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

Resolved

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)  Done Filmgoer (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC) 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.  Done Filmgoer (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC) 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.  Done Filmgoer (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Perhaps I should've said, something which doesn't/shouldn't be changed is technical terms; "negligent failure to prevent" should have been left as it was ("failure to prevent" is the term), not changed to "negligence in preventing". Kingsif (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)  Done Filmgoer (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC) 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.  Done Filmgoer (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• 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").
  • •  Done Filmgoer (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

    Based on the edits, the Romberger still/now has some close paraphrasing at a part. I think perhaps a compromise can be reached, i.e. directly quoting the "appeared to mix ancient Roman, art deco and speculative sci-fi stylizations" part since that's a concise quote and hard to write any other way. Will continue checking, thanks for the work! Kingsif (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

    And the "four hundred pages" part hasn't been addressed? Kingsif (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

    In a similar way, in the Egan part (Hollywood Reporter) I think it would be easier to quote the person describing him as a "low-key guy" (only using that part of the quote), than trying to rephrase that. It's a balancing act. Kingsif (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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

• Hi @Filmgoer:, how are getting with checking/improving some of this? Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hoping to advance on it / get it done this busy week. Filmgoer (talk) 01:56, 4 March 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/)
  •  Done Filmgoer (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• 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.

Speedy pass (including AGF) 14/30 (Formatting issues resolved: 2/2)

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 #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 #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 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 #79: One of two sources for info of deal for shoots during strike Mentions everything but potential reshoots AGF that's in the other source, ✓ Pass Ref #59: On the origins of the character name "Wow" Everything in source - and, by how the Tweet is cited, in the ref, too ✓ Pass Kingsif (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Ref #157: Coppola on Letterboxd Info all there. ✓ Pass Ref #180: For a quote on first reactions Quote is there. ✓ 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 @Filmgoer: Just leaving this here to ask if it's possible to replace the archive url for (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/movies/aubrey-plaza-megalopolis-my-old-ass-agatha-all-along.html) in the article with the one linked here, since it seems more complete? Kingsif (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)  Done Ref #151: Fake critic quotes trailer comparison Just a note that the ref misspells Debruge's name. Info in source. ✓ Pass Ref #106: On getting a distributor First screening on March 28 at CityWalk IMAX in source Barry Hirsch's role in source All info on distribution plan (or lack thereof) in source ✓ Pass Ref #127: Appearance at Rome Film Festival I can read Italian well enough to fully confirm the info is in the source. Could be worth mentioning that the Italian Ministry of Culture presented the screening ✓ Pass Ref #135: On novelization All good ✓ Pass

Minor/text issues 11/30 (Resolved: 2/11)

