Jump to content

Talk:Priscilla (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music score

[edit]

Per the official poster credits and film credits (and Variety), Phoenix is credited as the composer. @Mikemoriss: keeps adding Sons of Raphael, citing this video. Sons of Raphael may have contributed to the music/soundtrack but are not credited as scoring the film. Per Template:Infobox film: Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included. There is no reason to edit war when sources are clear on this. Mike Allen 19:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Seems like Elvis fans are manipulating the article and using unreliable sources to portray the film in an unfavorable light in the “Reception” section (claiming it’s a flop when it’s already made $7M over its budget and hasn’t fully released internationally). 2601:49:8400:1710:31F6:7190:B818:D962 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, even Wikipedia deems Screen Rant as a reliable source for entertainment related reasons not related to living persons.[1] This is what the matter at hand is. How do I know you're not a Priscilla fan who is "manipulating the article?" Hype like "it’s already made $7M over its budget" is very POV, as the budget only accounts for the film production and discounts additional expenses on things such as advertising. Erasing the Screen Rant source and labeling as "unreliable" was indeed vandalism.2601:447:4100:C30:42D:5246:9D8D:6891 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Rant is not reliable when it comes to box office analyzing. They do not do original reporting, and mostly copy trade sites. Interviews is about all that is "reliable" from Screen Rant. Anyway, for us to write anything about the film being a bomb or a flop, we will need multiple high quality reliable sources - per MOS:ACCLAIMED. Mike Allen 00:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: The Screen Rant article that is currently being sourced for "It was reported that the film needs to make at least $40 million to break even." was written by Mae Abdulbaki who is a "Movie Reviews Editor with Screen Rant. She is a Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic, and writes reviews and features with a focus on theatrical releases and TV series." What credentials does she have to support these claims? Mike Allen 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking like you are making a POV claim. Screen Rant is specifically described by Wikipedia's reliable source article as reliable for entertainment news not related to living persons. The article was about the film and not Priscilla Presley when discussing the break even data.Speakfor23 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change and you did not address the issue I brought up with that article. I can open a discussion at WP:FILM and see what others think. Mike Allen 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing her a film critic as a way of questioning her credentials is not cool. The article was not a critical review and was related to box office potential. It was even titled "How Much Priscilla Cost To Make & What Box Office It Needs"Speakfor23 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which she is not a professional at. She is a film critic. Mike Allen 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is your opinion. You also covered up other descriptions about her. Speakfor23 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One random film critic claiming the film needs to make $40M to break even doesn’t justify calling the film a flop *weeks ago*. It’s pretty much at $30M now. I feel at this point it should be clear that calling it a flop was premature and inflammatory. Dahliashortcake (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing log shows you have only made edits to this particular article. I believe you are only focused on this page.
These are her words! That is why "Movie Reviews Editor with Screen Rant. She is a Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic, and writes reviews and features with a focus on theatrical releases and TV series" is in quotes. Entertainment news reporter is not a qualifier for being an expert at box office profits/Hollywood accounting, especially when the actual budget is not even known. Mae states this many times in the article and continues to guess what amount it could be under $20 million. You are totally missing the point. Mike Allen 02:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. She is not just a critic and stated "With a budget of less than $20 million, "Priscilla" needs to make at least $40 million to break even and $50 million to be considered a successful box office film." Even here, she is described as a "critic and editor."[2].Speakfor23 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not mention other details the article described about her. She was also described as "discussing all things entertainment" and being a "writer and editor." That article was not a film review and was centered around box office potential.Speakfor23 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure why IP's keep adding a "<" less than symbol in the infobox for the budget but I have repeatedly removed it as it's against the template. I have gone ahead and left a note as well. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The budget is reported as "under $20 million" dollars. How can this be accurately represented within the template? 174.84.1.14 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@174.84.1.14 Just because it’s stated as "under $20 million" doesn’t mean we include a "<" in the infobox. Please read Template:Infobox film. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here from WT:FILM#Discussion about Screen Rant reliability. Screen Rant is a low-quality source. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency, but not for anything controversial, WP:BLP material, or—most relevant here—any kind of analysis. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now MovieWeb also backs the ScreenRant claim that Priscilla needs $50 million to be a success. Try denying MovieWeb's reliability now.Speakfor23 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same owner as stated in my edit summary and your talk page. Mike Allen 15:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
$40M and $50M are totally different numbers. The fact that your “sources” are all over the place is further proof there is no definitive evidence of what Priscilla needs to be profitable. Furthermore, the fact that the original claim was placed in the article *before* Priscilla opened internationally and made another $10M shows that the person who initially made that claim was obviously far too hasty. Dahliashortcake (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at an NPOV claim. It has run its international release course. 2601:447:4100:C30:30A4:B153:B38:299D (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was established that the Screen Rant article should not be used. Please read the discussion above again. Thank you. Mike Allen 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media Effects

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mahiraduggal (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bstuger (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priscilla_(film)&oldid=1219455973"