Talk:The Hunt (2020 film)

Premise

I see there have been many attempts to remove the political references - the planned victims being MAGA types and the hunters being wealthy global elitists. That stuff absolutely needs to stay in the article. It is crucial to the "satire" and to the entire premise of the film. And it is in all the references. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There have been no verified release of the script or proving it is about Trump supporters being hunted. Let's not be rash with making changes until we know the fact. Also if this was liberal propaganda killing Trump supporters shouldn't the hunters be the Trump Supporters? As the game gets turned around on them. So the winner, in the end, will be the hunted not the hunters. Joketerminator (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is a reliable source that reviewed the script and highlights political elements such as "deplorables", "MAGA types", "elite liberals", "representing opposite sides of the political divide", "third-rail political themes". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Hollywood reporter cited unnamed sources and is known to prey at peoples emotions. Wait for the facts. Joketerminator (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a fact. 2001:5B0:4BCD:E1D8:185C:DC78:342E:9687 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So what? It's a reliable source reporting this. That's all that's needed. Plenty of other reliable sources reporting on this. Is it your contention that Hollywood Report is suddenly -- and oh-so conveniently -- an unreliable source? 67.4.86.65 (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

https://variety.com/2019/politics/news/donald-trump-hollywood-racist-1203297846/

Donald Trump Blasts Hollywood for ‘Racist’ Films

By GENE MADDAUS

Variety

AUGUST 9, 2019

[Donald Trump's] remarks come amid controversy over “The Hunt,” the Blumhouse film about elite vacationers hunting down blue-collar whites for sport. The film has generated backlash on Fox News and other conservative outlets.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2019/august/demented-and-evil-new-movie-the-hunt-features-liberals-hunting-down-trump-supporters

'Demented and Evil': New Movie 'The Hunt' Features Liberals Hunting Down Trump Supporters

CBN News

08-09-2019

Steve Warren

--Nbauman (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably needs more sources to back up the political satirical plot content aspect - no doubt that will come. But what there is plenty of sources on right now is conservative media criticism and Trump’s tweet. I’ve added that in sourced to WaPo. DeCausa (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The Missing Uproar

This article makes no mention of the uproar going around that the film normalizes political violence. Be it the Guardian or Tim Young, people are mentioning this as an issue while the article fails to notice it. Bgrus22 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Pulver, "Ads for ultra-violent satire The Hunt pulled in wake of US mass shootings", The Guardian, 7 Aug 2019. That article would make you think there was an uproar against The Hunt before before Donald Trump tweeted about it 9 Aug 2019. Doesn't fit the developing narrative. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Article name

I have renamed the article because the studio decided to shelve the release of the movie. No objection to changing the article name if and when the studio changes its mind and decides to release the film. Banana Republic (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be some to-ing and fro-ing between “(unreleased film)” and “(upcoming film)”. I think (unreleased film) is more reflective of the position. While Universal has certainly not ruled out releasing it in what they’ve said, at the same time there is no commitment to release it at all. Upcoming suggests there is a plan to release. “Unreleased” covers both eventualities - never releasing it and keeping it open as to if/when it is released. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Rusted AutoParts erred in moving the article back to "upcoming film". "Upcoming" suggests that there is a planned release in the near future. Thanks to AnonymousSportStacker for reverting the unwise move. Banana Republic (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "unreleased" is more suitable than "upcoming" at this point. This rarely happens, and we have little industry precedent to follow, so we should avoid implying that it is still "upcoming". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

They WILL release it -- count on it. This is not a satire; it's a playing out of their ultimate fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.20.124 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Timeline in lede

Lede as of 14 Feb 2020 5:43am est: "However, following the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings in early August 2019, Universal Pictures decided to shelve the release of the film. The decision came a day after criticism regarding the film came from United States President Donald Trump."

The lede oversimplifies the timeline of events leading to the film being pulled from Universal's upcoming schedule.

The first studios that were offered the script turned it down. Universal Pictures accepted it.