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 #75: Apparently promo material for the All-Movie Hotel... Here's where I ask if it's viable to make an article for the All-Movie Hotel, link it, and remove the best part of this paragraph from this article. hospitality and facilities needed to make films - verbatim. Now, while it isn't quoted in the article, it still seems to connect the idea that the hospitality services are lumped in as being needed to make films. The source (and just general knowledge) makes it clear that the hospitality services, and the filmmaking facilities, are separate. Perhaps this needs to import the word "both" from the source and stick it in as a direct quotation (offers both hospitality and facilities needed to make films) or, preferably, be rewritten in a way which also addresses tone. 27 rooms - just saying this seems like the whole motel has only 27 (guest) rooms total, while the source says "27 suites and rooms which were personally designed by Coppola". Suites and rooms are already different, but the source is also specific about this number being (only) those designed by Coppola. two edit suites with laser projection and Meyer Sound 2.1 monitoring, two edit bays, offices, an ADR recording room, a conference room, an insert stage - verbatim. May need to be turned into a direct quotation but would really do, again, with being written in a more digestible and less advertising way. Additionally, if "insert stage" is being kept, it may need linking (sound stage is the best we've got) and/or explaining. a convivial space - I mean, it's in the source, but as a way of describing the so-called Green Room, so it's kinda weird to just have it on its own in the article. Either way, it doesn't need to be in the article. That there's a shared kitchen with a film-y brand name is just not pertinent information on this hotel conversion. a screening room for private viewings, editing, or 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos sound mixing with calibrated Meyer sound monitoring, plus a swimming pool, wardrobe fitting room, and gym - all basically verbatim. Not sure how this escaped the copyvio check but again, while info is present and correct it needs re-writing. Also this run-on sentence is just abominable anyway. It's a list with bundled lists but nothing differentiated, just commas. Clauses are non-existent. Makes it sound like the swimming pool's in the screening room. Please can this just be re-written, preferably as at least three sentences, with hefty chunks removed. The source is clearly if not admittedly an advertising brief, so copyvio-quoting large chunks is just importing that. Honestly, the source's info that Coppola already has a hotel chain and branding this became the first one in the US, and that the room where he lived while making Megalopolis is available to book, seem far more significant than being told you can screen in the screening room. Needs some work on accuracy (including where the run-on sentence obscures info), and on tone. ✗ Fail Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Ref #32: Production notes from 2001 As one of three sources for Proposed filming locations included the cities of Montreal and New York, with an anticipated budget of $50–80 million (equivalent to $82.2 million to $131 million in 2024). - frankly, this source doesn't include any of that information, except kinda New York as a "proposed" filming location (the source discusses footage shot in New York in 2001). Assuming that the other two sources include all of the other information, I can't really understand including this even if those other two don't mention proposed filming in New York - if they don't, I would remove the mention from the article, because this source doesn't state that it was a pre-shooting proposal, either. This source should be removed from this sentence. As one of two sources for [In 2001], Coppola and cinematographer Ron Fricke recorded second unit footage of New York, thinking it would be simpler to do so before principal photography, with the 24-frames per second Sony F900 digital camera that George Lucas used for Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999). - mentions: second unit footage recorded in NYC, using the 24-frames per second digital camera as used for Phantom Menace. No mention of Ron Fricke, being simpler to do before photography. Technically no mention of Sony F900, but it's the only camera to match the info. AGF that Fricke, "simpler", and F900 to be sure, are in the other source, this is good. As the source for a quote said by Coppola in October [2001], declaring his plans to rewrite the film - the quote is in the source and the next paragraph reports that Coppola had connected his rewrites to 9/11. However, while the source is from October, it doesn't specify when Coppola spoke to the friends, which could have been in September. "in October" could be changed to "at the time". This is good. As another thought, the source mentions a 2000 interview in which Coppola discusses some inspiration for the film coming from the state of disrepair New York faced in the mid-80s. Is it possible to incorporate this information to the article somehow? ? Ref #17: One of two sources on the vision of outdoor ampitheatre staging Mentions Beggs' description of Coppola's idea for a four-night opera-esque screening close to the centre of the US, compared to Wagner in Bayreuth. The Bayreuth comparison is more in terms of people coming from across the country, rather than timescale, but I have checked the other source and in it Beggs makes the comparison in terms of timescale. I was checking the other source because there are two direct quotations in the article, and only one of them was in this source. Yes, the other is in the other source. It would be better if the quotations had the relevant sources attached (even if that means some duplication across the sentence, with the two sources together going on all the shared information - some much-needed tweaking will help cut down on this). ? Ref #93: One of two sources for '00s Golijov soundtrack info Mentions a handwritten letter. Actually sounds more like the letter did not ask him to compose a symphony, with the "And we agreed that I would". Does not mention letter was in 2003, AGF this is in the other source. Mentions that the symphony would have dictated the rhythm of the film. Source mentions why Coppola sought him out as a not-Hollywood composer, which would be interesting to include in the article. Source mentions that another inspiration for Megalopolis was Robert Moses tearing down New York for highways in the 50s - this also isn't (really) mentioned in the article and would be interesting. ? Kingsif (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Ref #101: that Megalopolis retells real-life Cicero's claim that Catiline murdered his first wife. The source mentions the real claim, but nothing about the film. I guess the plot section in the article does describe that the film includes that Cicero prosecuted [Cesar] for murdering [his wife], but a source comparing them would be nice - I'm sure one exists. ? ✓ Pass per #Source review Kingsif (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Ref #114: Quote (and its context) for Coppola's movie-related views on modern distribution Now, on an article prose basis, I'm not confident this information necessarily belongs in the article at all, but that if it does then it should be connected to Coppola and co having trouble securing distribution - which was the question posed to him, so it is the relevant context - rather than tacked on to its Cannes premiere just because that's where he said it. The time stamp in the ref is wrong: it's 30:45 (not 31:45) when the relevant part of the video starts. The part quoted in the article as So it might be that the studios we knew for so long are not [going] to be here in the future anymore is not exactly that - the article quotation has more elisions than are marked. Otherwise good. ? Ref #120: One of two sources for Lionsgate only distributing when Coppola agreed to pay marketing costs, and estimating those Generally contains the information... Doesn't perhaps outright say Lionsgate only made the deal because Coppola agreed to pay for marketing: this source focuses on other reasons Lionsgate would associate, and only says they won't have to pay marketing Estimates the costs as "around $15 million to $20 million", while the Wikipedia article has $15–17 million. If we AGF that the other of the two sources more firmly makes the point about marketing's significance in the deal, and has the numbers reflected in the article, then this source and its close-but-not-quite info is not only unnecessary but unhelpful, and should be removed. ✗ Fail Ref #132: Digital HD release WP:FORBESCON, sort of. Tim Lammers is a strong name in film journalism, and the information is simple fact, so this would not be an issue. Per the source, however, the information is "According to When to Stream". Lammers explains that When to Stream is "typically accurate", but... Source actually says that while When to Stream has given the date, the website also "noted that the PVOD has not been announced and confirmed by Megalopolis’ distributor Lionsgate Films, so the date is subject to change." So the information would have to be presented as speculative in the Wikipedia article... Lionsgate made the announcement (with the same date) two weeks later. A source like Screen Rant has the confirmed announcement, and should replace the Forbes source. ✗ Fail Ref #185: Tim Grierson's negative review Reviews and how they're summarised are particularly hard to match in source reviews, sorry that this number came up. Review is negative, so that checks. narratively excessive, incoherent, and uneven is how wikivoice characterizes Grierson's comments. Presuming all three descriptors are for the narrative, I would say that calling the plot "excessive" and narrative "incoherent" are very apparent in the review. The only thing I see that the review kinda describes as "uneven" is the clashing acting performances. Speaking of, direct quotations cartoonish performances and stray ideas and themes that are introduced, then abandoned are both in the source. The Wikipedia sentence is just saying that the quotes were said as a negative, so these are good. Would you be able to remember where you saw something about the narrative called something like "uneven" in the source? ? Ref #85: Some Coppola quotes on not touching women inappropriately The quotes are in the source, though one is more than a bit misrepresented. I also think, given there's decent context for how the quotes were said in the source, it would be useful to include this because otherwise the sentences read as non-sequitur. First, the misrepresented quote. The sentence [Coppola] also referred to a photo of a girl he kissed on the cheek that her father had taken, adding, "I knew her when she was nine. I'm not touchy-feely. I'm too shy". in the article kinda makes it sound like there's another incident of Coppola kissing a nine-year-old girl on the cheek and her father taking a photo, that Coppola brings up this other incident out of nowhere, and then says something bizarre. That's not the case. It's also not all one quote. It should be expressed more clearly how "Coppola also said that one of the women he kissed on the cheek is someone he had known since she was young." (which is the relevant part, not a photo of them taken by her father) Then, the rest is a separate quote, which can be covered with the other quote about his mother. (So, next part) Second, context. The source article mostly inserts these quotations as exemplar of how Coppola discusses and rambles in his responses, and it is helpful to parse the quotes by mentioning what the source does. We can still start with When asked about the accusations, but then mention how "Coppola gave rambling answers and discussed how he shows affection, describing himself as "too shy" to be touchy-feely, and referring to advice his mother gave him, saying: 'if you make an advance toward ... didn't disrespect them'." ✗ Fail Kingsif (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC) I see that in the edits to reduce direct quotations, the content here was changed. The describing rather than unfaithfully and awkwardly quoting is an improvement, so I'm happy to take this out of "misrepresenting direct quotations", but it's still not actually getting across the 'point' of the source, which in turn makes it feel like there's little point to the inclusion of such text in the article. explained that he was raised to see romantic advances as a sign of disrespect toward women. - this is, as I read it, effectively just agreeing with allegations. It misses the important ("certainly didn't disrespect them") part. He referenced a photo taken by a father of his daughter receiving a kiss on the cheek, noting that he had known her since she was nine. - as said, the details are extraneous and distracting. Including them makes them seem significant, and a reader will thus try to find meaning in the photo, relationship and age. The important part here is Coppola's inference that there was nothing sexual or inappropriate because he was interacting with people he had known a long time - the base statement that he had known one of the women he kissed for a long time is what we can/should include. The other sentence can just be written better so can probably be addressed elsewhere.

