Talk:La La Land/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lyricist Credit

Should this be included? See, for example, An American in Paris (film), where a lyrics credit is given in the boxed section. My understanding is that major credits are generally listed in the boxed section if they were similarly broken out as titled credits in the film itself (which is the case with La La Land where the music and lyrics credits appear together on screen). What is the wiki standard for this? I've placed a query in the film template talk page. Contributor tom (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

An An American in Paris (film) is a rare exception. Most musicals reserve the "music" credit in the infobox just for the music composer. See The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Enchanted, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, The Young Girls of Rochefort, etc. Brilsonsilson (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. Unless the people maintaining the film template disagree, let's leave it out. I do agree that "Lyrics by" shouldn't be put under "Music by" as a sub-entry in the boxed section. Whether lyrics should or should not get a separate entry in the boxed section isn't as clear. The general guideline in the template section is to match the main title credits of the film. So, for example, if the film lists "Music by" in the main credits and only lists "Lyrics by" in the end credits crawl, then "Lyrics by" should not be in the boxed section. On the other hand, as is the case with La La Land, this would indicate that when both "Music by" and "Lyrics by" receive main credit status there should be two separate entries in the boxed section. I'll wait until more people weigh in on the general template before doing anything since, as you point out, this hasn't been done for many films. Contributor tom (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page?

Considering that the movie was recently released and is very popular, should there be a link on this page to disambiguation yet? I have no idea what the consensus is on this, but I thought that it might be an intentional omission. The disambiguation page is the same URL without the final "_(film)". ~ RETheUgly RETheUgly (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't heard of cliche overload, this is it - Kind of hard to believe it won Golden Globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.162.214 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Excessive Plot Description

The plot section was flagged as being excessively detailed. I removed ~1.5K characters to address this and then removed the flag. Bellagio99 undid my work, but failed to reinstate the flag. I've restored the flag. I was not the original person who flagged this article, but I do agree with it being flagged. The description is far too detailed.

Some examples are: speculating about the reasons for an audition failure "possibly because her outfit is stained by a coffee spill from a customer at work"; including the details of a specific song request "the band to play "I Ran (So Far Away)" by A Flock of Seagulls"; and including specific details about a later audition: "unlike previous "cattle call" tryouts Mia experienced, she is simply asked to tell a story for her audition".Contributor tom (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the Plot Summary is too long and detailed.Parkwells (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Casting

This has way too much Hollywood info about people who weren't cast and maybe too much about those who were. I suggest that content of the following paragraph (see below) be applied to the individuals mentioned, rather than being included here. It really doesn't belong here. It is also very "fan magazine" and gossipy in tone, with quoted comments by the players. Also the article already noted in Pre-Production (also very lengthy) that Teller and Watson were originally considered for this film. That does not need to be repeated.Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

<<During the pre-production phase, Miles Teller and Emma Watson were both initially set to star as the leads. However, both stars dropped out, with the former reportedly related to scheduling and pay, and the latter over a commitment to the 2017 adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. Chazelle had offered Teller the lead role when the two were in the midst of filming Whiplash in 2013. He passed up the chance to star in War Dogs, because the film would have conflicted with the schedule for La La Land. (He did later star in that film). One day, Teller's agent called him to say that Chazelle had told Lionsgate that he no longer thought Teller was "creatively right for the project," and that the director was moving on without him. Teller said he texted Chazelle, saying "what the fuck, bro?" Chazelle told him that "the casting of this movie during the six years it took to get made went through lots of permutations," and it was "part of the up and down of this movie: that we were about to make it, we were about to not make it, about to make it, about to not make it." The Hollywood Reporter said that Teller's was dropped due to his $4 million pay demand. However, Teller later rebuffed this claim, saying, "these publications print things so people read their article and then they say an 'unnamed source said this'. All that's bullshit.">>

Agree. Also, the "reportedly" phrase is an unconfirmed claim, i.e. rumor, and should go out. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot Ending

1) May want to edit the verbiage of the ending, offering specific meaning to the two main characters' last knowing look and smile, as it suggests they simply are proud of each other's achievements. While it is implied, (and while I know this is not the best linkable source), the meaning as stated by members of the music production team is closer to them acknowledging their past and accepting what is now.

