Talk:Straight Outta Compton (film)

Request to add more info to the 'Filming' Section

The film's production designer said "It was a very hard project to do. We had 130 sets which is a lot of sets to try and deal with". "When you see the recording sessions, we were in Conway Studios, which is a famous recordings studio in Los Angeles. We took four different recording booths and made it look like different recording studios."

Source: http://filmdoctor.co.uk/2015/08/29/straight-outta-compton-production-designer-shane-valentino-in-conversation/

Interesting to know a bit more about the actual physical production process other than just the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneraker (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Additonal Credits

The production duo of Harvey Mason, Jr. and Damon Thomas - The Underdogs produced and arranged the music for the motion picture Straight Outta Compton . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wldct10 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Arabian Prince, POV pushing and copyright violation

HENDAWG229, please don't assume that people are knowledgeable about everything that is covered by WP. Membership of the band N.W.A includes Arabian Prince, and that is what the sentence in the introductory paragraph says. Removing this piece of information, which is not known to "everyone," contrary to your claim, is against WP:NPOV and could be interpreted as WP:EW. The movie is a biopic, which depicts the history of the band N.W.A, thus it IS about the group. It's a fact that Arabian Prince was a founding member. Please note that it is irrelevant what you, Universal Pictures or anybody else "feels", only verifyable and sourced facts are. WP:NOT You have taken promotional material and text, and entered it into an article, in spite of the links I had provided. WP:PROMOTION is a violation of WP guidelines. The actor portraying Arabian Prince is included in the cast list on IMDb. It cannot be expected from a reader to check if information provided in different articles is contradictory and/or false. This was consensus among editors, if I may add. [1]. Press releases and promotional material are not neutral sources and thus not valid, particularly not if you copy them verbatim, for they are copyrighted. You have both admitted to deleting information in order to shape the article to your liking and to pasting copyrighted material into a WP article. Copying an entire paragraph of third-party content unaltered into the WP article is a violation and the content must be deleted according to WP:COPYVIO - Special:Diff/661017607. Following the report I filed Special:Diff/661371418 and EdJohnston's suggestion, I have posted a summary of my points here and will amend the article accordingly so that both positions are represented in order to reach a consensus on the matter. Cheers. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

1st off, this isn't the groups original lineup. So how about, to keep everything neutral, we agree not to name individuals in the group and wait for the film's release to add a more complete plot summary. HENDAWG229 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"1st off," it is the original complete lineup, feel free to read more on the group's history. For the time being, it is indeed best to not include individual members in the synopsis. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk)

Controversies

Koala15, I think that the accusation of colorism, sexism and racism from the casting agency of the film is a very noteworthy controversy. HENDAWG229 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but its ridiculous to list the whole casting call. Koala15 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, concerning your edits to the lead section, after stating the film was about the group N.W.A, I named all of the actors that portrayed members of the group, you eliminated MC Ren and DJ Yella. This is not the infobox so other actors can be mentioned in the lead, especially actors portraying the main characters that the film is focusing on. Nothing that you erased from the lead was a false statement and corroborated with sources so there was no need to remove. In the "Controversies" section, I believe that when Ice Cube showed the trailer without Universal or any of the other producers knowledge, makes this a controversial incident for the film. MC Ren is not an official movie critic. When a main character in film criticizes the trailers of that film for not featuring him more by saying "fuck these bitches at universal pictures", the same Universal Pictures that is distributing the film, is a controversial incident for the film. I feel the way the article was formatted was ok and none of your edits were warranted. HENDAWG229 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The lede section of a film doesn't need to list every actor who is in the film. Ideally, it need only state who stars in the film.
As for the MC Ren incident, his comments are not a controversy because... it's just his opinion on the film. There is a key difference between him and Dee Barnes, and it's that Barnes relates the film to an actual controversy, as in, a subject that has given rise to public debate among various people – the allegations against Dre. Additionally, having a section dedicated to responses from the real-life people whom are depicted is a welcome addition to the article, don't you think?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, "fuck these bitches at universal for leaving me out the trailer" and "not willing to comment... may be part of an ongoing litigation." are not critical assessments of the film. They are controversial statements made by individuals involved in the film. These are not professional critics. If they had talked about any elements of the film, at all, then maybe it's a "critical response." But Ren is upset because of his exposure in the film's trailer and Heller didn't have a "critical response" about the film at all. Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, DJ Yella, many real life people depicted in the film have given their opinions about the film. The only reason we're talking about what Ren or Heller said is because it's controversial.HENDAWG229 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"They are controversial statements" According to who? The sources don't call them controversial statements (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). They are not debating the film. "Fuck these bitches [for not featuring me in the movie]" is, in fact, a critical assessment, as would be something along the lines of "this film is amazing" or "the film was good but I dislike such and such about it". I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "controversy"..

controversy
1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.