Integrity issues 5/30 (Resolved: 1/5)

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". ?  Done Filmgoer (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Ref #192: Cannes Palme d'Or nom Doesn't mention Megalopolis at all. I presume you meant this article instead (https://web.archive.org/web/20240510021739/https://deadline.com/2024/04/cannes-film-festival-lineup-2024-live-francis-ford-coppola-thierry-fremaux-1235881376/)? ✗ Fail Kingsif (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Ref #163: Box office opening Source includes the information for It debuted to $4 million, finishing sixth at the box office. - the sentence the ref is attached to It looks like the ref is supposed to support the previous sentence (The film made $1.8 million on its first day, including an estimated $770,000 from Monday and Thursday previews), too, however, and none of that is there. Is there a missing ref or two? (e.g. September 27 on Box Office Mojo would confirm The film made $1.8 million on its first day.) ✗ Fail Ref #144: Oli Welsh's take on the (fake) review trailer (pre-reveal); and Ref #145: Mary Kate Carr's take on the same Honestly handling these two together because they bear the same, unfortunate, issue I now fear I've seen too much of in this article. That is, using direct quotations in a way that misrepresents them. For #144, the way the Wikipedia article is written makes it sound like Welsh calls the trailer defensive but that this, hypocritically, is Welsh himself implying viewers should see the movie before it gets reappraised. Which would be nonsense, but that's how it reads. The source makes it clear Welsh being critical of the trailer's defensiveness is because, he says, the trailer implies viewers should see the movie (etc). This is poor phrasing in the Wikipedia article more than anything else, really, but it still misrepresents (two) direct quotations to the point of confusion. For #145, the Wikipedia article says that Carr called the trailer pretty clever apparently because of it highlighting similarities between Cesar and Coppola. While Carr notes similarities between the character and writer-director, it is from a line in the film that is present in the trailer, and Carr is making the comparison herself ("You have to imagine that the 85-year-old filmmaker is wondering the same.") She does not say that the trailer compares the two, and obviously then can't praise this. The "pretty clever" is Carr referring to the trailer "[making] Megalopolis‘ baffling reputation part of the marketing for the movie." ✗ Fail

• Having less than 50% of the sample sources be either totally or even just AGF faithfully represented in the Wikipedia article is bad. It's helpful that of the issues, the larger part (37-ish% overall) have what I see as lesser issues than outright being wrong. But still, with 17-ish% of the sample either not containing any of the information they supposedly source, or misrepresenting direct quotations, that's too high.