2) May want to include verbiage to convey the message that the two main characters are both visibly unsettled at seeing each other (Mia having married another man by now). As it reads right now, the ending looks like they ran through the "what-if" scenario in their heads and simply parted ways, happy for each other's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.205.221 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Added "looking unsettled and regretful" to the ending as a succinct way of trying to address this issue. Contributor tom (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Being that La La Land is a musical drama, I think that the "Music" subcategory is very underrepresented compared to other subcategories, for example: "Box Office". Naomi Forbes (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Naomi Forbes

I think that the organization of the subcategories are unorganized. (i.e. "Cast", "Production", and "Casting" --> "Cast", "Casting", and "Production") Naomi Forbes (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Naomi Forbes

Additions to Reception

Can someone please add a Top of the Year list of various newspapers which included La la land in their lists. Abmangr (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That goes against WikiProject Film consensus. Please see the Manual of Style at WP:FILMMOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Six awards or Seven awards

Since we keep changing that one line, I would like to ask if both the Oscars and the Academy Awards are the same thing. If they are not, then the number is 7 and Best Picture should be on the line. If so, then the number is 6, Best Picture should not be on the line, and I apologize for being an idiot. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

To answer your first question: Yes. The Oscars are the official nickname for the Academy Awards. Second question. It's six. They clearly showed the envelope that said "Moonlight." So Moonlight won and La La Land didn't. Crboyer (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there was really only one question, but thank you for the clarification on things. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

There is a typo where someone typed in ooening instead of opening Something else entirely (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - by someone else - there have been a lot of edits to this page today - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo Bug

"Ryan Gosling plays Sebastian, a jazz pianist who makes a living by playing cocktail party gigs in dingy bars, and has dreams of opening his own club.[13] Like Stone, Gosling drew from his own experiences as an aspiring artist. One incident was used for Mia. Gosling was performing a crying scene in an audition and the casting director took a phone call during it, talking about her lunch plans while he was emoting.[13][17][20] Chazelle met with Gosling at a bar near the latter's home in Hollywood Hills, when Gosling was about to begin filming for The Big Short.[7]"

You mean Stone is performing the crying scene. Not Gosling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.6 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the movie, Mia (Stone's character) performs this scene, but the scene itself is based on a real-life episode that Gosling had. The quoted description above is accurate, not a bug.Contributor tom (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Greater contribution of information regarding music (diegetic/non-diegetic) sound editing/mixing. Lighting, camera and colors.

I noticed that the music subsection is not that in-depth as it could be.

1). Maybe add in more info about how the sounds were created through the techniques of sounds editing and mixing. Most of the sounds in this film like the car horns, Sebastian's neighbor playing Mariachi music across the hall, the birds etc are created by these professionals.

Added in a few sources regarding the famous sound editor Ai-Ling Lee.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-sound-mixer-ai-ling-lee-20170222-htmlstory.html

2). Perhaps give a definition of non-diegetic vs. diegetic sound in this film so viewers and readers get a better idea of the different types of sounds and how they can distinguish between them.

3.) I did not see any background info for the lighting, camera angles and the colors that make La La Land so aesthetically pleasing and memorable. I added in a link for information. They used specific moments in the city to highlight the prettier more magical side. The chroma is not saturated which is very interesting.

Lyss5xo (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Alyssa

Substitute or second choice film

It should be noted there were a number of articles saying that the only reason La La Land was even just sent into competition was because the young director of that year's favorite Oscar candidate, a film about racism, was tangled up in a rape case, so they dropped his film from the competition and chose La La Land instead, a film widely considered to not have stood a chance at even just getting sent into competition or even getting any nominations hadn't it been for that one rape case, and the Oscars received by La La Land were really meant as Oscars for the film that had been dropped from competition. There was one article of several pages about the entire issue in Der Spiegel and that La La Land was only sent into competition because the other film that those Oscars were meant for had been dropped. --93.223.194.254 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, found it, that original Oscar candidate was The Birth of a Nation (2016) and the rape case was Nate Parker's. Both were Summit Entertainment films, and here's two sources naming The Birth of a Nation as one of that year's hottest Oscar candidates: Variety and Hollywood Reporter. --93.223.194.254 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Widespread acclaim

Does Emma Stone's performance in the image description need 'widespread'? TheOldJacobite hasn't given an edit reason or source, and garnering critical acclaim to win an oscar is enough without feeling gratuitous or like puffery of some kind. 73.94.3.101 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the word 'widespread' is unnecessary. Timefurtherout (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Genres in the lead

