Talk:Knives Out

The ninth book in the original Choose Your Own Adventure series was a murder mystery with a very similar plot called “Who Killed Harlowe Thrombey?” The victim’s name in this film is Harlan Thrombey. There is NO WAY that’s a coincidence. 97.116.72.212 (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that too! Bkatcher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LWRH:Spoilers in the plot section are allowed on Wikipeda. Please stop removing content from the page without proper justification.Nemov (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: Incorrect Spoilers in the plot section are not allowed on Wikipeda. Please stop adding unconfirmed and incorrect information.LWRH

@Nemov: At least have the conviction to write you have only seen the movie once and you might have written incorrect spoilersLWRH

@LWRH:To avoid an edit war I'll have to bring in an admin. I didn't write the plot for this page. Many others who have seen the film have put it together and I can confirm it's correct as well. I'm not sure what you're angle here is, but it's a bizarre way to handle it.Nemov (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: Sure bring in the admin. I just want the truth to be on there. Not sure what your angle is if you didn't write this?? LWRH

@LWRH:I've seen the film and the plot section is correct. Why are you deleting plot points that are confirmed by multiple people?Nemov (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: They are not correct. I want to get an admin involved. I don't know who these people are that you keep referring to. Why do you want to ruin this film by stating the wrong information? LWRH

@LWRH:Spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia. Reading a plot for a film doesn't ruin a film if a person has already seen it. If a person hasn't seen the film they shouldn't be reading the plot on Wikipedia.Nemov (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: I am not saying spoilers aren't allowed, I am saying incorrect spoilers aren't allowed so please stop twisting my words. If you want to continue you should state that you have only seen the film once otherwise you are putting out incorrect factual information to the public. I will bring the admin in, I just want the page to be correct. LWRH

@LWRH:As I mentioned before several users have contributed to the plot. I saw the film two days ago and the plot is correct. What specifically is wrong? - Nemov (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: Many of the plot points are conjecture. Walt was not fired, Joni did not steal as such. Harlans mother didn't falsely identify Marta as Ransom, she did see Ransom early that night. I could go on....

@LWRH:Walt is fired by his father in the film. Joni was cut out of the will for stealing. Harlan's mother thought Marta was Ransom because later it is revealed she had already seen Ransom outside that night. Did you watch a different cut of the film? - Nemov (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: Sadly mate you confuse conjecture with fact. You call me unreasonable to the admin but you seem to believe in assuming facts, factoids people call these. Harlan says "we'll talk details in the morning" - Joni was never cut out of the will for stealing? Marta just was given as beneficiary. So what cut of the movie had specifically joni cut out that you saw? Basically I just don't like the way this is written. Part of me liked that the movie wasn't being ruined for other people with assumptions but seems like no one can do anything for 4 days now so I suppose you should be happy. As long as you are happy.

I:::LWRH, if you think there are issues with the plot, then you need to discuss your specific concerns here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Regardless I do not want another Once Upon a Time in Hollywood situation on our hands. cause this was a bit embarrassing. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rusted AutoParts:How did I miss this? That is amazing. LOL Nemov (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov: LOL (talk)

This edit request to Knives Out (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Initially I was confused by the sentence ("Filming locations included Marlborough, Natick, Wellesley, Maynard, Waltham, and Canton.[26][27][28]") in the "Filming" [sub-] section, because it contains a list of towns that sounded like they -- (some ... or all? ... of them?) -- might be in Mass., ... but I was not sure.

Then I saw that the previous sentence ("Principal photography began on October 30, 2018, in Boston, Massachusetts and wrapped on December 20, 2018.[23][24][25]") does tell me what state the movie was filmed in, and does mention "Boston".

(Note that, at https://www.thecinemaholic.com/where-was-knives-out-filmed/ it says [in part] that Boston is "where most of the movie was shot", and ... IMHO it might be advisable to include that info -- including the phrase "where most of the movie was shot" -- in the "Filming" [sub-] section. YMMV...) (... with or without including [a "ref" tag, for] a footnote containing that URL.)

As a minimum, it seems to me that Medfield -- which is also mentioned prominently [right after Boston] in that https://www.thecinemaholic.com/where-was-knives-out-filmed/ source -- should also be included in the list of towns in the second sentence.