  If this is an accurate reflection of all references in the article, that's 30+ references (which may be repeated or contain multiple sources, as many do) that are unfaithful - how much information is there that is either not actually sourced, or is poorly sourced, or is misrepresenting what the source says? I don't want to have to check every single reference, but I think I'll at least have to go through all the quotations because of the unfortunate trend with them. Kingsif (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Filmgoer: Anything on some of these? Kingsif (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• @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)

I'm having trouble responding to the source review in-line, but I added a source to support ref #101: the London Review of Books notes that both the real Catiline and the film Catalina were accused of murdering their wives. Hope this helps. Namelessposter (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• • @Namelessposter: Thanks for that! Kingsif (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• @ZanderAlbatraz1145: If you're ever willing to actually acknowledge discussion, welcome to a GAN review. You can look at the first bullet under "integrity issues" to see the discussion of the content you're so insistent has to be presented as a block quote. If you're not satisfied, we can discuss how distorting the contextual meaning of a direct quotation is very not allowed, and how block quotes (or 'hanging indent') are typically only included when using a entire direct quotation is necessary and it's too long to do so in-line. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I was completely unaware of any of this. I'll look into it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, now that I've that first bullet, I actually do have a say about this (if you care to listen at this point). I understand the point about the quote being misleading to Coppola's full original entry thought in the diary, and therefore no longer see the point in including it. HOWEVER, I think that the article should include User:Filmgoer's original sentence proposal as opposed to the shortened one including in the article currently, as I feel it does not properly capture the point he is trying to make, especially at the end when he references the unrealized project Cure. To be clear, this sentence is 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". It is, I think, much more eloquent and clear, from an outsider perspective when reading it, and offers a better idea of the director's thought process and continual pondering, general back-and-forth about Megalopolis.

  Anyway, there's my 50 cents. Apologies if I came across as difficult initially. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply, Zander - FWIW, I have not edited the content in the article and the sentence proposal you mention was mine. I suppose you and Filmgoer can discuss the exact phrasing if you want. Honestly, you come off as incredibly resistant to discussion, and I hope you see from this that actually engaging can be useful for everyone, even if it takes a bit longer. As I think I've told you before, I can be the same, so we can all improve. Kingsif (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Also a question about whether the suggested ref at the talkpage is planned to be incorporated? Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Assuming that's the comment about Aubrey Plaza, I leave that to @Filmgoer, who wrote that section. Namelessposter (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, the Wes Davis "Why are Instagram searches for 'Adam Driver Megalopolis' blocked for CSAM?" one Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Focus

• I think is for @Namelessposter:, being in the themes and all. The largest paragraph of "Rome's example for America" is a retelling of the traditional narrative of the Catilinarian conspiracy. The standalone paragraph is not connected to the film or a theme of comparison to modern America. Taking these two facts, I think it's too much tangential information. Of course there should be some overview, but only what is needed to understand any specific film and theme related items being written about. As it stands, I don't think the paragraph is suitable, and that instead a briefer overview should be added at the end of the next (In 1999) paragraph (where it would also already flow nicely after his views reflected the traditional narrative of the conspiracy).
  • I also think not having a paragraph that is just "this is intro to the Catalinarian conspiracy" is needed to meet the spirit of MOS:FILMDIFF, in the sense that the conspiracy story has been adapted for the film story, and so (as I thought anyway) the original material and any differences should only really be written about with real-world context.

Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I made some edits, please let me know what you think. Namelessposter (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested in the timeline of Coppola's thoughts on the Catilinarian conspiracy and his analogy, especially now the edits have sort of re-arranged what was written. Specifically, the use of "however" seems... wrong to me. I wouldn't want wikivoice to ascribe hypocrisy to Coppola's views that may have been aligned in 1999 and have just developed, so getting this chronology right could be important, especially without sources suggesting his views conflicted with themselves at any given time. I know I'm being picky, but those little words give a reader impressions on information and intention, and we need to be sure it's accurate, you know. I'm really impressed by your editing so far based on just some prompts and questions. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the kind words - always appreciated.

