Talk:Edge of Tomorrow/Archive 1

Archive 1

release date changed

changed to June 6 2014 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/300-sequel-bumped-august-march-520290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.175.201 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll update it. Have you considered making an account and learning to make changes like that yourself? Euchrid (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

Inconsistencies in first paragraph. First sentence refers to, "Lt. Col. Bill Cage (Tom Cruise)" whereas third sentence refers to, "Major William Cage (Cruise)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.103.122 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Corrected - my comment above when not logged in. Timmholt (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Crew

Regarding the "Production" section, there are no guidelines against a crew list. I understand that crew lists have not been commonplace in film articles, but I think it helps to identify additional crew members. The infobox has a "Starring" field for the most important actors from a cast list, and it can also have the most important crew members from the crew list. We don't have members like the production designer, the costume designer, or the visual effects supervisor in the infobox, yet they contend for awards. Also, proximity of the crew list to the infobox will become less of an issue when we expand the plot summary, the lead section, and perhaps the cast section, if we get enough detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with everything here. Personally, I think there should be a guideline to include a crew list. It's information many people are curious about. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Different title for Japan

This says that in Japan, the film will have the light novel's title All You Need Is Kill. While this seems fairly clear-cut, I'd like to have a reliable source to state this distinction in the article (can be English or Japanese, as long as it is reliable). Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like there is an official website for Japanese audiences that confirms this, and I'll use this in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Film company

According to the article, and this source, the film was co-produced by Warner Brothers, an American company, and Village Roadshow, an Australian company. Neither of those companies are British. Where is the source that says the film was produced by a British company? Also, as far as the nationality if a film is concerned on Wikipedia, only production companies have been used to determine this. Not filming location or director. JOJ ^Hutton 16:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Village Roadshow was American since IMDb had the "[us]" label for it. Now it makes sense why IMDb states USA and Australia. Per the infobox guidelines, let's see what countries reliable sources identify. Variety review does not name any countries, and I don't think the film is shown in the BFI database. What can we use for guidance? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the review in The Guardian didn't have an infobox for this film, though it has had one for others. Looks like the database The New York Times uses for films just says "United States" here. Pinging Corvoe for his thoughts. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well there are sources that show that Village Roadshow is one of the production companies, so I added them. As far as nationality of the film in the infobox, do you really need an actual source that actually says "Australia", or can we just use common sense? Since VR is an Australian company.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of a gray area since the "Country" field does not have a clear-cut definition. That's why the guidelines say to defer to a reliable source. Village Roadshow is basically a production company under the studio Warner Bros. (as defined here). So if we base "Country" solely on the studio, it would just be United States, I guess. But the article does say that the film is a co-production of WB and VR. Googling for Village Roadshow and Edge of Tomorrow, I don't see a lot of authoritative results mentioning VR even in the midst of this film's release, so it seems lesser than WB, which is the key entity to identify here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So even with a source its not good enough? I'm done with this article. I don't care what you do to it. Blank the page for all I care at this point. If a reliable source that says a co-production between WB and VR isn't good enough, then there is nothing else I can say that will convince anyone of anything.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't be frustrated! The sources do indicate that Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow co-produced the film. That is highlighted in the lead section and in the "Production" section. The Variety article I linked above shows that Village Roadshow is a production company under the studio Warner Bros. That means in the infobox, only Warner Bros. should be in the "Studio" field. Should the "Country" field be based on the studio only? If so, it should be the United States. If not the "Studio" field, then perhaps it can be the United States and Australia. I'm not 100% sure myself, which was why I've pinged Corvoe for a third opinion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I'm needed. Okay, I'm at university orientation right now. I'll be home in about a half hour, then I can do my usual digging. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, I totally forgot to do that yesterday. However, I did some digging, and I found...well, not a lot. Frankly, I don't think Variety, in this instance, is a very good source. It's tough to infer the countries of production just from the production companies, and since it doesn't explicitly state them (like it did with Hanna, it's hard to say. All I could find was AllMovie, which lists it as US-only. Usually, in these cases, I like to wait for BFI to add an entry for it (AFI tends to take at least a year, so no use waiting there). However, if we find a listing on something like Screen International where it only lists the US, we should only list commonly reported countries per the infobox film template.

Translation: I got nothin', I'd suggest waiting for a bit and leaving it as-is. Corvoe (speak to me) 23:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Paxton and Cruise

Corvoe, I reported the Paxton-Cruise collaboration because it was highlighted in the source. I tend to report collaborations that independent sources found worth noting, otherwise it is too easy to make up whatever we please. As for your edit summary mentioning the other collaborations, we can also find a source that mentions the Blunt-Cruise collaboration. However, I suspect that the Paxton-Cruise collaboration is more worth noting because of their ages and their similar genre films, especially in the 1980s. (Blunt is much younger, so the new collaboration is not as noteworthy, as far as I know.) Lastly, looks like Cruise and Gleeson were both Mission: Impossible II! I have not found any real coverage about Gleeson himself in this film, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought I removed Gleeson/Cruise from my summary, my bad. Must've deleted another one. I see your point on one end (they were both in similar films), but that isn't mentioned, so it just seems like unnecessary trivia. Unless its relevance is explained, people will probably have a similar reaction to me: "So?" Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 15:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I replaced that citation with a Variety one seen here that makes the relevance a bit clearer. Is that sufficient? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot

THE PLOT WOULD BE MORE UNDERSTANABLE IF THE FOLLOWING WERE ADDED: Aliens use time travel to win battles by reseting the day of battle until they succeed. Aliens fight the same battle hundreds if not thousands of times while their opponents are only aware of the current battle. This explains the references to "they knew we were coming," "how do they know," etc, but not developed. Also implied, Operation Downfall has been fought many times, but by absorbing the Alpha Mimic's blood, the situation is now flipped. Cage's death now resets the day rather than by alien Omega's choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossworks (talk • contribs) 10:51, June 13, 2014‎

The film's plot in Wikipedia articles are generally cliff notes. They are not meant to explain every single detail but to simply provide the reader with enough information to understand the gist of the film. Gorba (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bavarian Alps dam

There is absolutely no indication about the dam beeing in the Bavarian alps. And this is also higly unlikely, because far less than 1% of the Alps are in Bavaria. And because the Bavarian Alps are so small (only a few 100 km²) there's no where such a dam could be, the topography just does not fit. The Sylvenstein Dam is the biggest one and it is far from the one shown.