These changes are based upon (and hence relative to) the currently latest ["11:06, "24 November 2019"‎] version of the ("Knives Out (film)") article.

I suggest to change [the second sentence in the "Filming" [sub-] section] ... FROM [1]

• "Filming locations included Marlborough, Natick, Wellesley, Maynard, Waltham, and Canton.

TO [2]

• "Filming locations included Boston [mostly], as well as Medfield, Marlborough, [...]."

or at least TO [2a]

• "Other filming locations included Medfield, Marlborough, [...]."

...Where no changes after the word "Marlborough" are being suggested.
(unless you count the stuff under "Background:" ... but I don't think you do. [right?] )
(Well, maybe you count the comment about << "(... with or without including [a "ref" tag, for] a footnote containing that URL.)" >> ... [do you?] )

I hope this suggestion is UNAMBIGUOUS enough.
Thanks for listening. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

PS: There are at least 2 places (in the last sentence of the lede, -- right before the "Knives_Out_(film)#Plot" section -- and in the second sentence of the "Knives_Out_(film)#Release" section of the article) [see the "version" info above... if nec.] where it still refers to the release date ("November 27, 2019") using the present tense.

(Actually. saying "is scheduled to be theatrically released on" is a way of wording it, that is kinda like a "future" tense in some ways; ... but I think technically [grammar wise] it's the present tense.)

Since it is now "November 28, 2019" in some time zones (e.g., EST) (equals UTC minus 0500), maybe the "is scheduled to be" there, should be changed to "was scheduled to be" ... OR maybe even, to [just] "was".

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Request seems clear enough, but the wording of "Filming locations included Boston mostly..." does not seem right to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the first sentence of the final paragraph of the plot section, where it says "forcing Ransom to admit his crimes," the word choice is incorrect. It should be "causing" rather than "forcing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.124.50 (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

As of right now, the 'production' section finishes with the sentence...

Jacob Thrombey, who tweets alt-right hate speech online was inspired by angry Star Wars fans on Twitter that Johnson encountered following the release of The Last Jedi.[8]

What does this sentence have to do with Knives Out? I'm deleting it. If someone else can show relevance, they can put it right on backRobbmonster (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here you go.[1] PizzaTime04 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is there any information as to why Walt has a (presumably) broken leg and hobbles round in a surgical boot with a stick, which he sometimes bangs on the ground with anger? It's not explained in the film. Did they decide on it to show the character's ineffectual personality? Had Michael Shannon broken his leg in real life?Paulturtle (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Found an interview online in which Shannon talks about Walt being "not fully formed" as he has always been under his father's shadow, but nothing about the surgical boot.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This suggests that it's to symbolise that Walt is "not fully functional" (and there was nothing wrong with Shannon's leg in real life) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/conversations-consequence-knives-rian-johnson-050047532.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI8yEcCU6-zlCZU4CNwQfKEJO3LeSmxLoYS7EyA8O55PxA03NdWUJAiG7lp4jDOIiCdRb8LQAJaBzVn7X2BJyXYsCfD_HQ4YuLb951sNu_rMkGW6D3mrxDn6s_rkv-2YBkADMnn2o2rQlvJrO2ONH7xWODt_D-qGwb82f7udstiY

Paulturtle (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ajd: it looks like we disagree on whether a few small elements are necessary. Here's my take:

• Harlan gives Marta instructions to create a false alibi to avoid suspicion for causing his death. This is obvious - people only use false alibis to avoid suspicion. We don't need to explain this.

• As they search the property, Marta attempts to conceal evidence. Marta conceals evidence. How successful she is doesn't matter here.

• In the present, Blanc questions Marta. Marta cannot lie without vomiting, and so she gives true but incomplete answers. This is clear without the "true" part - the clear implication is that she avoids lying by not telling the whole story.

Popcornduff (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I think since it's well under 700 words we have some extra space to work with, so we may as well allow it to be clearer rather than just maximally terse.

The one I feel most strongly about is "attempts to conceal evidence". If it's true that "how successful she is doesn't matter here," then we should say "attempts", since omitting it is asserting that she succeeds. And she doesn't really succeed, since Blanc does find the broken trellis, and knows she's up to something with the muddy footprints. Saying just "she conceals evidence" seems to communicate that Blanc doesn't discover anything on that search, and he does.

