Talk:Companion (film)

Filming

Please find reliable sources about the filming dates. The Media Expert (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Genre

Heads-up that it may not be clear-cut to nail down the genre in the first sentence of the lead section per MOS:FILMLEAD. It currently says "science fiction psychological thriller", which seems a bit originally researched. SFX mentions it as "twisty romance horror" with the director/writer saying, "We're selling this as a horror-ish movie, but it's six different genres." So let's use this discussion thread to see if any genre or subgenre surfaces post-release to be of due weight for the introduction. Otherwise, we can figure out a way to spread the different elements in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I decided to just put "horror" per Hancock's comment to SFX for now. I suggest that we stick with it until we get secondary-source reviews that can independently describe the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, until we get more information about the film or until its release, I think horror should be sufficient. Taffer😊 💬_(they/she) 20:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this in which the source calls it "a darkly comic sci-fi thriller", while it's a fair data point, I don't think a rating database is the best source to determine the genre for the first sentence. Ideally, we should compare across multiple sources and come to a consensus about which genre or subgenre label has the most due weight. In absence of that till January 31, I think that the nominally-intended genre (as written above) suffices till then. We can absolutely revisit when we have more sources to look at. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point it seems like it could be reasonable to call the film sci-fi horror or something to that effect, plenty of sources seem to use those descriptors fairly consistently. I have my own feelings about a more concise description of genre, but it would fall into WP:SYNTH at best and WP:OR at worst, so I'm not gonna touch it. Taffer😊 💬_(they/she) 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a lot of pre-release sources will use a pretty wide mix of likely labels based on the marketing and interviews.The rating database could be closer to the truth, having had to see the film. Ultimately, reviews (or other longform pieces about the film) will tend to have the right "depth of detail" (especially having seen the film) and are better to go with in the long run. We shall see soon enough! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey is it ok if I include allmovie as a reliable source for the genres? Pomniismywife (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I saw of the reviews (only kept it brief since now I want to see this myself, heh), it still may not be a straightforward answer. Maybe, per WP:LEAD, the first sentence or two can focus on the premise and starring actors (Thatcher and Quaid), like x film starring Thatcher and Quaid who play so-and-so in y premise. Writing the premise upfront, which seems to be the main noteworthy context of the reviews I (admittedly briefly) checked, would allow us to indicate the various genre-type elements it touches, beyond whatever we state between "American" and "film". Others will have to hash that out. I'll keep this page on my watchlist and try to help with non-plot edits where I can. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted IP 2a0a:ef40:16f:a301:e892:a0c3:31e5:e865 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s edit here because Drew Hancock is not a noteworthy context for this film. It tells the reader nothing upfront, compared to a household-name director. See applicable guidelines below:

• MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
• MOS:FIRST:

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
• "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

• MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable."
• WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is to look at how reliable sources headline the topic, like searching for hancock thatcher quaid intitle:companion and seeing how the sources complement the film title. That indicates for us what elements of the film are most noteworthy. Like from what I can tell, in the past week, it's most often the premise and Thatcher and/or Quaid being headlined. Editors are welcome to comment. I know it is "tradition" to always mention the director in the first sentence, but nothing actually requires it, just habit that does not fit the above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviews

Anyone have the time and willingness to go over the reviews to see which genre or subgenre or hybrid genre is the most commonplace across them? The New York Times says "horror-comedy" at least. Remember that we can't stuff disparate classifications as one. If needed, we can spread out the genre-type elements in the rest of the paragraph, like indicating the romance in the premise passage. Erik (talk | contrib) 01:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Critical reception

It seems like an IP editor is trying to add, without a source, an overall critical reception to the film here and here. We need a reliable source that directly summarizes the critical reception. We cannot WP:SYNTHesize individual reviews to determine for ourselves the overall reception. Rotten Tomatoes's critics' consensus is an easy way to cite the overall critical reception, and that is not available yet. Other sources doing the summarizing can be used too, and these will hopefully come out too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@2804:7F20:11A:EA01:B4CC:681F:97F6:E9DA Please discuss the changes you're attempting to make here. Taffer😊 💬_(they/she) 16:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