More likely it is in Austria or Switzerland, where topography allows for lots of dams like the one shown: List of dams and reservoirs in Switzerland (of which a fair share is in the German-Speaking parts of Switzerland), List of reservoirs and dams in Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.211.38.123 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure the film mentions the Bavarian Alps specifically. Maybe that's far-fetched, but other plot points are more so. Lagrange613 04:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.69.234 (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Commentary

I have seen some articles with commentary about the film, namely regarding portrayals of feminism and of the military. It may be worth having a section in the article if there is more than one article with commentary about a specific element.

Feminism

• Emily Blunt's 'Edge of Tomorrow' Role Is Refreshingly & Unapologetically Feminist at Bustle
• Why Did 'Edge of Tomorrow' Need a Romance? at The Wire
• Girls on Film: Hollywood keeps stranding women at the Edge of Tomorrow at The Week
• We’re losing all our Strong Female Characters to Trinity Syndrome at The Dissolve

Military

• A look at armed conflict and ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ at The Boston Globe
• The Real Military Tech Behind Edge of Tomorrow's Guns and Gadgets at Popular Mechanics (may be better for "Production")

Political

• What other political thrillers can learn from ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ at The Washington Post

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I added "Gender roles" and "Comparison to video games" sections. Not sure if there is enough said about military conflict to warrant a stand-alone section. "Depiction of technology" may be a possible section with a few articles comparing the film's technology to real life, but it may not really fall under social commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I very, very strongly suggest that this section be deleted. As it stands, it seems to be of little relevance, it repeats the common error of calling any and all movies with active and capable (aka "strong") women "feminist", and it fails to consider that the normal role of a woman in the typical (!) movie of today is quite different from even just twenty years ago.

As a more general guide-line, I caution to only include sub-topics such as feminism and gender-roles when they have an actual relevance to the main topic: There is unfortunately a strong, ideologically motivated movement that deliberately tries to force such sub-topics in where they do not belong or where their inclusion would, with the same low level of justification, require the inclusion of dozens of other sub-topics. As a specific example, Swedish feminists have actually demanded that courses in math and physics should include a gender perspective...

80.226.24.11 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The actual relevance to the main topic was established when the referenced commentary discussed the film itself. How else is relevance supposed to be established? We are not taking general feminist commentary and applying it to the film. That is already being done, and we are referencing that commentary here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Same here, just finished watching the movie and read the wiki article as usual, this section seems really out of context, it should be deleted Loganmac (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What does "out of context" mean? The commentary discusses the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Article length and level of detail

I think... that it should not take longer to read the article about a film, than it takes to watch the film. I'm kidding. Well, I'm half kidding. The level of detail about openings, country-by-country, number of screens, sizes of opening weekends - it seems obsessively detailed, way beyond what an encyclopedia needs to cover. Details of interest to a tiny fraction of readers - shouldn't those remain in original sources? Spike0xff (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Spike0xff (talk · contribs), this level of detail is common and acceptable on Wikipedia; see WP:FILMMOS.

On a side note, I moved this section down to the bottom because, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, new sections go at the bottom (usually). Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's forcing you to read the more detailed sections. That's why the "Theatrical run" section has four sentences identifying the key highlights of its theatrical run before going in depth with the first two weekends. If you think this paragraph should have a little more detail without needing to read the more detailed sections, go ahead and add it. These details are not culled from indiscriminate statistics; they are what reliable sources have noted about the film's performance. If they "remain in original sources", they'll be lost in the static. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that it seems that he was only talking about the box office information. But, yeah, I agree with you on the matter, Erik. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to agree with Erik. This level of detail is more than appropriate, as we want Wikipedia to serve as a one stop shop for any information a reader could possibly want. All of our featured articles and a large amount of our good articles encompass wide amounts of information, as it is of interest. For instance, box office (which seems to be your focus of criticism) was a hot topic on this film, as it was expected to flop almost as soon as the budget was released. The film's box office performance has been discussed before and during its release, so it having a big section is appropriate. Also, it's all backed up by excellent sources. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bechdel Test

I'm thinking about adding notes about the Bechdel Test to the Gender Roles section. Edge of Tom fails the Bechdel test and interestingly also fails the Mako Mori test as Rita doesn't have her own story arc, and an interesting point is made that the gender of her character is almost irrelevant. Other commentators have said the romantic angle diminishes the story. Some of these aspects are covered by the section, I'll have to read through all the sources in that section when I have more time and check to see if the existing articles mention the Bechdel Test but it seems odd to me that it is not mentioned yet and I hope to correct that when I have time. (My intention is to add no more than a sentence or two, or ideally modify the existing text slightly to ensure the test gets a mention. As it stands the section doesn't have any wikilinks that would encourage readers to explore the topic of Gender roles further, and including Bechdel Test would help give reader a jumping off point.) Don't have time to do it just now though. -- 109.76.173.154 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read a lot about the Bechdel Test, and my understanding is that it applies best in the aggregate. For example, the results of the Bechdel Test for all films from 2013 would provide a useful conclusion. For a single film to pass or fail the Bechdel Test is not saying much. A movie like Savages can pass the test but still be grossly misogynistic. The Wire does mention the test, so maybe we can mention it in passing to link to it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rounding numbers

Most film articles include figures for the budget and box office gross in the infobox and these figures are often presented verbatim, without rounding, as they appear in the source. Many editors prefer to present the budget using the word millions, since it is already rounded to the significant figures.