I'm willing to stand by what I said originally, but here's the statements I'm relying on for clarity.

I don't think Coppola is very clear about the timeline, as tends to happen when timelines get long. His production notes for Cannes are temporally ambiguous, but state that he "began developing [the film] in the early 1980s" and that the first table reads took place in 2001. (p. 2) But they then add that "I really only began writing this script, on and off, in the last dozen years or so." (p. 4)

The production notes do seem to suggest that he did begin with the traditional narrative while building a certain skepticism that eventually ripened into the film's revisionism: "I began with the essence of a plot: perhaps an evil patrician (Catiline) plotted to overthrow the Republic, but was thwarted by Cicero, the consul. ... I wondered whether the traditional portrayal of Catiline as ‘evil’ and Cicero as ‘good’ was necessarily true. In history, Catiline lost and was killed and Cicero survived. But since the survivor tells the story, I wondered, what if what Catiline had in mind for his new society was a realignment of those in power and could have even in fact been ‘visionary’ and ‘good’, while Cicero perhaps could have been 'reactionary' and ‘bad’." (p. 4)

I'm also drawing from this 1999 interview with The Scenario:

• "[M]odern New York, which is to say modern America, is amazingly the counterpart of Republican Rome." Okay, that's the same as before.
• "People who read Latin always have to read Cicero, and all the speeches in which he denounces Catiline. No one knows too much about who Catiline was, because all we read about him is from the people who were ultimately his enemies." There is that skepticism of Cicero early on, so we can thread that in somewhere.
• "[W]e already know what happened to Rome. Rome became a fascist Empire. Is that what we’re going to become? ... I use a New York as it was ten, fifteen years ago when it was in a financial crisis, because the big issue of the day, in that period in Rome, was debt." This isn't 100% clear but it seems to reflect the traditional narrative of the Catilinarian conspiracy, where Catiline found himself in such heavy debts that he decided to break the entire Roman political system and forgive everyone's debts to cover for forgiving his own.
• Catilina is "more like Robert Moses. He’s the only guy that could have cut it back then. ... My Catiline is many people, but he’s got a lot of Robert Moses." So you do have the Catiline-as-master-builder aspect early on.

Finally, there's a 2001 book review by Coppola's eventual historical advisor Mary Beard, who writes that "And then there’s Francis Ford Coppola’s forthcoming Megalopolis, which, according to the advance publicity, will combine a utopian vision of a futuristic New York with the themes of the Catilinarian Conspiracy. Exactly how remains unclear." The statement implies that at this point, Beard had not been consulting with Coppola. Given that Coppola draws from Beard's (mildly) revisionist account of the conspiracy, I suspect that he didn't settle on a revisionist message until after 2001. Even then, Coppola goes a lot further than Beard, who still (via an NYT reviewer) still "describes Catilina [in her 2015 book SPQR] as 'a disgruntled, bankrupt aristocrat' who wanted to assassinate all the elected officials, burn the capital to the ground and write off everyone's debts." Namelessposter (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this long examination of the available sources! More comfortable with "however" now, as it is referring to 1999 and it seems clear the story of the film as it is came after that.