Apr 2019. VARIETY announced the upcoming movie. Release was scheduled for Sep 2019.

30 Jul 2019 Universal Pictures released the first trailer for The Hunt, covered by The Hollywood Reporter

Sat-Sun 3-4 Aug. Mass shootings in El Paso TX by a right-winger and in Dayton OH by a left-winger left a total over 30 dead. ESPN (Disney) decided not to advertise "The Hunt" on weekend sports shows.

6 Aug. The Hollywood Reporter: the two test audiences in San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles had viewers who were uncomfortable with the politics of the move.

7 Aug. Universal announced that they were suspending the promotional campaign for "The Hunt" as a response to mass shootings at Dayton and El Paso. No longer "upcoming" but "suspended". Fox News: "Hollywood blockbuster that satirizes killing of 'deplorables' causes outrage: 'Demented and evil'"

9 Aug. Without naming "The Hunt", President Donald Trump tweeted against "the kind of movie" the "Hollywood Liberal Elite" were putting out.

10 Aug. Universal pulled "The Hunt" from their schedule, no longer "upcoming" or "suspended" but "unreleased" indefinitely.

The upcoming movie was suspended by Universal two days before Trump criticized it. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The Hunt (2019) is Indonesian film

In discussion, I've made two options, between Keep and Delete. Suddenly, according to Dmehus, the result was keep. Consensus was clear. No participants responded to my related proposal toward retitling and/or deleting the current target article, but that seems slightly out of scope of this RfD discussion and can, of course, be discussed on the target article's talk page or through other venues.

Therefore, I just requested the new article to be created. It's called The Hunt (2019 Indonesian film). And The Hunt (2019 film) wants to be moved to The Hunt (2019 American film) article. Thanks. St3095 ^(?) 13:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The wrong title

Sorry, I got the wrong title. The Hunt is NOT official English title for Perburuan. The correct official English title is The Fugitive. Please create The Fugitive (2019 film). Thanks. St3095 ^(?) 17:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Release date

I saw The Hunt Thur 12 Mar 2020 at the NCG local mall multiplex (7pm 9pm show times). The release date announced a month ago (Friday 13th March 2020) is marketing and should be taken with a grain of salt. (Friday 13th the theater does list a full slate of 6 showtimes starting 12:40 ending 9:55pm) --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Genre: horror

There's a lot of back and forth over whether this is a horror film.

The parent short story (Richard Connell, "The Most Dangerous Game", 1924) is included in Wise & Fraser, "Great Tales of Terror and the Supernatural" (Random House, 1944) widely regarded as THE iconic mid-20th century horror anthology.

The story "The Most Dangerous Game" is listed in A History of Horror (Rutgers, 2010) and The Supernatural Index: A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, Weird, and Horror Anthologies (Greenwood , 1995).

The 1932 film of the same name is listed in "The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural" (Viking Penguin, 1986) as a psychological horror movie. The worst of 18 film and TV versions between 1932 and 2019 (including The Hunt) was Bloodlust! (Crown Intl. Pictures, 1961) reviewed as a horror film (in more ways than one).

If there is any doubt left, "The Most Dangerous Game" was parodied in The Simpsons Halloween special "Treehouse of Horror XVI", the definitive pegging of Connell's plot as horror.

The theme of humans hunting humans is as horrifying as cannibalism to most normal people (including me, self-identified as an NRA hunter and gunnut). Connell's challenge of the disadvantaged prey outwitting the gloating hunter does have a resonance; in Fritz Lang's Man Hunt the theme of Brit sportsman Thorndike evading and outwitting the Gestapo assassin Quive-Smith appealed to many audience members. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And there are the three sources mentioned in the footnote. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

In short, since this film seems to be both a horror and a thriller film, and multiple reliable sources mention both of them, by which I don't mean that they mention both, rather that some sources mention one and others the other, this is clearly a case where even according to WP:FILMLEAD more than one genre is appropriate. Debresser (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