Despite claims to the contrary there is no consensus on rounding these numbers, although one editor has consistently rounded the figures and few people have bothered to argue, and many more have simply ignored, updating this article with the verbatim figures as they would any other film article. There has not been an discussion on this, so I'm reluctantly starting one so people can lay out their arguments.

I think rounding the numbers is unnecessary, and quoting the figures verbatim is the least worst option as it avoids another layer of interpretation, and is consistent with what most other film articles are doing. I also think it is unfortunate that this article is doing things differently in isolation instead of trying to make changes to WP:MOSFILM. Having said that I do realize there is some small improvement to the readability of the prose by expressing large numbers as words, especially in cases where the figures have clearly already been rounded to the nearest million anyway (the budget usually) or when many figures are mentioned in the Box office section of the article. If readability is of the prose is the rationale for rounding numbers then this argument is moot in the case of gross listed in the Infobox, and there is no good reason to round those figures. Rounding the figures in the prose of Box Office section of the article makes some sense so long as it is done consistently, but if there is a strong argument and consensus for it then it should be taken to WP:MOSFILM and the guidelines should make this clearer.

In an effort to retain accurate information in the wikisource and still present easily readable prose to end users I made an extra effort to use templates to automatically round the numbers and present them as prose. This edit was reverted [[WP:SIMPLE|without explanation], and I have since restored it. The downside is using multiple templates unfortunately makes the Wikisource harder to edit for beginners. I hope editors will consider using the templates to give a balance of accuracy and readability. -- 109.76.138.181 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@HurluGumene: You are right that Wikipedia has traditionally reported the full numbers. However, this does not mean it is a good practice. First of all, having the full number implies precision, which is not always the case. For example, you may have a precise number for North America, but an imprecise one for other territories (as seen by numerous zeroes). When combining them, that means the overall number is imprecise. In addition, non-Wikipedia articles about box office performance (like at Variety) round the box office numbers to the nearest hundred-thousand, so we should follow that lead in our coverage. Lastly, it is not important at all to report the tens of thousands after the millions made. There's no value in saying that there was some $84,106 made inside $358,484,106. The focus ought to be on the bigger number, and it is more direct language (that rounds to deal with imprecision) to say $358.5 million. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was disappointed that I had to start this discussion and that most of the comments have been back and forth in edit summaries, without anyone making any efforts to compromise. It is also another terrible example of the inconsistency of Wikipedia, but there does seem to be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to at least try this method for this article, with Erik and Corvoe in particular supporting it.

For consistency with other film articles I would prefer the full figure from Box Office Mojo be directly quoted in the infobox, but I accept that in the article text, in the Box Office section, rounding the numbers makes the article prose more readable.

I haven't seen any objection to the Format price template, so I think it might be good to use it several times and I might change that soon.

Again I urge those who want the rounded numbers to bring it to WT:MOSFILM, I expect the larger consensus will agree with you anyway. -- 109.79.188.144 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a discussion last May at WT:FILM about this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Rounding Dollars in film articles and Infoboxes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Erik: $358.5 million is not $358,484,106! I'd like to have $15,894 doing nothing, just like that! HurluGumene (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should round the sales figures in the infobox. $15,894 may be a significant amount to you HurluGumene, but to these studios or the general reader it is not. By the end of the day, the film will make over $15,894 so we are not being misleading or anything, it just makes sense to round. STATic message me! 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Blu-Ray Retitle

It currently says on the page "(retitled Live. Die. Repeat. for the Blu-ray release)".

How should this be re-worded? As currently it sounds like the film was officially re-titled, when actually the font for the tagline, and first title is much larger than films title Edge of Tomorrow. How here should we re-word it to quickly reflect this? Obvious but not great idea would be we say "see below", but this is no essay. Or we say "(Live. Die. Repeat. tagline larger on Blu-Ray, giving look of new title). But even that isn't that great. This is a tricky one, as the film is still officially called Edge of Tomorrow, and marketing has just made "Live. Die. Repeat." tagline much larger than the title, which gives the impression that it is re-titled. In the UK however, I've looked on Amazon and the tagline and title are roughly the same size, and title at top and tagline on bottom. But that doesn't necessary mean anything other than in the US they possibly want the impression its a new title? Discuss. Charlr6 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear it HAS been retitled. The old title is included in very small print just to avoid confusion. The old title sucked and this is the first step toward burying it. New title should definitely be prominent in the lede. Hihono (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem clear, but there is no official announcement that it has. And until there is we can't speculate if it is a full re-titleation, as that would be original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. However, we can think of ways to mention the marketing change on the cover. Such as like an old edit that said it was 'rebranded', which is a good word. Charlr6 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

IMDB is now officially listing it as "Live, Die, Repeat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.167.247 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The title has changed, but IMDB is not a reliable source. Hihono (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The film's poster writes the slogan larger than the tagline too. It's too early to put anything so upfront in the lead section, especially when the film is not on home media for nearly two months. The article body is sufficient for reporting the assumptions being made based on the cover. If the studio confirms actual re-titling, we can do something like what Charlr6 mentioned. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to jump the gun. Once it has been released on DVD we can see how the actual physical media handles the title. Betty Logan (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not jumping the gun. The official cover art has been released, and to omit such a significant change from the lede section is negligent. When a film is retitled post-theatrical run, they don't post a press release for it. The cover speaks for itself.