RT's consensus is now out and says, "A fiendishly clever contraption that doesn't rest on the laurels of its twists, Companion thrillingly puts the demented into domestic bliss." We can quote that in the article body. Anyone want to try to paraphrase that for the "positive reviews" sentence in the lead section? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like something that could be included in the reception section, but I don't think there's anything in there that would be usable for summary in the lead. Taffer😊 💬_(they/she) 20:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I used a reliable source and you took it out. What gives? Coolelvin2 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, my mistake! I was reverting the lead-section sentence and did not realize you were adding a review in the same edit too. I restored it, though I believe it could be copyedited, and complemented by other reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Drew Hancock

An article for Drew Hancock may be warranted per WP:CREATIVE. A few sources I saw: this, this, and this. Could possibly add a link per WP:REDLINK (see nutshell explanation). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Distributor

It seems that there's disagreement and conflicting reports over who's distributing the film. Hollywood Reporter and Rotten Tomatoes list Warner Bros as the distributor, Comicbook.com lists New Line. I'm not going to pretend to understand the film industry well enough to make a call myself, is it possible that both are the distributor? Taffer😊 💬_(they/she) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

New Line Cinema is under Warner Bros., and it does seem like New Line Cinema is considered more of a production company. Looking at The Numbers, it does say that Warner Bros. is the distributor. So that's probably the actual answer. "Release" may be a different context here than theatrical distribution. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this says Warner Bros. Pictures is the distributor. I guess all the others are production companies? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Poster

Mrodek93 is trying to add File:COMPANION MOVIE POSTER.jpg with the claim here that it was "the official movie poster", implying the previous image was not. This shows that they are all official posters. Furthermore, their uploaded image is not correctly tagged compared to the previous one here: File:Companion film poster.jpg. Even if there is consensus to use the newer one, the licensing must be corrected. Pinging KylieTastic due to their involvement via good-faith adjustment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to correct the licensing as needed. This is the official movie poster that was released for their last trailer whereas the last poster that was used is fan art. I'm happy to tag or license as needed, just please let me know what to use. Thanks! Mrodek93 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let's just have no poster image for now until this is straightened out. The previous version was retrieved from IMP Awards here. I have never seen that website's poster uploads called into question. Can we verify if either image is valid or invalid? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

sharing examples of where the official movie poster can be seen:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26584495/

https://tv.apple.com/us/movie/companion/umc.cmc.4ucrwm6dvaf3z2e9alwmfyo2x

across the official movie's social: https://www.instagram.com/companionmovie/?hl=en Mrodek93 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am finding that the version you have is correct and cannot seem to verify the others beyond IMP Awards. Regardless, your version needs to be correctly licensed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you! I have uploaded a new version with updated licensing, please let me know if this is correct or if you need anything else. Mrodek93 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please stop trying to edit incorrectly-licensed images in? None of your edits are licensing it correctly or putting it into the article correctly. Right now, it is the original version, which is what you want, even though it is not your upload. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted File:Companion film poster.jpg to the first version which is the same as what you were trying to upload. It already has the licensing and the right fair-use size. Obi-WanKenobi-2005, it may be that the newer poster is not valid, so let's keep to the original one for now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's valid. It's on various social media sources for Warner Bros. Pictures. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you link, please? EDIT: I ask because I checked but am not seeing anything static, unless it's inside a video clip I am missing. Regardless, the official site is showing the original version here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have seen the new posters before as I looked up the film, but I didn't save the exact links. I've also seen the poster on various film sites. The image has been reverted and I don't want to upset anyone. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the WBD website and Twitter account, they have definitely been using the one that Mrodek93 wants to use. I haven't seen anything official regarding the three new posters that IMP Awards has which does seem odd. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the newer posters are no longer on the IMP Awards page here. (I had messaged them a couple of days ago at the same time as dealing with the above.) So yikes, IMP Awards can be wrong (presumably tricked) at times. We will have to be mindful of that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)