As stated in that note inline, the movie has been classified under different subgenres of thriller film, including "horror thriller". WP:FILMLEDE specifically tells everyone that only the primary genre should be mentioned in the lead and it must be the genre stated by reliable sources. What makes you think this is primarily a horror thriller? Can you back this up with RS other than the ones cited in the article? You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said, since some sources claim one genre and others claim another, and both genres have multiple reliable sources, the way to handle this is mention both as primary genre. As in all cases where sources are contradictory, we must mention both, or we are not a good encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please also notice, that the guideline says to mention the primary genre "at minimum the following elements", which means that there is room to add, just not to subtract. This is per excellence a case where it is the right thing to do to add an additional genre. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit clearly violates WP:SYNTH, which specifically reminds editors not to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You assume that just because some sources call it a horror and others call it a thriller doesn't necessarily make the movie a horror thriller. Since the vast majority of sources classify the movie under subgenres of a thriller film, the official genre should temporarily be "thriller" until a consensus is reached. You have yet to do build a consensus for your change, yet you're taking it on me by templating regulars like me and accusing me of being "disruptive". I must ask you to self-revert because you're adding an unsourced content; otherwise, I'll report you to ANI for adding unsourced content and edit-warring. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The "at minimum, the following elements" part does not mean that it is appropriate for the opening sentence to have additional genre labels. The additional elements would depend on the film, such as highlighting the director or the star or the source material. WP:FILMLEAD also says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Essentially, mashing up genres creates something that has no weight outside Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@You've gone incognito WP:SYNTH? It is horror and it is a thriller. What is synthesis about saying so? Maybe I misunderstand the question, but both are sourced, so accusing me of adding unsourced content seems like a mistake on your side. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: Well, I understand "at minimum" in WP:FILMLEAD to allow for additional genres as needed. What do you mean, making up genres? Both genres are well sourced. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop acting so oblivious when you've been in this site long enough to know better. I'm reverting yet another of your edit which not only unsupported by consensus but also not in the source provided. I'm not gonna tell you again: stop edit warring and seek consensus for the change. Your behaviour in this article has been disruptive and provides sufficient ground for getting you blocked. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It is you who opposes a sourced and necessary edit, which is supported by various editors who have contributed to it. Please desist or risk being reported. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"... horror-thriller with a healthy side of political commentary ...." Also "... an unstylish and heavy-handed horror-thriller that turns into a revenge gore-fest ..." -- Kennedy, "Review: ‘The Hunt’ is a clunky swipe at a divided America", Associated Press Entertainment, 11 Mar 2020. Local theatre ads describe it as Action/Thriller. Totally natural (no supernatural element) Italian Giallo mystery-detective films with over-the-top gore have often been categorized as "thriller-horror". "The Hunt" is viewed as horror genre by many reviewers, which is (and belongs) in Categories. As far as the lede goes, what are the most prevalent of the Wikipedia Categories (action, comedy, horror, political, satirical, thriller) used in describing this movie in mainstream reviews? Beyond one or two belongs in Reception (with cites) not in lede. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

There are already 9 sources in the footnote that call it a horror film (5 straight horror, 2 satirical horror, 2 horror thriller). And still some oppose adding it to the lead... Debresser (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

By the standards used by some on THE HUNT, a lot of the Italian Giallo films commonly seen as in the horror genre due to excessive gore, are not horror. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

At the end of The Hunt, the hunted (Crystal) defeats the hunter (Athena); cauterizes her own wound with a blowtorch (I want her in my foxhole in the Apocalypse); eats Athena's cheese sandwich; and takes her clothes, dog, and jet. If that ain't taken from the ending of Richard Connell, "The Most Dangerous Game" (1924) a classic horror story, I'll eat a cheese sandwich. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Satire

