Talk:Booksmart

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

Requested move 19 May 2019[edit]

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: Moved. There's consensus for moving to the base title. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Booksmart (film) → Booksmart – Currently Booksmart is a redirect to a page that doesn't even include that word. The film should take precedence. Immigrant laborer (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Maybe the software should be mentioned at Blurb, Inc., but either way I don't see any basis for a primary redirect. PC78 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks pretty obvious. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'd argue this could've worked as a technical request it's so clearly the right call. Sock (tock talk) 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like we should have an article on the concepts of being book smart versus street smart. bd2412 T 03:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to this, I have started a draft at Draft:Book smart and street smart, which will explore the cultural concept of this division of kinds of knowledge. I would expect that once completed, it would be the primary redirect target for all variations of both "book smart" and "street smart". bd2412 T 04:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If you search "Booksmart" on Wikipedia with no space, the results are almost all about this film. This makes me think this is clearly the encyclopedic primary topic, compared to a dictionary definition of what it is to be "book smart". --Quiz shows 21:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original redirect is the result of an AfD of BookSmart, which was a product developed by Blurb. The AfD, thoughtlessly, did not end with a mandate to merge any of the content of BookSmart, which is why it's not mentioned on Blurb's page. I've no opinion on the move, but if it is effected, there should be a hatnote either to Blurb or to a dab about other Booksmarts. Chubbles (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oooohhh. That makes more sense. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need, we have {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}} for that. Paradoctor (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise with what? The concern of the sole oppose is addressed. Other than that, I see only snow.
From the view stats it is clear that, for the time being, the film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by a factor of 100. I created a dab page anyway, we can easily reshuffle the pages when and if things change. Paradoctor (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RS for future use[edit]

Just leaving these as potential citations.

  1. Stanford, Eleanor (May 16, 2019). "'Booksmart' and How Hollywood Stopped Fearing Lesbian Teens". The New York Times.
  2. Blockon, Jenny (April 17, 2019). "Booksmart: Olivia Wilde's New Film Has a Sweet Lesbian Twist". AfterEllen.
  3. Debruge, Peter (March 11, 2019). "Film Review: 'Booksmart'". Variety.

Pyxis Solitary yak 11:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molly's her trip to 'Africa'[edit]

The line "Molly helps Amy prepare for her trip to Africa" shows a USA-centric view of the world. Too often US-made films/TV shows/reviews refer to "Europe" or "Africa" as amorphous places. In this context, the specific location in Africa is important to the plot line: As we learn in the film, she is going to Botswana, rather than Uganda, partly because of the latter's negative views on homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiniceguy123 (talk • contribs)

Done - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. WP:BOLD - Immigrant laborer (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Budget Incorrect possibly[edit]

Currently the article only shows one source for the budget at 6 million.

I would suggest adding a new source and possibly averaging the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.106.194.3 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that no legit or respected source has stated the budget of 'Booksmart.' I'd suggest removing any references to its budget until this amount has been officially stated. Additionally, the article currently cited - https://theplaylist.net/booksmart-box-office-debate-20190602/ - is from The Playlist, which seems to be deeply agenda driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.189.100.120 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

$19 million seems implausibly high. if you look at the budget for other Annapurna Pictures film's, and compare to the $10 million budget they gave to Richard Linklater. Also that isn't a particulaly great source, if you try and read it the article is spam overloaded with keywords to get attention from search engines.
$6 million seems low but plausible, other costs such as P&A probably bring it closer to $10 million all in. I would not want to remove this source unless we had other more reliable sources and even then we should not cherry pick. A budget figure gives context to the suggestion that the film underperformed. Scott Mendelson has a lengthy analyis but unfortunately doesn't say anything about the budget.
As it was filmed in Los Angeles we can be almost certain the film received tax rebates and the budget information will have to be disclosed eventually. -- 109.76.211.92 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When is the film set?[edit]

Based on the images I've seen, this movie seems to be set at some point in the 1970s or '80s. True? If so, could we put that into the article, or is it never made clear in the film? Moncrief (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At one point they watch a video on their phone. So "nowish". - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The film takes place on June 7th-8th, 2019, at the end of the film, the next day, Amy looks at her phone and it says "June 8th", which mean the film takes place on June 7th-8th (minus the final scenes). And the characters are the class of 2019. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True dat.
The use of smartphones, social media, and Lyft mean it could not be anything other than "now-ish". (Also other references like Ruth Ginsberg.) Interesting to get specific dates though, thanks for that. The production design might still have intentional or unintentional stylistic references to others eras. You can read about the costume design which is varied, it's lived in, none of it seems overtly or glaringly contemporary. The film is now-ish but with plenty of echoes of other times. -- 109.76.211.92 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another interview with Napier about costumes if anyone cares to add details about it to the Production section. -- 109.76.134.165 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poster[edit]

Someone changed the poster from a photographic poster featured the two leads to an illustrated poster showing a large ensemble. Is the illustrated poster the actual theatrical release poster? -- 109.79.161.55 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back again apparently. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And back to the illustrated poster not long after. -- 109.79.170.186 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This bugs me. I never saw the illustrated poster anywhere except here. As far as I know the photographic poster was the main one used to promote the film, and was also used for the DVD and Bluray cover art. I'm not sure where the illustrated poster comes from, I can only guess it was a tribute to films of the past like Animal House but it doesn't feel like the most appropriate choice of image for this article. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delta[edit]

Film was edited (or censored, depending on your point of view) for Delta airlines and some people weren't happy about it. It has gone from a few tweets to articles in Variety[1][2] and into mainstream media, such as the Washington Post[3][4], so maybe it might notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article. -- 109.79.170.186 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top lists[edit]