It's not just the emphatic retitling on the front cover, either. It's printed on the spine. Taglines/slogans do not go on the spine. Also worth mentioning that Amazon are using the new title. Hihono (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like a large catch-phrase. Look a the billing block on the DVD back. It has Edge of Tomorrow and no "Live, Die, Repeat" in the credits. Marketing seems to like the catch-phrase so much they put it large on the cover and spine with the title.AbramTerger (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Just no. That's a custom cover (not official) and it was uploaded a month before the theatrical release. It has no relevance to anything. Hihono (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, wait. On the theatrical release poster Live.Die.Repeat is in a bigger font than the actual title too. It is complete WP:OR to assume the title has now been changed. STATic message me! 04:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hihono added "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow" with references to shopping websites. While I am supportive of including this titling, I don't think we need to stuff all these footnotes upfront. What do others (Betty Logan, AbramTerger, STATicVapor) think of including "(re-titled Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow on home media)"? Is this the appropriate wording? The appropriate place in the lead section to mention it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with this wording, and I'd say the lead section is a very good place to mention it (it'll be on home media for several years at least, it was only in theatres for a few months). However, I would argue that the footnotes are unnecessary. Sourcing it in the Home media section ought to be sufficient. Sock (tock talk) 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the "retitle" should not be in the lead until we know the film has been retitled (which seems to be the current consensus or at least no consensus to "jump the gun"). Until we see the title on the film has been changed, we can't be sure. I think the current comments (and citations) in the home media section are enough for now about the "rebranding".AbramTerger (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If the film is actually retitled "Live. Die. Repeat. / Edge of Tomorrow" will this be the first film with a 4-sentence title?AbramTerger (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Are citations to online retailers WP:RS for the titles of DVDs especially unreleased ones? The "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow" they list does not match the Blu-ray that has been cited which has "Live. Die. Repeat. / Edge of Tomorrow" on the side (though the "Live. Die. Repeat. / " is in a different color than the "Edge of Tomorrow" which still makes me suspect that it is tagline and then Blu-ray title...) If we use the binder of the Blu-ray do we need to include both AKAs?.AbramTerger (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not happy with adding in the new "title". Warner Bros have it listed as "Edge of Tomorrow" in their own shop, so I am far from convinced that the film has undergone a title change. I had a look at the copyright database but the home media hasn't been entered yet; I also checked the BBFC to see what title the home media had been submitted under but it hasn't been classified yet. This will all be resolved definitively once it is actually released so I recommend leaving it until then, unless Warner actually confirm a title change. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the Warner site should carry more weight than other online retailers (I am not sure if the retailers satisfy WP:RS) and I agree with the removal of any AKA for this film at this time. I think we should wait until the film is viewed on the DVD to see if the title is changed and/or that the billing block has been changed to indicate a title change.AbramTerger (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger and Betty Logan: The WB Shop argument is invalid now. They also have it listed as "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow". Is that sufficient enough to add it to the lead? Sock (tock talk) 14:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A film's title can't be changed by the web sales team. I promise when awards season rolls around the studio will submit it as Edge of Tomorrow. A brief mention of this unusual marketing ploy post-release makes some sense in the lead, but the title should remain the same. Lagrange613 19:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering it's listed as Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow at wbshop, I'd say this alternative title surely warrants a mention in brackets in the lede. wbshop, itunes, amazon, etc. all have that title, and the packaging is irrefutable. This is easily significant enough for the lede. The only question now is how to word it. "Promoted/re-branded/marketed as..." or something similar? Weigh in. Film Fan 23:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it warrants a note in the article about possible rebranding of the DVD/Blu-Ray in a section on the DVD release, but I still think we will have to see either the title of the DVD and Blu-Ray and the billing block on the DVD/Blu-Ray to see if the film is actually retitled. There have been several variations as noted here: "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow"; just: "Live. Die. Repeat."; the spine seems to have: "Live. Die. Repeat. / Edge of Tomorrow" but the different colors of the text make it still seem like a tagline and a title. With a proper citation (I don't think sales sites are considered WP:RS for titles) a comment later in the lead could also be warranted, if it turns out not to be just a markering re-branding and not a re-titling. A re-titling would need to be on the film or in the billing block in my opinion: there must be some official documentation that the film has a title other than "Edge of Tommorrow".AbramTerger (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I support mentioning the tagline in the opening sentence of the lead section. I agree with Film Fan that it is a matter of how to word it, since I do agree that it should not be considered an official alternative title. However, the prominent use of the tagline means that we should highlight it so readers who may not know it as Edge of Tomorrow can know that they are in the right place when they search for Live Die Repeat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the title change is reflected in the opening credits (i.e. it is an actual title change) then it should go in the lede as an alternative title. If it is just a catalog title being used for the home video release then I think it only needs to be mentioned in the home video section. I have added a redirect hatnote to avert any confusion that the reader may feel by arriving at this page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a hatnote is sufficient. Whether or not it's in the onscreen credits, it's so heavily promoted that--like Hihono said above--to omit LIVE DIE REPEAT from the lede is negligent. Let's figure out how to word it. I vote for "marketed as Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow." Film Fan 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It is sufficient until the DVD is released. After that, it really depends on whether the film has been retitled or not. If it isn't an alternative title then it doesn't belong in the lede, if it is then it will be added in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a prominent alternative title regardless of screen credits.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Film Fan 02:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we get it, but an alternative "common name" is not an alternative title. An alternative title is an official title that is displayed on the print. The lede should ideally include all official titles in the English language, but not necessarily all common names. The article itself should be titled using its common name, and if there are other common names that redirect to the article that is what hatnotes exist for. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly official. The Warner Shop has it as LIVE DIE REPEAT, and all packaged media is labelled thusly. It doesn't need to be onscreen to be an official alternative title. Film Fan 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

which name(s) do you think are official? The Warner shop does not have it as "LIVE DIE REPEAT". The title listed on the site is: "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow" which is NOT consistent with the spine: "Live. Die. Repeat. / Edge of Tomorrow" nor the cover: "Live Die Repeat: Cruise/Blunt/EdgeofTomorrow". The theatrical release poster also had the tagline ("Live. Die. Repeat") displayed more prominently than the title of the film. But the official names from the copies of the film (and some films are released and re-released with alternate titles) or even the poster/dvd billing block. I think we need to wait to see what the credits show on the DVD/Blu-Ray to determine if it is officially re-titled or just has been re-branded. I think if just a re-branding, that a 4th paragraph of the lead could have a comment on the rebranding and the more common name(s) it is going by. Something like: "Due to the marketing rebranding of the film for video release, the film has also come to be known with some variation of the film's tagline: Live. Die. Repeat." with an appropriate citation.AbramTerger (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LEADALT applies here in which an alternative name should be stated in parentheses in the opening sentence. I've replaced the hatnote with this. It is circuitous to discuss whether or not this new labeling is an official alternative title because at the end of the day, it is going to be alternatively known by the tagline, the way the marketing is going. We should not worry about whether or not this is official (especially since there is no precedent for this kind of thing). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bingo... although this diff should also be included since that's the title used by many reliable sources. Film Fan 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I can live with Erik's comment "(also marketed with the tagline Live Die Repeat)" and its location in the lead. This seems accurate and appropriate given the prominent display of the tagline on posters, DVD covers, and even at retailers. I don't think we need to include any of the several permutations since none seem to be actually official titles, just variations of the tagline with alternate punctuation and then sometimes combined with the official title.AbramTerger (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the combination because it was just a mash-up of the official title and the tagline that delays readers in getting through the opening sentence. Maybe we could do some kind of anchor-link so readers wondering about the home media naming in this regard can jump to that appropriate section? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a citation to a variety article that discusses the rebranding a little.AbramTerger (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the combined title (which is used all over the internet at reliable sources, including wbshop) just because you feel it clutters the first sentence--despite the fact that it's in brackets--isn't good practice. That title should be there. Film Fan 23:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not good practice to devote the beginning of an encyclopedia article to the nuances of how home media packaging was titled. The point is made that the tagline was prominent in the marketing. While AbramTerger added a reference to the opening sentence, what I had in mind was something like Interstellar (film)#Notes where readers could access a brief note that clarified how the tagline was used in the marketing, and an anchor link could be provided to the "Home media" section. Do you think something like that would work? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Something. The title used to promote the film is not a nuance. Film Fan 23:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The title used to promote the film seems to have remained as Edge of Tomorrow. The "Live Die Repeat" and the several variations using it, are just permutations of the film's tagline combined with the title. Promotion belongs in marketing, it is not about the film itself. I don't think we NEED to put the comment in at all, but there is enough discussion and possible misunderstanding about the title, that I think Erik's is not too obtrusive but still makes the point. The note and marketing section explain in more detail to those interested. As mentioned before, adding any more than the title and the basic tagline already listed seems overly cluttered, and add no additional clarity. Mashups and alternate punctuations are just not needed.AbramTerger (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

Please remove the unnecessary double "the" at the beginning of the following sentence: The The Saunton Sands in North Devon were also used for the French beaches,[19]

Johannes Kern (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is in this film

(This is not an edit request. Just factual information that I - and the critics o/t refs - think is noteworthy, but that won't survive in the article.)
The film includes stock footage of Hillary Clinton in an executive meeting.

References

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

References to use

• 'Edge of Tomorrow' NY Premiere: Director Doug Liman Talks Video Game-Like Nature of Movie at The Hollywood Reporter
• ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Director: ‘Most Studios Aren’t Making Big, Original Movies’ at Variety
• How Games Have Influenced Edge of Tomorrow at IGN
• Doug Liman hopes his wild loop means a hit with 'Edge of Tomorrow' at Los Angeles Times (very detailed)
• UPDATE: Int’l Box Office: ‘Maleficent’ Awakens $100M+ Overseas; ‘X-Men’ Adds $95.6M; ‘Edge Of Tomorrow’ Cruises To $20M In Select Markets; ‘A Million Ways To Die In The West’ Holsters $10.3M; More at Deadline.com
• Edge of Tomorrow: Christophe Beck on Over-Scoring, Frozen and Buffy at CraveOnline
• The Weekend Warrior: The Fault in Our Stars, Edge of Tomorrow at ComingSoon.net
• Cinesite Creates Killer Effects for ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ at AWN
• Have 'Edge of Tomorrow' and 'Jupiter Ascending' Made Warner Bros the Summer Box Office's Biggest Loser? at The Motley Fool
• Live. Die. Repeat the effects at fxguide
• Edge of Tomorrow as Spiritual Travel Metaphor at The Huffington Post
• Behind the Scenes With Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt in Edge of Tomorrow at Time
• Edge Of Tomorrow and the future of stand-alone sci-fi at Den of Geek
• Explaining The ‘Edge Of Tomorrow’ Ending at MTV News
• ‘Edge of Tomorrow's’ disappointing box office, despite Tom Cruise factor, also disappoints industry experts at New York Daily News
• Edge Of Tomorrow Ending Explained: How It Differs From The Book at Cinema Blend
• ‘Edge of Tomorrow’: Future tech innovations at FOX News
• Let's Talk About 'Edge of Tomorrow': It's Great, But We Got Gripes at Mashable
• Science On The Edge (Of Tomorrow) at TechCrunch
• Interview: 'Frozen' composer Christophe Beck on scoring 'Edge of Tomorrow' at HitFix
• Interview: Edge of Tomorrow composer Christophe Beck stays alive with his first sci-fi score at Assignment X
• Why Did Edge of Tomorrow Bomb at the Box Office in the U.S.? at The Huffington Post
• Update: Intl Box Office: ‘Transformers’ Adds $52M In China Weekend; ‘Dragon 2′ Fires Up $30M; And How’s ‘Tammy’?; ‘Maleficent’ Dethrones ‘Frozen’ In Japan; More at Deadline.com
• Latest Tom Cruise movie has Shi'a Islamic values, says Iranian news outlet at Jerusalem Post
• Watch: The real creatures from 'Edge of Tomorrow' at USA Today
• Edge Of Tomorrow: a case of mishandled marketing? at Den of Geek

Ending-related

• The ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Ending You Didn't See (And Why You Saw The One That You Did) at Film School Rejects
• Here's Why Edge Of Tomorrow Went With That Happier Ending at Cinema Blend
• ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Ending & Time Travel Explained at Screen Rant
• ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Writer On the Ending & Abandoned Plot Twist at Screen Rant

