Talk:Roe v. Wade (film)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Is Milo in the film?

Citing a July 2018 story in The Daily Beast, the article says Milo Yiannopoulos plays David Sopher. However, in January 2019, Big Easy Magazine reported that "at some point…Milo dropped out and was replaced by Nigel Smith." IMDb likewise credits Nigel Smith for the role of Dr. David Sopher. NedFausa (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's still in the film and is credited in the ending credits in the released version. Updating the tag on the article page to reflect this. Cmahns (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing cast

In a released film, the credits of the film itself serve as a source for cast listings. This is usually implied. Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

I've restored the 2020 release date as per this, specifically The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example).. TAXIDICAE💰 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that our lead actually contradicts the sources which say that it premiered at the festival, not that it was screened.[1][2][3][4][5] TAXIDICAE💰 16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Telegraph actually contradicts itself. It says in the second paragraph that it will premiere at CPAC 2021 as well. Regardless, the real question here is if this was a "release" or a "screening" as "screenings" are explicitly excluded from WP:FILMYEAR. Further, you can say that the question on the table is if a "premiere" is the same as a "release", as all of your citations use the word "premiere" and not "release".

A premiere is defined as "the first performance of a musical or theatrical work or the first showing of a movie". Whereas a release is defined as "the action of making a movie, recording, or other product available for general viewing or purchase". A screening, which is excluded by FILMYEAR, could be considered a "premiere" while not being considered a "release".

I would contend the purpose of WP:FILMYEAR is because of movies that have many actual releases in different countries, which can get very lengthy for some films that have staggered international releases. It was not intended to include the first time it was actually viewed by human eyes that was not creators'.

So, if we consider the word "premiere" as not being equivalent to "release", we have many multiple sources indicating that the "release" (using that exact word) was April 2, 2021.

"The release of Roe v Wade came out on Good Friday [April 2, 2021] and in the same week that a judge rejected Nick Loeb’s appeal to gain custody of two frozen pre-embryos." [6]
"After years of controversy and strife on set, Roe v. Wade is finally headed for release Friday, April 2" [7]
"“Roe v. Wade” was screened at the Vienna Independent Film Festival last year, winning its Best Supporting Actor award for Voight. It’s scheduled to open in wide release April 2. [8]
And we have the word of the filmmaker himself: "Loeb, 45, said in a statement that "the judge was clearly influenced by Hollywood, which is a pattern I expose in my upcoming film Roe v. Wade on April 2." [9]

In all, the idea that because it was at a film festival in 2020 (in likely not in its final form), that it must constitute a release and therefore must be its REAL film year is 2020 is WP:SYNTHESIS. All reliable sources say "April 2, 2021" and that is the only thing that matters. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And several reliable sources say it premiered in 2020 at VIFF. The 2021 date can be reflected in the body as it already is in the infobox, but it was first released in 2020. TAXIDICAE💰 17:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed that the word "premiere" as not the same as "release". They are not synonyms and not interchangeable. I kindly suggest you re-read my comment above where I address that. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said what you're claiming they said. A premiere is a release, and the distinction between premiere release and wide commercial release isn't germane. But what the infobox cares about in that line is the premiere date — and that's especially true when the film won an award at the film festival in question, which it can't very well have done without having been screened. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat A premiere is NOT (necessarily) a release. I gave the definitions up above. A premiere is a first showing, which can happen before a release. A release is defined as available for general viewing or purchase, which can happen after a premiere. This conversation is not about the infobox, so I don't know how that is germane. And I have no argument that it was screened. I readily admit that it was, but screenings are explicitly excluded from WP:FILMYEAR. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A premiere is necessarily a release, because it is flatly impossible for a film to premiere without being screened. Commercial release is a type of "release"; premiere is another type of release. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - Citation needed. The dictionary disagrees with you, as I quoted above. You can't just throw around the words with different meanings and pretend they are all synonyms willy-nilly. That's called equivocation. In either case, as I've already conceded the consensus over 12 hours ago, I suggest you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My request is very simple. If you can find me one reliable source -- just one -- that explicitly describes its showing at VIFF to be a release... not a screening, not a premiere.... but a release, then I'll concede that its release date was whenever it was shown at VIFF (does anyone even know what that date was, other than some time between Sep 24 and Oct 9, 2020?). Again, I'm interested in verifiability here... nothing more. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're insisting on a distinction that has nothing to do with what the infobox is for. If it premiered at a film festival in 2020, then it's a 2020 film. Later commercial release dates can and should certainly be noted in the article body, but commercial release does not supersede the premiere date as the date that goes in the infobox, the introduction and the "YYYY films" categories — insisting that somebody find sources that explicitly describe the premiere as a "release" instead of a "premiere" has nothing to do with anything, because a film festival premiere is a "release", and the distinction between film festival release and commercial release is not relevant to the infobox at all. And incidentally, I live in a country where "premiered at a film festival in YYYY, but wasn't commercially released to the general public until YYYY+1" is much more the norm for our homegrown films than the exception, so I'd suggest that you don't try telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the infobox. We're not even discussing the infobox. I suggest you understand what this conversation is about. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. It's first release was in October 2020. It's largest/widest release was in April 2021. TAXIDICAE💰 21:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe I am missing the point. I'm saying that the premiere was not a release, because it was not made available for general viewing or purchase at that time, as is the definition of a release. I have stated and re-stated that distinction, including quoting the dictionary definitions, on multiple occasions, and so far no one has addressed that. What can you show that indicates that the film festival made it "available for general viewing or purchase" that is counter to multiple reliable sources and even the statements from the filmmaker himself? Again, I care about verifiability, not assertions. I've provided dictionary definitions, citations, sources, etc. Seems like no one is meeting me halfway here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The premiere was not a release, because it was not made available for general viewing or purchase at that time". So you think the film premiered to an empty theatre, then? Film festivals are open to the public, who can pay to see the film screening — so, by definition, a film festival premiere does not fail to fulfill the "general viewing or purchase" test you're applying. If members of the general public have the ability to pay to view the film, which is precisely the service that a film festival provides, then the film festival has not fallen short of your definition of "release". That's the thing you're missing. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off, @Bearcat:. This debate ended 2 days ago and you were already informed of such on 2 May. Consensus has been reached. There is no reason to keep flogging the dead horse, so put down the bloody stick already. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(reset to left -- can't remember the template, sorry)