I disagreed with some recent edits but after thinking about it further at least part of the reason those edits bothered me was that the Critical responses section is not the ideal place for Accolades such as Top ten lists such as the end of year list from Joe Morgenstern at the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). I refer to the project film guidelines WP:MOSFILM, specifically the Accolades section which says: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." -- 109.76.148.122 (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film is mentioned at least a few other top ten lists, not sure which ones are most notable yet. Metacritic ranked films based on how many 2019 Top lists on which they featured. Booksmart was ranked 13th, was 1st on 2 lists, 2nd on 5 lists, and included on 52 other list, 68 lists in total. -- 109.76.148.122 (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC's Ali Plumb listed Booksmart #1 on his list. -- 109.76.148.122 (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not once did you ever mention that the information presented was inappropriate; based on your edit summaries, I believe you only took issue with a conjunction was present. Please make up your mind on with what you actually take issue. Regarding MOS:FILM, I guess you missed the exact sentence that comes after the one you quoted, which reads: With a film largely overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate . . . The WSJ list is a perfectly appropriate addition because the WSJ is a reliable source per WP:RSP. Booksmart was ranked 13th . . . If you're able to find these lists, then I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the article as prose, as outlined by the guideline. As for the BBC link you cited, Rotten Tomatoes only approves of the list's curator's reviews for Empire Magazine and Digital Spy. The list itself exists on the BBC Radio platform and not even the BBC website as a whole, which tells us that the critic does not review films for the BBC, only for their own radio show. You tell me whether a top ten list by a radio show holds the same weight as a newspaper that has existed for over 100 years. KyleJoantalk 03:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd need to discuss if Booksmart was overlooked for awards. I don't think that it needs to be mentioned here. We'd be singling it out, Booksmart appeared on a lot of top 10 lists last year. It doesn't need mentioning. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recharacterized the WSJ write-up to make it fit the section in which it exists. I would be happy to discuss whether the film was overlooked for awards; I just wasn't aware that that was even something 109.76.148.122 wanted to discuss based on this edit summary. KyleJoantalk 03:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disliked several things about the edit, my opinion has evolved, and there is no requirement for edits to be challenged within any particular time limit, just as there was no time limit for KylieJoan to add to this page long after the film had left theaters. Rather than focusing on what I disliked about the edit I decided to focus on trying to improve the article, and including Top ten lists seemed like the best way to do that. If KylieJoan wants to include a review from WSJ then find the actual review [5] and include that, instead of misrepresenting a top ten list to include it in the Critical response section. If you could find a review that wasn't blocked by Paywall that would be better too (both the article and the archived copy of the article do not show enough text that I can even WP:VERIFY that Booksmart is mentioned, or what number it was on the list.)
Although I think Booksmart was overlooked in general by audiences, I wouldn't say it was overlooked for awards or critical praise. MOSFILM allows top ten lists to be mentioned if there is consensus to include them. I like how Metacritic has collected all the top ten lists, I do think it would be worth briefly mentioning that Booksmart appeared on many top ten lists, and then if there is consensus highlighting a few of those lists that are deemed most notable. I thought that it would be worth noting the lists where Booksmart was listed at #1. Metacritic does not make it clear which lists put Booksmart at #1, I was trying to find those two lists I wasn't trying to put WP:UNDUE emphasis on a particular source. -- 109.78.221.217 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Indiewire Critics poll that is currently included in the Accolades table a Top Ten list too? And the Dublin Film Critics Circle. -- 109.78.221.217 (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than focusing on what I disliked about the edit I decided to focus on trying to improve the article . . . Are you insinuating that your previous edit was not meant to improve the article? Moreover, has your opinion really evolved when you're still opposed to drawing connections between quotes–whether directly or indirectly? Please don't make me keep asking why this is. My opinion, on the other hand, has not changed because a section that reads "A says this. B says this. C says this." sounds a whole lot like an instruction manual, and you know what they say about instruction manuals. KyleJoantalk 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, MOS:FILM does not prevent us from referencing the Film Critic Top 10 Lists from Metacritic. The goal of that guideline is to prevent listing upwards of hundreds of names of journalists and periodicals who put the film on their list. That does not mean we cannot say Booksmart was on 68 top-ten lists, including two of them ranking them first. That wording can be adjusted further as needed, like being 13th among films (then let readers go to the source to find out what films are ahead of this one). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erik. I'll add something to that effect now. -- 109.78.221.217 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Aitken[edit]

A recent edit changes the lineage of the screenplay, and deletes the author Amy Aitken who is credited in several prominent references as a key source material. Just wondering if this edit should stand. I'm not a partisan either way. -- May Knott (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was not explained in any way, you could have reverted and required the editor to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and at least properly explain their changes with an edit summary or discuss here. It is a bit late now though. Anyway...
"Amy Aitken who is credited in several prominent references" Which references? Amy Aitken does not appear to be credited on this film. Uncredited cast or crew should be reliably sourced. I don't see the name and I looked at the references in that specific paragraph and Amy Aitken not mentioned there either. (I did a search and it appears that there is an illustrator called Amy Aitken and some very unreliable sources making incredibly dubious non-specific claims that this film was somehow related to one of her books.) This encyclopedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources so unless you can show reliable sources that mention Aitken in relation to this film then she should not be mentioned in this article. Checking the edit history (diff) the claim that Aiken had anything to do with this film looks it looks entirely like vandalism. -- 109.76.136.1 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Booksmart&oldid=1206373425"