Talk:A24/Archive 1

Archive 1

References to use

• Upstart Distributor A24 Is Making Indie Films Exciting Again

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Amazon Deal

A24 made a deal 2 (?) years ago to get exclusive rights to A24 movies and they appear on their Amazon Prime streaming service after very short windows for theatrical distribution. A source should be found for this and added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reorganizing content

I'm interested in expanding this article and reorganizing the table. Would like feedback on a few questions:

1. The company appears to be A24 officially. Should A24 Films be moved to A24 (film company) or something similar?
2. Should the "Budget" and "Worldwide gross" columns be removed, considering that this company focuses on independent films?
3. Should Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores be added, again due to the filmography being independent films?
4. Should the main column be "Release date" (replacing the "Year" column)?
5. Should the "Director" column be included or not? Like box office details, this feels like something to click through to find out.
6. Should a "Synopsis" column be added to summarize each film?

When I ask "should", it generally means I plan to make a particular change but would like to get feedback first. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes
2. I'd leave them in, they still show if a film was successful for them (independent films with low budgets can still make a good percentage-return, after all)
3. If, and only if, they can be added for all of them, then maybe, but I'm not particularly keen on it. Keep it for individual articles.
4. Combine both into "Release year"?
5. No
6. No

Really this should be treated like any other filmography table—it's a listing of entries rather than a complete repository of information. What I would suggest is, though, that the rowspans for the "year" field be taken out, as they're a bugger for table sorting and screenreaders. GRAPPLE ^X 16:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Thanks! I agree completely about the rowspans. That was part of my aim in replacing "Year" with "Release date". When you mention combining, do you mean that the release dates would be under a "Release Year" column? Wasn't sure if we should have a separate "Year" column elsewhere, broken up into individual rows.

Good point on good percentage-returns, just finding budget details a little more obscure for a list like this. Regarding "Synopsis", though, I realize it is not commonplace, but I thought at least a brief synopsis would put the filmography into context, both in regard to A24's focus and in regard to the box office and critical details that would be next to it. Film encyclopedias and directories do tend to have such blurbs (though admittedly they have more space for more detail). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what's so evil about rowspan. At this rate, I'm going to be using a screen reader in a few years, so maybe I'll change my tune then. We'll see. Or not, as the case may be. Otherwise, I agree with Grapple. Synopsis seems like overkill. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Rowspans throw the readers off so they bypass their contents on later lines, from what I've been told—so any rows covered by the span will have their fields read as though they're in different columns. And yeah, I mean one column for "Year", based on the year of first release. Anything more specific could go to the article for the film in question. GRAPPLE ^X 16:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So you mean no specific date, just films sorted alphabetically within a year? I'm okay with that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Vmars22, do you have any feedback since you've contributed to this article in the past? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think, A24 should be moved from A24 Films to plain A24. Since, the company switched all of their social media usernames from A24Films to plain A24. . Vmars22 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

One other thing, the history part of the article, should only include people joining the company, and not the films, since all of their released films are in the filmography section. Vmars22 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that the history should focus on the company. However, it may be worth mentioning some films in the process of covering its history if they have been considered milestones by reliable sources. Room may be one such example (need to look at coverage to determine that). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree! If films like Room win awards, like Oscar, Golden Globes, or if a film makes a lot of money for the company, and what not, but not every single film. I'm going to add the DirecTV-A24 deal to the history part, since half their distributed films are apart of that deal. Vmars22 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey. I didn't know this was a talk page, but I did stumble upon this just now. Yesterday I added the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores available for the films A24 has produced, so I got that nailed down. If you guys would like to add the references to this, by all means, do so! Also, the company announced on their Twitter on a tweet titled "New Rules": that it would be called "A24", not "A24 Films" or "A 2 4". So, by aoll means, do the switch.

Also, I have been thinking about whether to keep the budget and gross. But, since mostly it is in every page for the selected article for films, I say we should keep it since it would be irrelevant to have only the budget and gross options there, but not in the chart.

So, anyways, since I added the Awards and accolades part in the article, I shall add an award chart for it to keep the spirit of things. Happy editing! If any of you have a problem, ring me up! sheldon.andre (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sheldon.andre: I think budget should be removed, but not gross, since the gross is included on most company articles, and not budget. Vmars22 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Any ideas on the Accolades page? sheldon.andre (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2022

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. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• A24 (company) → A24
• A24 → A24 (disambiguation)

– The American film production company is surely the primary topic. There are only a handful of possible targets listed at A24, even including several partial-title matches. None of these even approach the page views of the company. page views. Schierbecker (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support the company as the primary topic due to page views. While "A24" and variations have some ubiquitous use, these tend to be topics of local scope with none seeming to be of major contextual significance to compete as a primary topic for that reason. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

mid90s - not mentioned - one of the best A24 films out there.

Please add info on mid90s film. 2603:7080:9600:26A1:9C7C:5673:508:2BE7 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)