You continued to litigate the point well after purportedly conceding that the debate had ended, while invoking "but the debate is over" solely to try to stop other people from responding to your attempts to ensure that your word was the last word being gotten in — yet I'm the one who needs to knock something off? Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I conceded the point on 2 May and said I wouldn't press it further. I accepted the consensus, but I am under no obligation to agree with it. After I agreed to the consensus, why did you continue to argue with me on 3 May and 4 May to points I made the day before I conceded? What was the point other than to attempt to perpetuate an argument that was already agreed to by all involved parties? You "won" the debate. Congratulations. Walk away, don't keep beating up on the "loser". However, in the future, I will ask you to please don't ever assert my motivations, like you did above.-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add this. While fully recognizing that Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself, as a bit of reference, please note that Film festival says in its own lede that automatically considering a film festival a release is a matter of some controversy and rejected by some (many?) film historians. I am unaware if Wikipedia has a stance on that controversy, but I would be surprised if it does. If there is, I would be interested in seeing it for my own edification. Further, the article Film screening does indicate that film festival showings could be considered either a private or public screening, which again, are explicitly excluded by WP:FILMYEAR. That same article also makes a distinction between screenings and releases. Again, I know those aren't reliable sources in and of themselves, but does add additional data points that it isn't as cut-and-dried as "film festival automatically means it was released". As a matter of fairness, I will acknowledge that some movies ARE released at film festivals as part of a joint premiere and release. Sundance Film Festival is notorious for it. However, in those cases, it is almost always as part of its general availability release cycle, which was not clearly not the case here as its release was several months later.

Argument in a nutshell: WP:FILMYEAR says: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release [...], excluding sneak previews or screenings.". I have no argument with this. If it was released at a film festival, that's its date. No issue. However, just because it was screened at the film festival, doesn't necessarily mean it was considered released at the film festival. Nothing in FILMYEAR says that. Nothing anywhere says that, and some film historians explicitly reject the notion. As mere screenings are explicitly excluded by FILMYEAR, in order to say it was released (as opposed to merely screened) at the film festival, we must have a reliable source saying that. I don't believe that the word "premiere" meets that burden as a premiere is merely the first showing, not a release, per the dictionary. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A festival is comprised of screenings, so you simply won't find a source that says the film was "released" and not "screened" at the festival, because that it is not how exhibition is framed at a festival. The key question here is could the paying public buy a ticket and go and watch the film? Or was the film just screened for potential distributors, film critics or a test audience? We only care about one thing as far as the lead, infobox and categories are concerned: what was the first year in which the public could pay to go and watch the film? If it was shown to the public at the festival then that was its first public exhibition, and that is the date that should be used. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I can see how the consensus is going here, so I won't press this further. For the record, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that everything in the world says "2021" except Wikipedia. Rotten Tomatoes, 2021. IMDB, 2021. Metacritic, 2021. The MPAA (Certificate #53070), 2021 [10]. The filmmaker himself, 2021.... and if it had a snowball's chance in Hades of getting an Oscar nod, it would be for the 2021 Oscars, not 2020.

However, Wikipedia seems to know better than everyone else though, regardless of reliable resources, verifiability, and every other pillar of this project... even though that's precisely what we are not supposed to do. Regardless, I know a WP:SNOW when I see one, and so I'll just leave this as-is. Still think it's wrong though. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchiving this discussion. See WP:TALK and WP:CLOSE re the time and proper procedure for closing discussisons, and also that it is not done by involved editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to keep a discussion going when everyone is in agreement, consensus is reached and unlikely to be changed, especially when one editor was refusing to put down the stick and was still wanting to argue for days even after I conceded. But whatever, have it your way. I'm frankly sick of this whole goddamned thing. I made a case. Consensus was reached the other way. I accepted it. It should be over, but it seems Wikipedia just won't just let the damned thing die and wants to beat me over the head for daring saying something in the first place. This has been a shit experience all around. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one reason to "keep it going" is that there was absolutely zero reason to close it. Zero. Your dislike of open discussions isn't one of them. Coretheapple (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]