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edge of Tomorrow (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 23:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Resolved

• Vrataski had this ability in a recent battle but lost it after receiving a blood transfusion. She tells Cage that they must hunt the Mimics' hive mind, the Omega.
  • Please choose to disambiguate to group mind (science fiction) or swarm intelligence. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Images

Resolved

• File:Edge_of_Tomorrow_Poster.jpg; OK. Viriditas (talk)
• File:Doug Liman avp 2014.jpg; OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:EdgeOfTomorrowMimic.jpg; Working... Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• File:Tom Cruise avp 2014 2.jpg; OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:London IMAX cinema 2.jpg; Suggest replacement. Poor image, and considering the wide availability of better images located in Category:IMAX London, I'm curious why this one was chosen instead. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Emily Blunt avp 2014.jpg; OK. (more than OK; be still my beating heart) Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Expanded the rationale of the screenshot, replaced the theater one. igordebraga ≠ 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: please see this discussion for suggestions regarding the mimic image. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Replaced it. Hope the rationale is OK as well. igordebraga ≠ 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Caption was slightly off, but I fixed it. See the criteria section for details. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• Added narrow no-break space HTML char. to fix the bold/italics space problem before the footnote. Big improvement.[12] Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Doug Liman directed the film based on a screenplay adapted from the Japanese light novel All You Need Is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka.
  • As the reader, I want to know the year of publication without having to click on the link. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Description of plot in the lead is a bit clunky and wordy. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• The production company 3 Arts Productions bought rights...
  • Redundant. Just say, "3 Arts Productions bought rights..." Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't it bad practice to start a sentence with a number? That's why I added the buffer wording. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Does that proscription also apply to proper nouns? Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm, it may not. I can't find any clearly reliable sources on the matter, but this says "3M hits..." is questionable. We could just change it to "In late 2009, 3 Arts Productions..." to circumvent the matter entirely. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Sounds like a plan. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
            • @Erik: are you going to make this change? Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• The lead looks good at the moment. I might have some further suggestions later, but I think it's good to go for now. My only concern is the genre, and I've covered these concerns in this brief discussion. My argument is that the film is a work of military science fiction, adapted from a work of military science fiction. As the link to that discussion shows, military experts recognize it as a work of military science fiction. In my experience, most reviewers aren't all that familiar with the genre, so it's not surprising that most sources don't mention it. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The book's article list it as Military science fiction, think I'll put it there too.

Plot

Unresolved

• Unresolved issue: In the german version of the film the dam where the omega is supposed to hide is said to be located in Switzerland, not in Germany as stated here. See the German wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Tomorrow The dam is Lai da Curnera https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_da_Curnera Is this different in the english version of the film or an error on the english wikipedia page? Sz70 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's stated as being located in Germany in the english version. Quite clearly. Also, the picture of Curnera dam you linked to does not fit the picture of the damn shown in the movie. According to imbd trivia it's a cgi dam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppydog1985 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Plot length is 707 words, which is seven words over the limit specified in MOS:FILMS. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• She tells Cage that they must hunt the Mimics' hive mind, the Omega.
  • I think it reads better to say ,"She tells Cage that they must hunt the Omega, the Mimics' hive mind." Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Unintimidated by his officer's uniform, she curtly asks what he wants, as she had numerous times on previous loops, and he simply laughs.
  • The meaning is lost here, since the bonding between the two of them on the way (and at) the farmhouse isn't discussed in the plot summary. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Noting here: As mentioned below, the Plot section has been reduced to fit the WP:FILMPLOT limit. Seven words over the limit is not much, but I can see why it's best to be within the limit for a WP:Good article review. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My point wasn't so much to say "this can't pass because it's over the limit", but to simply point out the word count. Having looked at the plot section, it's pretty simple to get it down under the soft limit. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, rewriting to shorten also gives a chance to make the text clearer (a must for such a short summary!). igordebraga ≠ 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In its current form, the plot summary is not "clearer," just trivial: it doesn't manage to bring out anything about why this storyline is actually interesting or reveal things that a casual viewer might have missed but that add to the reasons why it's valuable as a piece of visual literature and not simply a fluff action flick. I tried to address this in an early-December revision, which of course put the words over the limit. Rather than seeking to pare back the words, however, the helpful community decided (as always) that it was best to simply revert to the previous version. Increasingly, it's becoming impossible to add value on Wikipedia because so many fanatics revert anything and everything without much concern for what merit may have been present in the (sometime significant) work that was done. As a result, over time, Wikipedia is becoming more static and less interesting rather than a place to find worthwhile insights. It'd be nice if some of you who have time to monitor pages so they can be instantly reverted on a whim instead found time to consider the revisions and see how they might be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsamans (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Jsamans, I'm sorry that you feel that your contributions were ignored. However, the plot summary is supposed to be straightforward. WP:PSTS says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." This means that we should not be trying to demonstrate why the plot is "actually interesting" or to "reveal things... missed" or to show why "it's valuable as a piece of visual literature". We need to use secondary sources to indicate the value of this film among others at this particular point in history and culture. If you think it is trivial, it sounds like the plot summary could use less detail in describing the film so readers can have context for how secondary sources address the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik, I don't "feel that" my contributions were ignored; I'm not interested in whether you may be sorry or want to empathize. When changes are reverted rather than being pared back or subjected to further editing, those changes have in fact been ignored. It takes substantial time to compose edits, but anyone can and will erase those effort on a whim, returning things to whatever came before. Moreover, this is done without having the account for whether that prior version itself offered any substantive value according to the same standard used to justify the reversion. Setting aside how little sense it makes that having less detail of the primary source material somehow provides superior context in which to consider other secondary sources, the deference paid to whatever came before, however poorly written or even inaccurate, produces a calcification within this environment that ironically is making Wikipedia less likely to ever be updated substantively than the periodically published, static encyclopedias that preceded it. That may amuse who flit from article to article clicking "revert" as the mood strikes them, but it does little to advance human conversation or understanding. Jsamans (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cast