"Marta can't lie without vomiting, and so she gives incomplete answers" doesn't really sound coherent to me actually! "So" implies that the former is the cause or reason for the latter, but "Marta can't lie without vomiting" isn't the cause for "she gives incomplete answers"; it's the cause for "she gives true answers". ("Marta doesn't want to get caught" is the cause for "she gives incomplete answers.") This may seem like splitting hairs, but I just think the sentence seems more sensible with "true but" in there.

As for "to avoid suspicion for causing his death"—well, since we say in the same sentence that Harlan actually killed himself, it's clearer to point out that Marta is at risk of blame to avoid confusion. And overall, like I said, since we're well under 700 words we can afford to allow the extra verbiage for clarity's sake. AJD (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The changes I'm proposing aren't an attempt to be "maximally terse" - I would advocate for them whether we had 700 words to spend or 2000. I think they either add unnecessary words, or create some clunky sentences. For example, - Harlan gave Marta instructions to create a false alibi to avoid suspicion for causing his death and then slit his own throat. We have two infinitive "to"s and a "for" here in sequence, which is kinda clunky, and then the "slit his own throat" is hard to pick up with. I still think writing this flashback in the present tense (introducing it with "the night before") is the simplest solution.

Regarding the concealing evidence: Marta does succeed in concealing evidence, just not all of it. OK, I get that you think it's important that she's not 100% successful - but if you think the fact that Blanc discovers stuff in the search is important, why aren't you proposing we include that in the plot? The "attempt to conceal" doesn't facilitate that. Popcornduff (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to include the fact that Blanc finds evidence in the search, since it allows the reader to follow more of the logic of the investigation: "Marta attempts to conceal evidence, but Blanc finds the broken trellis she climbed to re-enter the house, and mud on the carpet outside Harlan's room." In fact, we can also give a bit more detail about Harlan's instructions: "In order to help Marta avoid blame for his death, Harlan instructed Marta to re-enter the house later that night and create the illusion that he was still alive; he then slits his throat." I think that flows a bit better and has fewer of the stacked embedded phrases you're concerned about. I've tested it out and we'll still be under 700 words if we add those. What do you think? AJD (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

FlaJunkie (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I saw the movie in the local theater when it was released. I just watched it on Amazon. The ending is different!

In the theatre, when Marta came out onto the balcony, she said words to the family allowing them to stay. She held up the cup where you could fully read the "My house, my rules" printing. It was partially obscured in the Amazon ending.