• WP:FILMLEAD says the opening sentence should include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". I don't think we should be added a third genre to the lead. Debresser, do you think "satirical" is better sourced than "horror" or "thriller"? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You come along more than a month after this discussion and start stirring the pot again. It would seem there is no consensus for your opinion that a third genre is not needed. I see therefore no reason to answer your second question. I would be more inclined to discuss this with you, if you hadn't ruffled my feathers the wrong way with 1. writing "unsourced" for what is in fact very well sourced, and 2. hadn't restored your edit without awaiting comments here. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Satire never had consensus for inclusion, and multiple genres in the lead sentence is unnecessary and goes against the MOS. Discussion is not an option when you are reverting material, it is part of editing Wikipedia. If you do not want to explain your insertion of the "satirical" genre and seek consensus for it (as per WP:ONUS), then I am going to remove it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As you can see above, there are actually many editors who agree that having several genres is perfectly acceptable, if they are well sourced, of course, and provided they did not just lend some elements, but are a major influence on the film. Both conditions are satisfied for the satire genre. Even if it was not mentioned specifically in the discussion above, the conclusions of that discussion are relevant to the addition of satire as well, which is probably why it was added, and why it was not reverted for some time. However, since that is the case, you are trying to undo an edit that has both active and passive consensus, which you can not do without showing clearly that consensus has changed. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Satire was never discussed above regarding its inclusion, and there is no WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion. Also, it was added to the lead on May 1 [1], not "some time" ago. Your claims of "active" or "passive" consensus are not accurate. If you are going to argue against following the MOS, then please present your reasons for adding that third genre to the lead. I do not think it should be in the lead sentence because the other two genres seem more widely used in the sources, and a term like "satirical" is not really a genre and is probably better discussed later in the lead, as it currently is along with additional context. I do not think we should be ignoring the MOS to add a redundant term to the lead sentence when it is already more adequately addressed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

1. As I said, it need not have been discussed specifically in order for the conclusions of the previous section to be applied to it. 2. I am not arguing to go against the MOS, rather I am arguing that the MOS allows for the addition of additional genres in this case. Such also seems to be the consensus in the section above. 3. The term is not "redundant" nor "already more adequately addressed". Please refrain from proof by assertion. 4. There are 6 sources that have called this film satirical. IMHO that is enough to warrant inclusion of that term in the lead sentence. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is only for aspects are discussed, and there is no consensus for "satire" in the lead sentence. Per WP:ONUS, I am going to remove it until this discussion has concluded. The term is redundant when it is being used twice in the three lead paragraphs. Why does it need to be in the lead sentence when it is discussed with its context in a subsequent sentence in that first lead paragraph? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Need I say I disagree with you? Debresser (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is about arguments, not simply stating disagreement. Can you explain why you think "satire" needs to be mentioned twice in the lead, including in the lead sentence against the guidance in the MOS for only a "primary genre or subgenre"? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware what consensus is about. What you seem not aware of is that this was discussed above and that you are reverting a consensus version. All your questions have been answered in this section by me and in the section above, and your demand for an answer is a classic case of stonewalling. Please desist, or I will have to report you for disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that "satirical" was discussed above and has consensus for inclusion is false, and you do not discuss "satirical" at all above except as an example of when "horror" was used as a genre. WP:ONUS clearly says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." If you are not even going to engage in discussion, then you are not even trying to get consensus. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of further relevant and sourced genres was discussed. I have stated clearly that satire was not specifically mentioned in that discussion, but that its conclusions apply.

I have already shown that here is consensus. You are the only editor who disputes this, so you are the one who has to prove me wrong. Which you don't, you just edit war. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"I have stated clearly that satire was not specifically mentioned in that discussion, but that its conclusions apply." That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have recommended at WP:3RR that you be blocked for edit warring and generally not being ready to work on a community based project like Wikipedia. I see that you were having issues at WP:3RR and WP:ANI prior to my running into you here. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are refusing to discuss your content addition at all because of your claim that the term has consensus for inclusion despite it never being discussed before? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the who did what to whom and how horrible they are, here's what the first 25 of the existing sources in the article say (re horror, thriller and/or satire):

• Horror: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

• Thriller: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

• Satire: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

Why the first 25? I'm lazy. Anyway, in this anything-but-scientific sample, thriller leads with 16, followed by satire (11) and horror (6). Though I wasn't specifically looking for them, everything else I saw (action, comedy) was found once.