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Production

Resolved

Development and writing

• The film was directed by Doug Liman based on a screenplay adapting the 2004 Japanese light novel All You Need Is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka.
  • Obviously, you've got this sourced later in the article, but since it appears in the lead first, and in the production section second, at least source it here. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Copyedits to "Development and writing". Please review.[13] Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• In early 2011, the screenplay was revised to improve the third act, which Warner Bros. found weak.
  • It's unclear if you paraphrased that from the cited source or from another one in the article. If it's from Vulture, then perhaps revisit it. The problem is, it sounds more like a rumor rather than a verified factoid. "We’re told, however, that a new draft of the Kill script has resolved this to the studio’s satisfaction". We're not really told, however, why it is "weak". And who revised it, was it Harper? If there's another source that talks about this, then great, include it and expand it. However, if it is only Vulture, considering rewriting it or removing it. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• The studio initially approached Brad Pitt to star
  • Was there ever a followup source indicating why they went with Cruise instead? Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Copyedits to "Development and writing", please review.[14] Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Doug Liman is linked three times previous to the fourth instance: in the lead, in the infobox, and in the production cast section. Right below it, he is linked again. Is this necessary? Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Christopher McQuarrie is linked in the infobox, in the production cast section, and then linked again below it. Is this necessary? Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Same is true for Butterworth and Stoff. Overlinking in play. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You can see why I went for removing that list outright. And I'd better do it now! igordebraga ≠ 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That is not a reason to remove the crew list. We can remove the links from the section's text so it is consistent with the "Cast" section in having linked names in the cast list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I've removed all in-text links in the "Production" section that already existed in the crew list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Filming

• Though the director initially did not want a beach set built, the production had one built at the studio site.
  • Not sure who you are talking about. Liman? Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• The Saunton Sands in North Devon were also used for the French beaches, while receiving a digital extension of the sea as there was little visible water and no surf at all.
  • Rewrite this for clarity please. Please also remove the "little visible water" as I think that's a misinterpretation of the source which says, "The Saundon Sands location was a big wide beach, with a little water visible at one end, but there was no surf at all. That was all added in for the production. So there was a lot of ocean spray, surface and water interaction in Houdini fluid and water simulations as they came ashore or landed from the DropShip in shallow surf." Basically, the main point is: "Filming of the French beach scenes also occurred at Saunton Sands in North Devon. Due to the lack of surf, artists digitally extended the sea." Since this is about visual effects, it appears to be in the wrong section. Of course, you can separate the location filming and post-production. Not a big deal if you keep it where it is. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Source said nothing about "averting how many science fiction films use" the saturated bleach bypass look,so I removed the science fiction film part. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle suit design

• OK. However, I removed the header linkout to powered exoskeleton and moved it inline where it belongs. If, however, the link went to, for example, "powered exoskeletons in film" or "powered exoskeletons in science fiction", then I think it would be more appropriate in the header. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Visual effects

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Aside from a practical build for a crashed ship on the beach head and a gimbal set to depict the plane used by Cage's squad, most ships were digital models, that had some of Imageworks' heaviest detail for both the camp scenes where actors walked closed to the ships and depict a realistic destruction on the crashes.
  • Please clean this up; the English is very poor. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Did everything so far. 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Copyedits, please review. I think this section is done. There were a number of problems here. One, there's no need to keep repeating "visual effects" in relation to the job role when VFX is the standard term. Two, you mentioned "SPI" without ever first making it explicit after the first full usage. I fixed both instances of this in the above diff. Third, I fixed tense, eliminated redundancy, and removed inaccurate or ambiguous wording while referring to the original source. "Sculptor's model" sounds weird and unfamiliar; "early model" sounds much better. Keep it simple. In at least one instance, you forgot to place a citation at the end of a quotation, which I remedied (even though it is repeated subsequently; sucks, but that kind of source repetition for quotes is a rule for GA articles). I also removed unnecessary adverbs, which are used far too often in this article and should generally be removed on sight. Finally, I added an internal link and copyedited the Prime Focus World material from the source. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Music

• OK. Please review these copyedits. I've removed the overlinking of the composer, the needless words and redundancy about the composer, and I've turned an unnecessary quote into a paraphrase. Know when to quote and when to paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Release

Resolved

Marketing

• OK. See copyedits; OVERLINKING removed (Stoff and Viz Media already linked); redundant words removed ("film was promoted at...and it was promoted at"); release and retitled condensed and redundancy removed (you already mentioned the light novel name above it, no need to repeat it for the second time); copyedits to Tough Mudder detail (remove redundancy, source doesn't say anything about "military delinquents"). Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I added "military delinquents" to be clear about what "J Squad" was. We can use another description, but we don't even mention J Squad in the plot summary. It is added wording for context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Good point, Erik. Does someone want to take a crack at adding more about J Squad? Otherwise, I'll add it to my list of closing comments, as it won't impact the review. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Box office forecast

• OK. Please review copyedits. The caption was misleading, so I changed it to the original used in the image. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Theatrical run

• OK. This is intended as an executive summary of the subsequent sections, I presume? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Opening weekend

• Why do you mention Maleficent as a competitor twice? You write: "Edge of Tomorrow competed against Maleficent starring Angelina Jolie, which opened the same weekend in 46 territories." Then you write in the next paragraph: "Edge of Tomorrow faced competition from Maleficent and X-Men: Days of Future Past and ranked third after the two films in many territories." Why not combine the first instance into the second like this: "Edge of Tomorrow faced competition from Maleficent, starring Angelina Jolie, which opened the same weekend in 46 territories, and X-Men: Days of Future Past; in many territories, Edge of Tomorrow ranked third after the two films." Of course, if that's not what you intended, then leave it, but it sounds strange to see it repeated. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Second weekend

• The read here is a bit choppy in places. I was thrown for a loop when I read, " Major performances were..." That sounds very colloquial. Is "major performances" the correct term or phrase here? Otherwise, the section is OK. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent weekends