I cannot find support for this ending online. Does anyone else remember it? FlaJunkie (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the film multiple times. In the theater and at home. The ending was the same. I haven't read or heard anything about a different ending. - Nemov (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know I saw a different ending. At the time we watched this in Viera, Florida, the image was really crappy. It was almost like a copy. But in any event, I remember what I previously stated. Is it possible that different endings were distributed to parts of the country? FlaJunkie (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Very unlikely. The filmed debuted at festivals weeks before the main release. I saw it at a special showing a week before wide release. There's been nothing reported about a different cut of the film and the film was finished long before it was released. - Nemov (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I sent a Tweet to Rian Johnson with a question but no response yet. I'm still very puzzled and I am not demented. There has to be a logical explanation.FlaJunkie (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Knives Out which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The record of that discussion is now at Talk:Knives Out (disambiguation). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll move this here since @Wallyfromdilbert: would rather keep reverting my edits. "Illegal immigration" is the most widely used term. It's also the accepted term on Wikipedia. Not all undocumented immigration is illegal, and not all illegal immigration is undocumented. Before making this change I researched the Illegal immigration article and users have attempted to change the page to "Undocumented Immigration." Those attempts have failed to gain consensus. "Undocumented Immigrant" is neither precise or the most widely used term. In order to maintain consistency my edit should stand. If a user wants to call "Illegal Immigration" something else please find consensus to change the Illegal immigration article title. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Not all undocumented immigration is illegal, and not all illegal immigration is undocumented." Three sources in this article use the term "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented mother" [2] [3] [4], and one of those sources also discusses "illegal immigration". No sources use the term "illegal immigrant", which is the term you are putting in the article (despite you only using the term "illegal immigration" in your post above). We go with what the sources say, not your original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The sources are about the film. They're not about what illegal immigration is called on Wikipeda. So what the sources called it is irrelevant. If those article authors wanted to call the Earth Jupiter it wouldn't change the fact that the Earth is widely called the Earth. If you think those article sources are strong enough to change the consensus please go to Illegal Immigration and make your case there. It doesn't appear that your argument is neutral and based on the controversy surrounding this issue it appears politically motivated. As I mentioned before I don't really care what it's called, but it should be consistent on Wikipedia. Your edit is not consistent. Nemov (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article is about the film, not whatever issues you are talking about. If you are interested in this article, then please present sources relating to this article. Also, please read WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS regarding your unsupported claims about my editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you need sources using "illegal immigrant" in regards to this film you can find them all over the place [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. There's tons of them because it's the most widely accepted term. I'll leave it at that. - Nemov (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yet none of those sources are in the article, and Google actually shows twice the amount of results for "undocumented immigrant" with the title than "illegal immigrant". Probably better to just avoid either term altogether if the sources dispute each other. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Only one of the five sources Nemov provided (i.e., The Telegraph) is considered generally reliable per WP:RSP, while another one of the five (i.e., National Review) is considered a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. In addition, an abundance of reliable sources (i.e., The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Hollywood Reporter, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair) refer to the character as undocumented, so due weight should be given to the term. KyleJoan^talk 05:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@KyleJoan:If you're looking for more reliable sources they're available. I just grabbed the first set of links, but there's tons of them. [10], [11], [12]. My argument wasn't that "Undocumented Immigrant" isn't used, but "Illegal Immigration" is also widely used and it's the accepted term on Wikipedia. What is the reasoning for reverting my edit if both are widely used and "Illegal Immigration" is the accepted terminology on Wikipedia? - Nemov (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The reasoning is that more reliable sources describe the character as undocumented. It would be inappropriate and undue for the plot section to reference her backstory involving illegal immigration. KyleJoan^talk 06:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be noted that the Vanity Fair article in Nemov's post uses the term "undocumented immigrant" not "illegal immigrant", while the LA Times source also never uses the term "illegal immigrant" (only "illegal immigration"), and the Time source uses "illegal immigrant" once but also uses "undocumented immigrant" and "undocumented mother". I think KyleJoan's reasoning makes sense that we use the term used by more reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Declined Too many editors involved; not stale Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Galendalia (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Third opinion by Galendalia

Since this is based on a film I am of the opinion that what they are referred to in the film should stand regardless of whether it is politically correct (or otherwise) as this is a work of fiction and is not a news article, to help out further, I would recommend putting those words in quotation marks to help clarify that is what they used in the film. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

::Galendalia, third opinions are for disputes between two editors and are only supposed to be once a discussion has reached a standstill after thorough discussion, which is not usually possible less than a day after a discussion was even started. I also find it strange that you did not respond to KyleJoan's comment about the third opinion, when a major point of requesting a third opinion is to have all involved editors agree that it would be useful. You may want to review the guidelines and FAQ for third opinions. If you want to contribute to this discussion, I would suggest leaving your comment in the same fashion as the other editors. As to your statement about the article content, reliable sources are a better guide for content than primary source quotes from films. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wallyfromdilbert - You are correct and I am handling that now. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help Galendalia. Nemov (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment Why was a third opinion requested when the discussion has already obtained three users' opinions? KyleJoan^talk 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was requested before you joined the conversation. Do you object to a neutral third party? If Galendalia (talk · contribs) agrees that an "illegal immigrant" is no longer a widely accepted term for someone immigrating illegally we'll go with that. Then we can attempt to change the article title for Illegal immigration - Nemov (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is a separate article than illegal immigration. See WP:OSE. Also, the term "illegal immigration" is not used in this article, and so this dispute has nothing to do with that article title (and I don't think repeating that disingenuous argument is helping your case). Finally, Wikipedia does not have "accepted terms", and your suggestion for this article is not supported by the sources, including the sources you yourself cited. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Marta, seemingly by accident, administered him an overdose of morphine" means 'Marta administered an overdose, and it seems like it was an accident.' That's not what happened; as it turns out, she didn't administer an overdose. "Marta apparently accidentally administered him an overdose of morphine" means 'it seems like Marta administered an overdose,' which is true, and compatible with the fact that she actually didn't. AJD (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think we can reach a compromise with "Marta apparently administered him an overdose of morphine by accident". The phrase "apparently accidentally" not only is a cacophony, but also makes the sentence ambiguous. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 16:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good! AJD (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