I haven't seen the film (and probably won't), but in my book it's a matter of how informative something is. How many horror films are also thrillers? Probably most of them. It's quite easy, though, to think of a thriller that is not a horror film or a horror or thriller film that is not a satire (or a satire that is neither a thriller nor a horror film). Horror seems to be a judgement call here. That it is intended as humerous political commentary -- satire -- seems relevant. I note particularly RT's summary: "The Hunt is successful enough as a darkly humorous action thriller, but it shoots wide of the mark when it aims for timely social satire." - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As Debresser and Wallyfromdilbert are both blocked from editing (for edit warring) at the moment, I'm letting this sit for a bit. Maybe a consensus will arise when everyone's had some time to let it go. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, let's be honest, this film is rather humorous. Definitely more humorous than it is horrifying. The above analysis shows that "satire" is better sourced than "horror".

It is clear from WP:FILMLEAD that more than one genre may be mentioned, if indeed more than one genre are markedly present in the film. This I have already clearly shown in the section above, and indeed there was consensus to include an additional genre in the lead of this this article.

At the same time I agree that having three genres seems a bit crowded. If so, then IMHO we should remove "horror" and keep "satire". I would not oppose that. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Assuming I'm reading that correctly, that's one !vote to teplace "horror thriller" with "satire thriller" (and related category changes, I assume).

Any input, Wallyfromdilbert or anyone else? - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What would be the reason for repeating that the film is satire twice in the lead? Horror has a discussion that resulted in its consensus for inclusion, and the satirical nature of the film is addressed in the final sentence of the first lead paragraph: "Both Zobel and Lindelof have said that the film serves as a satire on the profound political divide between the American left and right." Also, the longer mention seems more appropriate, as it explains that the creators intended the film to be satirical, but as Rotten Tomatoes's summary says, "it shoots wide of the mark when it aims for timely social satire." If the critical consensus is that it is a "humorous action thriller" but fails as a "timely social satire" despite the intentions of the creators, then why would we be describing it as "satire" in the lead sentence in Wikipedia's voice as a primary genre?

I don't really care which genre is used in the lead, as several genres are mentioned in the sources, as long as the lead is limited to only the primary genre or two, as three is getting excessive and should be dealt with outside of the first sentence. However, I do believe those two questions should have a good answer before moving "satirical" into the first sentence. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looks like after choosing a hill to die on, both of the combatants have retreated. I'm done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, my main concern is that the lead sentence be kept to one or two genres as per the MOS, which is what I stated in my first comment above and throughout the discussion with the other editor. The other editor then agreed with that after coming back from their block. I also don't think it makes any sense to mention "satire" twice in the lead (especially when the the RT summary is that it failed as a satire) to which there was never an answer provided by you or the other editor. I think your contributions to this discussion may have been helpful if you had been willing to engage in discussion rather than waiting months to leave a snarky comment. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the movie acts more like an action film than horror. MrWii000 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"The Hunt (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Hunt (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cast note

The character names listed in the Cast section apparently are from the script for the actors lines and direction. Few of those names are actually used in the film. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel like, with the exception of Justin Hartley's character, we should give the character names as they appear in the credits. Does someone with permanent streaming rights know what those are? Twin Bird (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Stated reason for the delay in the lead