Unless you can prove that Heller or MC Ren's statements have sparked some form of controversy, they should not be referred to as one. (WP:NOR) As it is, even the "violence on set" section should barely constitute a "controversy". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, "the only reason we're talking about what Ren or Heller said" is not because it's controversial, but because it's notable.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

...And as for Heller's suggestions of legal action: he hasn't sued anybody for any reason that we know of. Putting that under "controversies" related to the film is misleading and original research. (WP:CRYSTALBALL)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The people who commented on the links I provided, "the public" if you will, are "disputing", "debating", and "arguing" if MC Ren should have had more exposure in the trailer of the film. Per your posted definition of controversy, this "verifies" his comments as controversial, since they have caused a public debate and not just something made up. And now can you verify with a source saying that there is nothing controversial about MC Ren statements because every source provided in the article have comments by "the public" disputing whether or not Ren should have had more exposure in the film, some by actual film critics and members of the press, and no source, except for you, stating that Ren's comments are not controversial at all, just a critical response to the film. And Heller never critiqued the film, just offered a controversial statement, not a critical response, and still I say, the only reason either Ren's or Heller's statements are notable is because they are controversial. WP also states that "a film that is based on historical events and has elicited contrary views may warrant a neutrally titled "Historical accuracy" section with sources that survey the filmmakers' intent or historians' differing assessments (positive or negative) of the film's historical accuracy." I'll be creating an "Historical accuracy" section which will include both MC Ren's and Jerry Heller's statements as well as Michel'le and Dee Barnes' "editorial" of the film. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Typos

In the Plot section, the following appears: "Dre becomes associated with Suge Knight and convinces Dre to leave N.W.A to start his own company with Knight." This implies that Dre convinced himself, which isn't the best phrasing. It should probably read ".. and is convinced to leave N.W.A. to start his own company with Knight." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.61.152 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

casting call controversy

I'm going to remove (again) content from this section for the following reasons:

1. No good sources. Two articles from blog sites. These are not reliable sources. 2. Original research. Somehow from the unreliable sources' comments, someone has seen fit to decide that "The casting call post went viral" 3. Copy vio. "expressed their outrage" is lifted straight from a blog. It's a simple enough term, it wouldn't have been too hard to rewrite.

Until there are sources more reliable than a couple of attention seeking whining blogs, I will remove the following:

"The casting call post went viral as people expressed their outrage of what they call colorism, sexism, and racism in the categorizing of black women"

This is not based on opinion, this is standard wikipedia rules regarding reliable sources, that has been formed by consensus, and as such takes precedence over any consensus on an individual article/talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the first first source to report the controversy was Gawker. The story was immediately covered by other "unreliable" sources as Spin magazine, MTV, & The Huffington Post & caused the casting agency to immediately take down the casting call & issue an apology. Removal of this content is obviously based on your opinion of the "crappy" and "attention seeking whining" blog source & you seeing fit to use your definition of viral. HENDAWG229 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to state that "The casting call post went viral as people expressed their outrage of what they call colorism, sexism, and racism in the categorizing of black women", or is that your original research? My definition of "viral" doesn't matter, we don't base articles on our opinions, we base them on reliable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

From TMZ [2]; "The ad went viral -- with the casting company inviting L.A.-based women to apply for one of several categories of extras that will be featured in the film."

From The Huffington Post [3]; "Where do we begin? From the "hottest of the hottest" girls with "great bodies," to the "fine" girls who "should be light-skinned," right down to the girls who are "not in good shape" with "medium to dark skin tone," this casting call reeks of so many problematic things -- most notably, colorism and sexism." Like I said before, it seems you are removing this information because of your opinion of the "crappy" and "attention seeking whining" blog source and not because the information is unsourced. HENDAWG229 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

TMZ is a reliable source? seriously? some fucking awful celebrity controversy website is a reliable source? If it's notable, then I'm sure there is a better source out there, regarding the viral (or not) nature of the whole drama. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

TMZ is a news website that covers entertainers, athletes, celebrity, etc., & has been used as source material for several articles on WP. Again, your personal opinion of the source doesn't matter. I understand it's hard for you to admit that you were wrong & the information you removed was sourced, source states the casting call went viral so it's not "original research". You were wrong because you just saw fit to remove the information because of your opinion of what you call "crappy", "attention seeking whining" blogs & "fucking awful celebrity controversy" websites & not the facts stated in their blogs & articles... even after you stated you weren't removing the material based on your opinion. The fact that you, a "crappy, attention seeking whining, fucking awful" WP editor, still haven't admitted being wrong & only revolt to opinion laced cursing & ignoring the facts after being proven wrong, let's me conclude that this discussion will never be resolved... but that's just my opinion. I hope you sir, or madam, have a nice day (or not). LOL! HENDAWG229 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't ever make personal attacks against me or any other editor on Wikipedia again. I don't mind if we disagree over content, but personal attacks are a severe breach of Wikipedia civility rules and often result in editors being blocked from editing. There was absolutely no need for the personal attack you made against me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Box office summary

User_talk:TropicAces, According to WP, the box office section or subsection "...can be included under the Reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section." I believe there is enough sufficient coverage of Staight Outta Compton's release and box office run to warrant its on section separate from the "Reception" section and instead should fall under the "Release" section.

Error listing "2003 film by F. Gary Gray"

On the iOS mobile app for Wikipedia, under the title, "Straight Outta Compton (film)", it says "2003 film by F. Gary Gray". Is there any way to fix this? Packer1028 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)