Here's your BRD case. (Always weird when you get thanks and reverts for the same edit.) Too many genres makes the lead a pain to read. There's no need to list every genre a film could conceivably fall under. Romantic comedy musical drama - pick one or two, it's all we need. As more or less every film ever made could constitute a "drama", and as romance and comedy are the expected bedfellows of the musical genre (unlike, say, horror), I vote for simply "musical". Maybe "romantic musical" if you really need it - is this film really a comedy? Popcornduff (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I endorse Popcornduff's edit. WP:FILMLEAD says, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." It also says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." With a quick search engines test, it is clear that with no reliable sources appearing, the current genre mash-up is original research that needs to be removed. We should look at reviews and similar coverage to see what the film is most commonly called. We should not give this film a bloated label that has no basis in good sources outside Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support describing the film as a "romantic comedy musical", as I agree that "drama" could be forgone. The Sun, The New York Times, and BBC all describe it as such, as the film is undoubtedly a musical with a plotline strongly in tune with the term "romantic comedy". –Matthew - (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Late reply, but I disagree and 3 sources aren’t representative of the whole consensus. A look at the top reviews on RT and other sources use the term “heartfelt”, “emotional”, “bittersweet”, sometimes “melancholy”, “melodrama” etc. Clearly not your typical rom-com. I agree with the op on comedy since plenty of film pages have comedic scenes without it being labeled a primary genre, but more importantly comedy and drama elements are listed with similar degrees in many of the reliable sources, but I’d say with a slight edge to the drama genre (due in part to the ending). Therefore I recommend changing it to romantic musical or musical romantic drama. (I’ll be changing it to the latter). Barely made one (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

People need to agree with the changes before you make them. Get consensus please. Rusted AutoParts 10:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no they don’t. You may want to take a look at WP:Implicit consensus and the concept of being bold (WP:BRD). I posted in a relevant discussion with 6 days of no response (which would’ve usually come already from the users who care most about the topic), and that can be accepted as no objection, especially considering the original consensus agreed on ‘romantic musical’ without the comedy. So you’re only enforcing what you yourself think is right, without taking that into account, or posting a reply within the 6 days if you really wanted to offer a constructive objection. Particularly inappropriate about your edit is that on mobile, I don’t have a revert option and you removed my lengthy fine-tunings on the critical reception section, a big reason why people try to endorse WP:DONTREVERT.

But there’s no point in having all these rules if people can just break them with no consequences, right? Barely made one (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That only applies when there isn’t a prior decision to have it a certain way. It’s incredibly easy to say “well no one said anything so that makes it fine to go ahead anyway”. Nope.

So gain consensus first before making your changes. Rusted AutoParts 02:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

How about we describe La La Land as an "American musical film", similar to the description of The Young Girls of Rochefort (a key inspiration for the film)? Then we don’t have to argue about whether it's a drama, a comedy, or both. Timefurtherout (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with that or some combination of that with romance, since that is what search engine test results show. I would definitely drop comedy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m perfectly fine with any of those changes. ‘Romantic musical’ in particular seems to describe it well, but it’s unlikely anyone’s going to actually change it without some unjustified reversion (& I’m sick to death of wasting time editing similar things on the page). @Rusted AutoParts: Where’s the prior decision exactly? It’s already been mentioned that no one agreed to ‘comedy’, and Matthew’s approach was similar to mine (other than being less concerned with rules regarding WP:FILMLEAD). You appear again to have no regard for the fundamental policy of being bold nor do you regard some of the other rules, only what seems to be personal opinions. So I’ll continue using the same approach like many before me because it’s, most importantly, in accordance to the policies. And from your edit summaries and posts here, it’s visible you don’t want to regard civility or good faith (I’m not amazing with the former, but it wasn’t started by me here). Barely made one (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

How’s about staying on point instead of making it about a you vs. me thing. The person who started this discussion thread mentioned BRD so that told me there’d been previous disagreement over the genre. Rusted AutoParts 21:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Really, it’s not like you’ve stayed on point or had one to begin with. I don’t have much else to point out to you other than this. As for previous disagreement it doesn’t matter. There was an agreement and no objection, the reverter could’ve been doing the same as you. Barely made one (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s an essay not an enforced guideline. And I’ll ask again for you to keep to the actual point and not go looking to pick fights. You may not like it that your edit got reverted but we’re here now, so make your case for your changes. Rusted AutoParts 22:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You really have to get the last word, don’t you? If guidelines (and essays) were imposed, you’d have been blocked already. The case has already been made, the only one refusing my edit has been you. Barely made one (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright you’re clearly baiting so I’m done here. Let any other potential input be heard before changing it. Rusted AutoParts 01:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And why are you still replying? Unlike everyone here, you’ve added nothing of value to the thread (& main page) other than show your childish need to enforce nonexistent authority. No thanks, I could’ve changed it anytime I wanted. Barely made one (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)