i did not like the wording of this summary regarding the "overdose" so i adjusted it. i literally just watched the movie, then read the wiki and felt that line was off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.253.130 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

apparently sounds stupid. whoever undid my changes that maybe added 15 characters or so is either some edit nazi or is so someone who is mad their poor sentence in that summary was changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.254.210 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Added film, Woman of Straw, with young character who murders his wealthy uncle at his mansion for his money. He manipulates the immigrant nurse who becomes the suspect. Detective is brought in to solve it. See also is a template for readers to connect them to similar pages. This helps the reader. It's not a big addition. Literally what See Also is intended for. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are so many ensemble murder mystery films that could be justified to be similar to Knives Out the See Also section could drag on forever. This comparison is simply a matter of opinion by the user making the addition. If there's been notable coverage connecting the two films I'd understand, but this addition seems completely unnecessary. - Nemov (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to MOS:SEEALSO, the See also section should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. So, you should present reliable sources here that cover the similarities between these two films, in order for it to be included in a See also section and be properly integrated into the article body sometime in the future. —El Millo (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nemov I'm not arguing that you can't add other films here if you wish. My point is this one should be added. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

El Millo Cool. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Whether this was intended or not, the movie seemed to incorporate a clever two-way homage to Sherlock Holmes The Adventure of Silver Blaze, in which the crucial clue was dog NOT barking in the night as it knew the person. Knives Out starts with the dogs. They bark at Ransom, but not at Marta, both ways important to the story, unlike the Holmes story, where only one way mattered. JohnMashey (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be WP:OR and verging on WP:NOTFORUM. Are there reliable sources that point this out? Are there enough of them to justify including this in the article? —El Millo (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's no question here. As the other user mentioned this isn't a fan theory forum. This should be closed since there's nothing left to discuss. I attempted to close and was reverted by editors who found some merit in discussing theories about dogs barking on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I should've removed this thread initially, instead of replying to it. This is clearly WP:NOTFORUM, it doesn't even merit being closed. —El Millo (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would have agreed with removing the discussion, but since that didn't happen, it'd be unfair not to let the OP (and other users) answer the questions. No one is forcing anyone to discuss theories about dogs barking. We're all free not to comment. KyleJoan^talk 01:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please can the MRC credit be moved from the distributed by category to the production company category. MRC is not a distributor. They only fund and produce movies. That's like saying New Regency or Village Roadshow are distributors because the credits say from 20th Century and New Regency or from Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow. They are just studios that co-produced the movies and not actual distributors. 105.112.58.9 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You appear to have blatantly ignored the hidden note in the article, which states, Per BILLING BLOCK: "Lionsgate and MRC present..." For reference, the billing block can be found at the bottom of this poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

At least according to imdb, Glass Onion will be in (limited??) distribution in theaters as of tomorrow a month before going on Netflix. Hope to verify this in person. ELSchissel (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is covered here: Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery#Release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knives Out (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knives Out (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The film was released in 2019, but why is it still in Category:Upcoming films?! ⇒ AramTalk 16:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I changed most of the instances of "Rian" back to "Johnson". There is little real possibility of confusion between the director and the composer outside of the section on the music, where I have retained the first names. -170.213.22.118 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@151.71.237.22 (pretty sure you won't get a ping, but oh well). Your revert to put the full expansion of CPR in the article on first use is not such a bad edit in my view, but the case has been well made by another editor that CPR is commonly know by its abbreviation and not in full. The advice in MOS:ACRO1STUSE says exemptions apply to expansion on first use for something most commonly known by its acronym I self reverted the change myself because that clearly applies for CPR. I am not sure it accords with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, but the editors putting it back are clearly following Wikipedia's guidance. I don't think this is a hill to die on. Plenty of other sloppy use of abbreviations to consider elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

CPR is the common name. Very few people actually knows what it stands for and this would be a good example of something most commonly known by its acronym. Nemov (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do we refer to Harlan Thrombey as Harlan and not Thrombey? In comparison, we refer to Benoit Blanc as Blanc so something seems off? OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply