Talk:Megalopolis (film)

Standing ovation minute length (7 or 10 minutes?)

Did the film receive a 7 or 10-minute standing ovation? Numerous sources vary. So which one is it?

7 minutes:

• Variety
• Deadline
• Guardian
• IndieWire
• MovieWeb

10 minutes:

• Page Six
• The Print
• The Standard
• Yahoo! Entertainment
• The Hollywood Reporter 2601:58C:C280:5600:B8D0:D21:49E4:D5B0 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The most important question is, why does it need to be added at all? Mike Allen 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be added due to the fact that Francis Ford Coppola Wrote,Directed and Produced this! (In my opinion!) SandcastleLyndy (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about Cleopatra (1963)

The article states: "Marc Tracy of The New York Times likened the film to Joseph L. Mankiewicz's notorious box-office flop Cleopatra (1963), an 'ambitious, big-budget spectacle that got out of hand during production and crashed upon contact with the viewing public'."

This is not accurate and the statement has no footnote. "Three weeks into its theatrical release, Cleopatra became the number-one box office film in the United States, grossing $725,000 in 17 key cities . . . . and proved to be the highest-grossing film of 1963." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_(1963_film) P Reader EO11 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the main article: Cleopatra was "one of the highest-grossing films of the decade at a worldwide level". But in nearly bankrupted its film studio because of "production and marketing costs totaling $44 million". "Fox eventually recouped its investment that same year [1966] when it sold the television broadcast rights to ABC for $5 million, a then-record amount paid for a single film." Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The movie wasn't a box office flop it was a box office smash hit. The fact that it was expensive to make and not profitable has nothing to do with box office. The phrase "box office flop" is false. P Reader EO11 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The term just means commercially/theatrically unsuccessful/unprofitable, which Cleopatra was. Filmgoer (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding a name to the "Starring" section on the right

Could someone add Grace Vanderwaal under the "Starring" section over on the right hand side where the "quick facts",so to speak,are? She is listed in Article of course as one of the stars but not under,over to the right! Saw her just sing for Frances Ford Coppola at Kennedy Centers Honors and of Course she was representing this movie and others that were her costars gave speech's!Deniro Introduced her!Thank you! (Coppola's whole entire family were there!It was so interesting!) SandcastleLyndy (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You're referring to the infobox. For film articles, only the actors whose names are in the credit block of the film poster are included under "starring". If Vanderwaal is not, that's why. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedic language

As I've remarked on a different page, "development hell" is far from the formal and mature language that is used here on Wikipedia. Not only is it informal and inaccurate, it is a slang term. According to MOS:IDIOM, these terms are to be avoided. If anybody has a proper synonym for "development hell", I encourage them to correct this. Thanks.

- Gøøse060 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

See the article development hell. It is industry jargon. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible addition to the acting paragraph under Critical response

To be succinct, for the moment I'm kind of trying to keep the Aubrey Plaza article up-to-date and this is basically awards season, and that led me to the Reception section of this article. I see that the last main paragraph (In a negative review...) of the Critical response section is largely about critics' views of the actors' performances. And what I don't see is mention of the response that (while the performances were generally all over the place and clashed) Plaza "understood the assignment" and/or more simply that her performance was a redeeming feature. (Or, less significantly for this article, that Manohla Dargis felt Plaza should be nominated for the Oscar for Supporting Actress).

I bring this to discussion instead of adding a sentence on it because I do feel the sub-section is well-weighted with good coverage as it is at the moment, including this paragraph, and think having some more views on the relevance/importance of this opinion when looking at what's already written would be useful. It's also quite a long paragraph and some re-writing may be needed to achieve good balance if something was to be added. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I often find that the articles on the actors themselves is the best place to expand on what critics thought of them (the pages for Reese Witherspoon and Winona Ryder come to mind), and I see the potential for that in Plaza's article. I do think the critical response section here is so evenly split that adding that note may disrupt the flow, and there is the BBC review listing Plaza in a positive light that I think readers can infer meant she "understood the assignment" of this narratively ambitious experiment. I'm not sure if the "Oscar worthy" opinion is actually worthy of being in any article, since it's an award and contrasts the very fact of not being nominated. But I do think adding the notes to her article would be most appropriate. Filmgoer (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

When I wrote the section I was thinking about adding notes about specific actors being analyzed for their performances, but such an overwhelming amount of reviews panning the entire ensemble and categorizing their roles as heightened / all over the place / divisive / and being generally split across the board about them led to me deciding not to. Filmgoer (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

References

GA review

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

Nominator: Filmgoer (talk · contribs) 01:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio

• Earwig report
  • The number of direct quotations from the Cannes media packet (ref name="Production Notes") seems to have lifted this above 10% of the original source's content, which would make it a copyvio even being quoted and attributed. This appears to include the following, which could be rephrased in original words or trimmed:
    • quote beginning in Suetonius's version; quote beginning since the survivor tells the story; quote beginning committed to a regressive; quote beginning conveyed his rigid; quotes in the sentence beginning Megalopolis' production notes explain that
    • From the same source, there are some copied phrases and/or close paraphrases which are not the only/simplest/common way of writing something, which you may want to check: to eliminate debt for the poor and wealthy; wide Sphero 65s, Panaspeeds, [...] and Lensbaby for specific scenes; scene where Cesar [...] imaginary rope; pre-recording the dialogue [...] wide shots; blur the line between music and sound design (I'd use a direct quote here)
  • A similar case for The Guardian reporting on Coppola issues (ref name="TheGuardian2024"), with too much quoting.
    • This includes the paragraph-length quote beginning He would often show up in the mornings before
    • And, from a later paragraph, celebratory Studio 54-esque club scene; get them in the mood; the quote beginning Francis walked around the set, and the not-quoted but still directly lifted pulled women to sit on his lap.
  • Same with the quotes from AJC about and by Coppola (ref name="AJC-Sept10") - including some overlap with The Guardian
    • There will be ways to discuss and describe the crew's issues with Coppola without using their own words, which will likely also be a style/prose concern when we get there.
  • Also hitting the 10% by excessively quoting Plaza from the Deadline interview (ref name="DeadlineMay2024").
    • Using information from her interview to describe how Coppola led the process on set, and maybe note her general impression of this, is possible without just quoting her.
    • Again, another style issue in terms of 'how people speak' not really being an encyclopedic tone, interview quotes not often being the most concise and explanatory way of presenting info, and WP's aversion to having 4/5+ lines of pure quote within (or masquerading as) prose paragraphs - quote blocks and quote boxes can be used, but for their own purposes rather than shuttling off copyvio.
  • I think you've got the idea, so now I'll just list the other sources that have excessive direct quotations: (ref name="RollingStone-0825"), (https://variety.com/2024/film/news/extra-kissed-francis-ford-coppola-megalopolis-video-speaks-1236093806/), (https://bleedingcool.com/movies/new-look-at-francis-ford-coppolas-megalopolis/), (ref name="Variety-0726"), (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/megalopolis-lionsgate-fires-marketing-consultant-ai-trailer-1235990295/), (ref name="Romberger") - note that the line about "four hundred pages" which is a quote in this source, is even written in wikivoice in the article - and (ref name="Chang").

Kingsif (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Stability

• Article talkpage and history show no conflicts. ✓ Pass Kingsif (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources

• There may be some duplicate references, concerning the urls (https://www.vulture.com/article/review-francis-ford-coppolas-megalopolis-is-totally-nuts.html) and (https://deadline.com/2024/05/megalopolis-reviews-reaction-critics-1235919598/)
• I'm gonna try and do a review of source-text integrity using a sample of 15% of the article refs. About 200 refs = 30 picked to check at random.

Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref numbers as of this version.
• Ref #8: being used in a plot section efn to source that the character Clodio Pulcher being hung upside down is A possible allusion to the death of Benito Mussolini.
  • First issue here is WP:FORBESCON, that this source should be treated as self-published and so its usability is to be judged on the author's credentials. It's not a major piece of information, so SPS would be fine, although author Dani Di Placido being (per a quick web search) a self-described TikTok expert doesn't give me the greatest confidence in him for the intersection of Italian politics and film interpretation.
  • More pressing, the source only says Pulcher dies in the same manner as Mussolini: to play devil's advocate, this could easily be read as just evocatively describing the hanging upside down in other words, not necessarily suggesting that the film death is an allusion.
  • Maybe just either of those issues would make it workable, but both together means I would like to see some amendment. ✗ Fail
    • Addressed per discussion below. ✓ Pass
• Ref #23: One of two sources for certain information on the postponed 1989 production.
  • Includes page reference in-line and archive.org link to page, information all there.
  • Solid ✓ Pass
• Ref #42: One of two sources for resumed 2019 production.
  • Contains the info about day before his birthday and having completed the script.
  • Does not say that Coppola had already approached Jude Law (as the article says), but that Coppola had approached potential actors and that Fleming heard elsewhere that Law may have been one.
  • Does not mention Shia LaBeouf.
  • If we AGF that the other of the two sources names LaBeouf and has more concrete information on Law, this can ✓ Pass
• Ref #61: One of two sources for Coppola reaching out to Chloe Fineman and why.
  • The video won't actually play for me, but about half of the information is included in the accompanying description.
  • AGF ✓ Pass
• Ref #68: On a scene written with actor input
  • I don't know if it's just for me, but the archive.org link I use here actually loads the full NY Times piece, while the link currently in the article doesn't.
  • All information there ✓ Pass
• Ref #10: One of two sources for the description of Voight's character
  • Includes the information that the character is wealthy (indeed, the richest man in the city) and Cesar's uncle.
  • Quick enough to check the other source, which does confirm the character's full name and job.
  • ✓ Pass
• Ref #26: Sourcing a block quote
  • The good: archive.org link direct to the page, inline ref uses page number too, quote is there.
  • The bad: The quote from the article is all in the source, but it is indeed longer in the source and I think the way it has been cut off as presented in the article (ending because with a star cast comes the financing ...) is quirking Coppola's intention. The block quote follows a sentence about the financial struggles that postponed the film in the 90s, and so ending the quote on the issue of finance makes it look like this diary entry was about that. But it seems like Coppola was more annoyed with the way "the industry" was going in general.
  • There are ways to resolve this, which should also touch on how the article is written. The simplest option I can think of would be to extend the block quote so that it ends a little later at everything else that you hate. But it could also be possible to do away with the block quote and find an appropriate place to put a sentence like In 1992, while struggling with the opening scene of Dracula, Coppola concluded he should only "make the films that [he had] a burning desire to make", preferably in the independent-esque manner of Ingmar Bergman, though worried that "forget[ting] the money" would not be compatible with "a bigger film like Megalopolis or Cure".
  • ?
• Ref #37: One of two sources about some 2002-era production plans
  • There's three pieces of information in the article sentence, and this source is good for one of them: it still being Coppola's planned next project at the time.
  • AGF that the rest of the info is in the other source, ✓ Pass

Broadness

• Quick comment prompted by the talkpage discussion, but should the Cannes ovation be mentioned. It's a cultural phenomenon that's been highly reported on. Vulture has the whole lowdown, for a source, if that discussion is worth picking up again. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  The conventional wisdom is that films get 5-minute ovations for showing up, but in 2023 8 minutes was considered pretty good, so maybe 7-10 minutes is noteworthy? My broader concern is that I don't think ovations are a good measuring stick compared to traditional sources like reviews and scores. (And I certainly wouldn't want to encourage Oscar consultants to encourage more of this...) Namelessposter (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I thought it was 3 minutes for showing up? Either way, for better or worse, the 7-10 minutes is discussed in RS and we must follow them. Perhaps discussion can resume at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Overall

• Just a few first comments. @Filmgoer: the GA count tool has this down as your first GA nomination - I kinda find that hard to believe, but if it's true, feel free to ask questions and let me know if there's a way you'd prefer my review to be structured. And while I have started discussion at the article talkpage, I am not a contributor to the article and that's probably a question I would've asked later in the review (depending on how much I looked at review sources not already present) anyway - it's just been answered already. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  First under new alias. But thanks for taking on this one. I'll look over your notes. Filmgoer (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Namelessposter: Pinging you since you're this article's 2nd biggest contributor in case you wanted to help. Filmgoer (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm happy to contribute where I played a role, but I admit that on a quick skim of the article, it's been significantly expanded since I last worked on it, especially in "Production" - my main involvement (aside from the plot summary) was in the "Themes" section. I don't think I have access to a lot of the books that are cited at length in the production summary. Namelessposter (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  I paraphrased the quotes from the Cannes production notes in the "Themes" section but didn't address the stuff about the cameras or the harassment accusations. I note that Vanity Fair basically repurposed some of the production notes as Coppola quotes for its own piece, so there is some overlap. Namelessposter (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  If Vanity Fair copied from Wikipedia that should be noted at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, I mean Coppola used canned responses for his Vanity Fair interview and the Cannes production notes (no pun intended). Sorry! Namelessposter (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Of course, yes I think I noticed that and so didn't list VF in the copyvio review above. Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Kingsif, to follow up on your comment re: ref #8 (Mussolini), happy to replace that as I'm the one who put it there in the first place. I found an alternative source, a review of the film by conservative pundit Jude Russo at Modern Age (periodical); he writes that "there are the obligatory film-reel excerpts of Hitler and Mussolini, and Clodio’s demise at the hands of his own mob comes upside-down, just like the Duce's." I didn't see Modern Age on the unreliable sources list so would that be an improvement over Forbes? David Walsh says that "Clodio meets a fate similar to Mussolini's" at the World Socialist Web Site. Entertainment Voice (no idea what that is) says that "Coppola even, literally, evokes Mussolini's hanging." Carnegie Mellon's student newspaper makes a similar point that "At the end Clodio is strung up upside down in a Mussolini-esque assassination." Would you prefer one, the other, or both? Namelessposter (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Modern Age would be fine for that, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Thank you. Namelessposter (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)