This section is about this sentence in the lead: "The studio announced the delay in the days after the film received criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump and right-wing media outlets for its perceived bias." I removed Buzzfeed as a source due to its low quality and replaced it with a link to The Hill, a more reputable source. Neither source, however, mentions anything about "bias". In fact, the reason for the release delay was due to the subject matter - specifically, the politically charged violence and premise of left-wingers hunting and murdering right-wingers for sport. I was reverted by Wallyfromdilbert, who left an edit summary indicating he believes Buzzfeed is superior to The Hill. I offered a compromise for a third better-quality source, but I don't believe he views this as acceptable, preferring to stick with Buzzfeed. I found a New York Times article, which describes the reason for the delay as such: "An outcry followed, with conservative pundits criticizing the film’s premise as “sick” and “awful.” This is a far more accurate description of the situation, so I vote that we go with the NYT article over Buzzfeed's. The Hill and other sources describe the situation similarly. Thoughts? Incerto501 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to ignore/distort what I said in response to your comment on my talk page: "Did you look at The Hill link you added? It is clearly marked as part of their 'blog' posts. Also, RSP does not say that Buzzfeed News 'should be treated with caution'. It actually says that 'some editors recommend exercising more caution', while still finding consensus that it is 'generally reliable'. I also do not agree that the information in the article is inaccurate, and the cite in the lead is not actually needed since the lead is summarizing content from the main body. More context in the main body would probably be helpful, and would also allow for the lead to be more adequately summarized if needed. If you want to continue this conversation, let's move it to the article's talk page, where other interested editors can also be aware of it."

There are several aspects that would benefit from additional context in the body, including the fact that the film was initially cancelled, which caused its eventual release to be delayed, and that this delay was due to recent school shootings in addition to backlash by some conservatives. There are also sources that describe the backlash almost the exact same as the lead does: "Director Craig Zobel's Trump-era satire "The Hunt" was delayed months by Universal Pictures following right-wing backlash against the movie's perceived bias, and in the wake of mass shootings in summer 2019." [35] – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to speak for you or copy-paste your response, since I figured you would weigh in here on your own behalf. Hopefully no offense taken. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you gave a reason why you prefer the Buzzfeed article over the New York Times article? I'd also like to hear more about where the word "bias" is coming from, and who the film is biased against, since I can't seem to find a source for this claim and it's not in the Buzzfeed article. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit) I took a look at that IndieWire article you just posted. I wouldn't be opposed to using that to replace the Buzzfeed article since that one does use the word "bias" - although I think it's still confusing since the author doesn't elaborate on this supposed bias. A bulk of sources discussing the controversy point out that the backlash from conservatives and right-leaning media is due to the subject matter, specifically the premise of left-wingers hunting and murdering right-wingers for sport. This also is in line with the actual reason for the delay which is already stated (the mass shootings and subject matter), rather than the current version which suggests that the studio delayed the film because Donald Trump tweeted criticism of it. Incerto501 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: It seems as though there's not much appetite for discussion around this topic. Are you still opposed to replacing the Buzzfeed post with the NYT article? Incerto501 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to add more sources, you should be adding them to the main body and expanding the content there. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No, this discussion is about the Buzzfeed piece cited in the lead. The main body doesn't say anything about bias. I'm not sure where this strange view comes from, but it doesn't come from Buzzfeed. The NYT article provides a much better summary of what happened. Agreed? Incerto501 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again @Wallyfromdilbert:. It seems we're still at odds when it comes to the Buzzfeed post and the phrasing of "perceived bias" - which isn't reflected in the Buzzfeed post. I asked you previously if you're opposed to replacing the Buzzfeed post with the article from the New York Times and I didn't receive a response. Perhaps if you articulated your specific objection to the New York Times piece, or help us drill down on where the "perceived bias" language comes from, it would help us get simpatico on this. Otherwise, we'll probably just keep going back and forth and reverting each other which isn't very productive. Cheers and happy holidays. Incerto501 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have stated several times already, the citation in the lead is unnecessary as the lead is summarizing the main body. If you want to make the main article better, then maybe we could come to some agreement, but if you only interest is pushing some particular narrative in the lead, then you will need to find consensus for your change. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem, though. The phrasing you keep restoring in the lead does not summarize the main body. Are we talking about the same sentence in the "Initial reactions" section: "The film's trailer received backlash by some in the conservative media for portraying supporters of Donald Trump being hunted by liberals."? If so, then that sentence is cited to a WaPo article that also does not say anything about "perceived bias" - this notion appears to have been created out of whole cloth by an editor at some point. I'm with you in deleting the Buzzfeed post, given Buzzfeed's lackluster (to say the least) reputation, but we need to make sure the lead is an accurate summary. Also, please don't suggest I want to "push a narrative." I assume that you, like me, are editing in good faith and also want to improve the article. I summarized the reason for the delay straight from the NYT in a neutral and concise fashion. At this stage, we may benefit from a third opinion, since we're not having much luck ironing this out with just the two of us. Incerto501 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have already stated numerous times at this point, the main body needs to be improved. The film is not actually about "portraying supporters of Donald Trump being hunted by liberals", and it certainly was not "made in order to inflame and cause chaos". Those were perceptions by some about a supposed bias in the film, but those perceptions were actually inaccurate. That is why even the New York Times articles you reference uses modifiers such as "ostensibly" when discussing the supposed premise, and then goes on to explain that the film "leaves no side of the political divide unscathed". Trump's quotes from that New York Times article are also not about the premise, but about the motivations and bias of the filmmakers and broader "Hollywood", with the New York Times article saying, "Before long, President Trump alluded to 'The Hunt' on Twitter, saying it was made by liberal Hollywood 'to inflame and cause chaos.'" I am not sure why you are trying to claim that both conservative media as well as Trump "criticized the film's premise" (as you had previously put into the lead), when that is not supported by the source you are citing. If you have an issue with the lead cite, then I already provided another source that uses the literal exact phrase "perceived bias". But if you are only trying to change the lead summary to something inaccurate without even attempting to improve the article (and bizarrely claiming that this discussion has nothing to do with the main body, when that is what the lead summarizes), then that is a definite red flag to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(new line due to long response) You have indeed stated your views several times, as have I - it appears we're not making any progress because other than reverting my suggestions, I'm not sure how you want to improve the article since you haven't submitted any alternative language. While I respect your opinions about the reason for the delay (and even agree to a point), on Wikipedia we're restricted to whatever reliable sources say. You're welcome to add your IW link to the article, and then we can work together on wording that reflects what other reliable sources say. Currently, the phrase "perceived bias" is unsourced and therefore Original Research.

