though Soderbergh denied it, sources believe Rebecca Blunt is a psuedonym for Asner. At this point I'm okay with not including details in the intro, even if that isn't exactly the wording I'd choose. (As you can see from the other talk page discussions OldJacobite insisted the lead was not long enough, but did not do anything to expand the lead himself, and other editors kept shortening it. I'm not sure I'd have bothered to mention the writer in the intro at all otherwise.)

If at all possible I'd prefer not to make minor changes to the intro but instead expand or change the article body and include more information about the writer and screenplay there. The articles from The Playlist and RogerEbert.com and others quote the Production notes. If we had a reliable source for the original production notes we could expand the Screenplay section a a bit more and fictional or not we might mention that Rebecca Blunt wrote the character of Jimmy based on Tatum, and was inspired by a news story about a real sinkhole at the Charlotte Motor speedway.[5] (I'd prefer to have the original production notes, but maybe we don't even them directly, and can reference the articles that refer them?) This intro always seems to get the attention but I don't think it is as important as improving the main article, where we can try to explain things more clearly and in more detail. -- 109.76.215.235 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No sources claim Blunt is a first-time screenwriter unless they are simply repeating the press materials or Soderbergh's statements (if I am wrong, please let me know because I would be interested in seeing that source). All those sources I linked do their own independent analysis separate from the THR, and every source that discusses the identity of the screenwriter says that she either likely or definitely does not exist. There are plenty of others as well, and you cannot simply ignore WP:DUE. Original production notes (or other press materials or statements by the director) are not as reliable as independent secondary sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead is short

The lead section is short but it does more than adequately summarize what is in the article. Please explain what you think is missing and why do you think the tag should remain? -- 109.79.74.130 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The production is barely mentioned, as are the release and the critical reception, and there is no mention of the producers or financing. These are key elements of the film that should be discussed in brief in the lede. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It is no way near as obvious as you say it is. I take your point about the production and independent distribution and maybe I can think of a a few short words and give it a brief mention but the intro does broadly summarize most of the article. The critical response is already adequately covered (positive reviews, that succinctly summarizes it), if you think more needs to be said on that topic in the intro then please do make the changes you think are needed. -- 109.79.74.130 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Help me out here. You've said the intro is too short but haven't done anything to expand it. I've made good faith efforts to expand the intro and been reverted more than once already. -- 109.79.181.165 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The Old Jacobite says (above) the article intro was too short, and that there were parts of the article it didn't summarize. I expanded the intro, but others are reverting my changing without fully explaining, and without doing anything to expand the intro (or remove the tag).
The article mentions at some length speculation about the screenwriter, this is why I expanded the intro text to emphasize that the film was based on an original script (not adapted from any existing story) and that Blunt is a newcomer. (If Asner is confirmed as the screenwriter it will still true that she is a new screenwriter.) It might seem like a small extra word or two but I think the detail is worth mentioning.
The article also discusses that Soderbergh was retired and unhappy with working in Hollywood (although he worked on other projects) and the fact that the film was independent distributed by Soderbergh and done differently to his previous films is part of his reason for returning, so again while distribution might not seem like an important detail in the context of summarizing this article it is important to mention.
I've made a serious effort to expand the intro because The Old Jacobite said it was needed. So please, expand the intro, rephrase if you must but if you're going to delete then please also delete the tag saying the intro needs to be expanded. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summary Problem?

The current plot summary states "Clyde doesn't recognize one of the patrons, who turns out to be Grayson continuing her investigation undercover." I think there's room for an alternative interpretation.

Agent Grayson is portrayed as an unsympathetic character with a bad attitude, just as Logan and friends are portrayed as hapless idiots at the outset. If you were paying attention, you may have noticed that these inarticulate clowns managed to pull together a world-class heist that had a lot of moving parts and, due to luck AND planning, paid off handsomely. These are the same folks who seized power in 2016, so underestimating them doesn't pay.

I think Agent Grayson also is other than she seems. Her "interrogation" of Chilblain was a joke, and she clearly knows more than she's saying. After getting a close look at who the smart people are in this scenario, and seeing how cozy the track owner and their insurance company are, I think she reconsiders her career prospects and decides to join the winning team. Note that ALL the women in the film warm to Logan lucky despite their earlier dismissal of him. Also note that several viewers recall that Grayson presented in the final scene with an artificial hand. Did you really want Clyde to be the only one without a girlfriend at the end? Also, as this film has been characterized as a Red State Ocean's, have you thought about who will be the added member in the sequel? Somebody with inside dope as to FBI ops would not be a bad choice. Of course the black dude in the limo is also a contender. Woman power and Black power come to Trump country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0AB:8D00:B565:CFC0:7581:A37A (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

After a suitable interval, I tried adding a short paragraph to the article in which I alluded to the theory sketched above. It was removed without explanation. While I may be wrong, I'm not an idiot, and I think a more courteous approach is warranted. You could, for example, say why you summarily dismissed the idea. Personally, I think art worthy of the name is ALWAYS subject to alternative views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0AB:8D00:64E0:14B2:64C9:EDD6 (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a problem. The answer is not to add more speculation or alternative theories about what could be happening but to say only what we can see and remove the rest. (Also WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, including ideas about different things that might or might not be happening is too verbose.)

I removed the speculative sentence which presumed that Grayson was continuing her investigation. -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

THAT is a satisfactory solution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0AB:8D00:F551:5EBC:FCC4:998C (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Slamdance

Deadline interviewed Soderbergh at Slamdance https://deadline.com/2019/01/steven-soderbergh-sundance-slamdance-icon-interview-1202544513/ [6] He discusses the money needed to market a film, and Logan Lucky is mentioned as an example. I'd probably expand the release section more information rather than starting a section just for Marketing. Lots of other information unrelated to Logan Lucky. Not going to do it now, I might come back to this later. -- 109.79.64.35 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)