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Home media

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Resolved

• Copyedits; please review. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Social commentary

Resolved

Gender roles

• This section is OK. A little quote heavy, but a few things stopped me from reading:
• "This was the extreme idea of what I ever thought I'd want to do"
  • I'm not exactly sure what this means, and looking at the source, it isn't exactly clear either. Since by definition, all drama is an "extreme" version of what we would normally do in RL, to me at least, the quote is a bit superfluous and almost serves to make her look unintentionally weak as it almost reinforces the gender stereotype. I found it odd; others may not. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Lutes said the film's hero Cage was strengthened by her work
  • The film's hero Cage? The wording here is a bit breathless. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to video games

• Director Liman said..
  • That's odd wording, similar to the breathless bit above. Is this a Wikipedia convention for film articles? I don't recall seeing it used outside of Wikipedia. I suppose if you don't know Liman is the director at this point, you probably don't know what's going on anyway. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I probably wrote that. My thinking was that if it is a new section, then figures should be re-identified in full. Like we state Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise's full names, and from the context, we can surmise they are actors. If someone happened to jump to that section from the TOC, "Liman" may not be clear enough. He's not an auteur/famous director, and the context does not really show what role he had. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wired '​s Angela Watercutter said Hollywood had been trying to produce films based on video games for years and that Edge of Tomorrow showed merit for studios to try basing films on video games' narrative structure.
  • Close paraphrasing here, and it loses the meaning of Watercutter's point in the original, namely that the film succeeds because it isn't based on a video game, but on the narrative structure of a type used in a videogame. That's why she says those films that were based on videogames "should’ve been based on videogames’ narrative structure". Read it again and see if you can't rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

See also

Resolved

• @Erik: is this an appropriate use of the "see also" section per MOS:FILMS? Yes or no will do. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Resolved

• Changed voice and removed overlinking. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Resolved

• Cohen, Sandy (June 4, 2014). "Blunt Reveals New Toughness in 'Edge of Tomorrow'". bigstory.ap.org (Associated Press). Retrieved June 4, 2014.
  • Checklinks says this ref is expiring soon. Please use an archiving service. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Formatted and fixed duplicate refs.[15] Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, Harper and Harold's names should not belong. I think the general consensus is to limit credits in the infobox to what is official, unless there is a strong case for someone to be recognized (e.g., being blacklisted at the time). It seems best to remove their names and keep it to McQuarrie and the Butterworths for the infobox. Harper and Harold are covered in the article body. Igordebraga, did you add these names, or did someone else? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't. But if WGA\official credits are the way, removed 'em. igordebraga ≠ 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • FYI... according to the page history, the material was added by Inwind on November 23.[16] Because of this, I would really like to see GA articles semi-protected for the duration of the nomination and review. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I would prefer to have the main information in the infobox, including the original screenwriter - even if he is not mentioned in the credits. May be a note should be maintained in the infobox. Inwind (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure that the consensus is in favor of limiting it to the official credits while deferring to the article body for uncredited work. In my experience, there can be a lot of screenwriters for certain projects. Anyway, I've given the note approach a try here, Inwind. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
          • perfect! Inwind (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Formatted the "Afterword" book cite. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

• External links are duplicated in the references. I've asked Erik to take a look at this per WP:MOSFILMS. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Resolved per this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Production section needs copyedits

   Done

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   WP:OVERLINK

   Fixed

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image under review (see also comments above)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   "Box office forecast" caption was misleading; I've changed it to the original image cpation

   Alien caption referred to "mineral shard", but this slightly deviated from the source; also, obsidian is not a mineral. I restored the text from the body.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After extensive (but mostly minor) copyedits, I believe the current version meets the GA criteria. To the nominator: I highly recommend going through and reading this article this again. As you do, make a note of the most significant points in each section and check to see if they are mentioned in the lead. If they aren't, please update accordingly. I think the current version of the lead is passable, but improvement is possible. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tried to fix everything (even reducing the plot to 690 words, am only unsure on the new lead). Waiting for new requests. igordebraga ≠ 03:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I won't be finished with this review until at least Monday night HST, at the earliest. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, getting close to closing this out. Not quite there just yet, but very close. Please be patient, as my time has been very limited this week. All that is left is the production and release sections. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What else is necessary, Viriditas? After all, I've done everything you listed above that's not marked with an "OK"... igordebraga ≠ 02:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have, thank you. However, I haven't finished reviewing the production section. Hopefully, I can do it right now without any interruptions, as I'm back home and ready to finish this thing up. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. See above. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

This film seems to be based on, if not stolen from, The Defence of Duffer's Drift. Written in 1904 by Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Defence_of_Duffer%27s_Drift 68.98.16.149 (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no direct connection between the film and the book. However, both have similar enough premises that the book is listed in this article's "See also" section. We can't make an explicit connection if no reliable sources have done that yet. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sequel

This mentions talks about a sequel. I think it is too premature to put anything in the article body, but this is worth keeping on the radar in case actual development takes place. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the mention from the article, without prejudice for restoring it if a stronger signal is forthcoming (e.g. from the studio). Lagrange613 20:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that it was already added to the article! Support the removal for now. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Did not release in India on May 30

Where did you guys get the source for this? --Jionpedia ✉ 13:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears to have been in the article for quite some time (I stopped looking after a few pages of edits, but feel free to go further if you want - since there's no source, it's hard to tell where it came from). I'm not sure if the one of "you guys" who added it is likely to respond to your query here - what do you think it should be? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jionpedia, Fru1tbat, I had added the sentence, "The film was released in theaters in 28 territories—including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Germany, Spain, and Indonesia—on the weekend of May 30, 2014," under the "Opening weekend" section. The similar sentence in the lead section was copied from this, but it looks like India was inserted after that copying without a source. I've removed it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It was released in India on June 6 (same as North America).--Jionpedia ✉ 13:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)