That said, I think the IW piece's author did a poor job of elucidating what or who the "bias" is supposedly against. In contrast, the NYT explicitly states that conservative pundits criticized the film's premise. It's not my claim - it's the NYT's. Re: Trump's tweet - the NYT sentence about this comes directly after the statement about conservative pundits criticizing the film's premise. It's clear that the "premise" is the reason for Trump's ire, which is echoed in other Reliable Sources. Do you have a source that says he was referring to an aspect of the film other than the the plot or story? It appears your interpretation of the tweet as referring to "broader Hollywood" and "motivations and bias" is more Original Research.

Finally, if you're questioning my motives or assuming I'm acting in bad faith (and I'm not even sure which direction you think I would want to slant the article), we may be at an impasse here. I've posted on the Third Opinion board FWIW, but we may have to move to the next level of Dispute Resolution if we're unsuccessful there. I appreciate your efforts to keep our discussions here civil. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what the term "original research" means, especially as Trump literally mentions "Hollywood" as his target of criticism and never mentions the plot or any of the story (or the film by name). I agree that a third opinion could be helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion: There does not seem to be one point of contention that you are requesting an opinion on. Can one of you summarize concisely what you would like an opinion on? Reading through the conversation, I see multiple issues regarding which sources to use, that the lead should summarize the body, and other things. We should take this one thing at a time. For what it's worth, any line in the lead that is not covered in the body should probably be removed. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pyrrho the Skeptic, thanks for attempting to dive in here. I agree, things got muddled and we ended up going in circles. Here is the main issue as I see it. This sentence in the lead in unsupported and conflicts with other higher quality reliable sources: "The studio announced the delay in the days after the film received criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump and right-wing media outlets for its perceived bias." My suggested solution is to remove the Buzzfeed article and replace with the higher quality NYT source[36] and change the wording accordingly to: “The studio announced the delay in the days after conservative media pundits and U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the film's premise.” This also better summarizes the "Initial Reactions" section in the main body, though the mass shootings are not mentioned here. It sounds like Wally would like to add his IW source somewhere, but I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that one. Incerto501 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the summation. That seems fine to me, but it might be helpful to add that Trump's criticism, while perhaps not "bias", was political. "Criticism of the premise" sounds like it was criticized on its artistic/storytelling merits, but the criticism, according to the NYTimes, was because he thought it was a liberal vs conservative thing (though he seemed to misinterpret the satire altogether). But then again, maybe its simpler to say "citicized the premise" then to go into more detail. I suppose if more detail is in the body, then the line as you wrote it is sufficient. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Trump never criticized or in any way mentioned the premise or the plot. He made a claim about "Hollywood" causing "chaos". He never mentioned the film or anything specifically about it, and so Incerto501's suggestion for the lead would not by supported by any sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the word "premise" might be a cause of some of the confusion/disagreement, and I'm not beholden to it. We could opt for "subject matter" instead. The tweet criticizes the entertainment industry writ large and is a clear reference to the film and its plot/story, as stated by Reliable Sources like the NYT, USA Today, Variety, and Deadline. It reads: "Liberal Hollywood is Racist at the highest level, and with great Anger and Hate!...The movie coming out is made in order...to inflame and cause chaos. They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!” And of course, even if Trump's tweets weren't about the film, then Trump's name shouldn't even be anywhere in the article. Wally: I've made several suggestions for revised language. I think it would help move things along if you proposed new language here and let us take a look at what you come up with. Incerto501 (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be revising the lead just for the sake of it, and certainly not to change it to unsourced language. I have already said that maybe we could summarize the lead differently if the main body is improved, but you have repeatedly rejected any suggestion to improve the actual main article text. If your concern was actually just the citation in the lead, you could have simply changed it to the IndieWire source that directly uses the phrase "perceived bias". Instead, you keep on insisting on your own interpretation that is not supported by any sources, including none of the sources you cite above. All of those sources are about Trump's claims that "Hollywood" is "racist", and do not mention anything about the plot, premise, or subject matter being mentioned by Trump. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So to make sure I'm hearing you right, you don't want to submit alternative phrasing for the lead or add any other sources? If that's the case, that will make things easier, because the phrase "perceived bias" is unsourced and we need to remove it. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I don't want to improve the main body, but that's not the case at all. I'm all for improving the main body - assuming you're talking about the Initial Reactions section. How specifically would you like to improve the main body, in terms of the specific language that you would like to use? In reference to the sources, they all cite the tweet in which he states that "They create their own violence." Are you suggesting that the word "violence" is not, in fact, in reference to the film? If that's the case, then we need to remove all mentions of Trump's name and quotes from this article since this article is exclusively about content related to the film. Please clarify. Incerto501 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your concern was actually just the citation in the lead, you could have simply changed it to the IndieWire source that directly uses the phrase "perceived bias". Instead, you keep on insisting on your own interpretation that is not supported by any sources, including none of the sources you cite above. All of those sources are about Trump's claims that "Hollywood" is "racist", and do not mention anything about the plot, premise, or subject matter being mentioned by Trump. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's being disruptive. I would again please ask that you maintain civility here and assume good faith of your fellow editors. You didn't get any support for this viewpoint after a Third Opinion or on the Original Research board, but you're welcome to seek support in another venue. In any case, I've removed the OR per WP:OR guidelines. Please do not restore the disputed content without gaining consensus on the talk page first. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo or The Numbers?

Box Office Mojo has the following box office breakdown for The Hunt: All Releases DOMESTIC (50.2%) $5,812,500 INTERNATIONAL (49.8%) $5,763,931 WORLDWIDE $11,576,431

The Numbers has this: Theatrical Performance Domestic Box Office $5,812,500 Details International Box Office $6,588,479 Details Worldwide Box Office $12,400,979

Which one is right? Fladoodle (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)