I'm also interested in your thinking behind moving mention of McCullough's tie-in book out of that section and to production - I can see value in mentioning that Coppola had clearly consulted with her in, presumably, the early 2010s (though the production section itself should not be a 'simple timeline'... more on that later, perhaps), but is it not still worth mentioning the book in its own section? Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I can copy a mention of the book back into the tie-in section, although I note that as far as I can tell there are no signs of it actually being published just yet. Namelessposter (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

TBF, none of the tie-ins have been released yet. Apparently (as of last autumn) the graphic novel is still planned to release and (as of this month) the documentary is still Figgis' main project being worked on. Speaking of, the section will need some edits, because it does sound like everything has been released... Kingsif (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

True and modified accordingly. I took a quick look through Image Comics' upcoming editions page and there's nothing on Megalopolis. Namelessposter (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I can imagine publishers don't see commercial value in selling the *story* of Megalopolis in other media, based on response to the movie, so novels are unlikely to be released. But, for the same reason, everyone will want to see the BTS doc... Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Writing

Structure (including WP:MOSFILM adherence) and information location

• MOS layout – lead>plot>cast>production (chronological breakdown per MOS:FILMPRODUCTION)>themes>release(>home media)>reception(>box office>critical reception>audience reception>accolades)>refs>ELs – is strictly followed ✓ Pass
  • Also, MOS:FILMCONTROVERSIES. Without looking at the relevant section from a NPOV standpoint (neutrality check will be done later), DUE for its existence is met, and its location is appropriate within the structure. ✓ Pass

General questions/corrections

• The character-related footnotes in the plot section somewhat offer analysis, which per MOS is discouraged. As they are about characters, of course, they already (and again per MOS) would probably be more suitable as second-level bullets in the cast list. The article is well-developed enough that longer information for some main characters in the list is appropriate. I think this would require removal of the cast list template for regular bullet points.
  • Related; the Catalina footnote contains some information duplicated elsewhere in the article (Mary Beard's suggestion of first name). I think this would be better to only appear in the character description in the cast list.
  • Related; I would also, similarly, move some of the information on the origin of Wow Platinum's name from the article body to the cast list.
  • The plot section footnote A possible allusion to the death of Benito Mussolini. could just be put into text, as a sourced subjective description of what happens (acceptable just about in MOS, if there is no further analysis).

Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I went back and forth on that. The cast list is quite long and the article, like the film itself, can be weighed down by all the historical metaphors. There's not really a clear place to put it. Since most of these names except "Wow Platinum" are direct allusions to ancient Rome, perhaps they'd fit better in the "themes" section, where I have thought about a three-column table going <CHARACTER>, <REAL-LIFE INSPIRATION>, <ELABORATION>; the material in the footnotes being the material for <ELABORATION>. What do you think?

No objection re: origin of Wow's name. However, I think that the Mussolini allegory is ... not quite trivia but less than plot-relevant, so I'd prefer to leave it out of the body text of the plot summary, which is already 693 words without footnotes. Namelessposter (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the idea of including in themes. Would you be able to try a prose version first - a sort of "the names allude to historical figures and their roles, which are significant because XYZ". A table has potential, too, but I think the thematic connection may not be so clearly conveyed if it just looks like a list of names! Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure - let me know what you think about the edit. I moved Wow and Mussolini to the same section, I hope you don't mind. Namelessposter (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I've gone through all the technical parts before getting on to just reading through the whole article again for the various aspects of written prose. Based on the length and my increasing familiarity with the sources, I have one comment before doing that: what are the thoughts on creating a "Production of" article – which could be more in-depth than what we have here, and potentially add some other ways of presenting information (like... a timeline table), and would be a more apt location for all the All-Movie Hotel info if that isn't suitable for its own article – and keeping a condensed version of the various production sections here? Let me know @Filmgoer and Namelessposter: (and anyone else, we could ask at the film project if necessary). Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'd probably vote for asking the film project first, but it sounds like a good idea. Filmgoer (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Filmgoer. Namelessposter (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Illlustration

Good

Infobox contains film poster (fair use), is complete of significant information ✓ Pass Photo of Coppola from around the time he first thought of the film idea is actually really useful - much more than usual when including director photos in development section. Seeing him at that age sort of visually cements how long it took (matched by the photo at the premiere, really good use of photos). Photo has good free license. ✓ Pass Cicero Denounces Catiline - it's got good use in the relevant section: a source connects the painting and the theme. Obviously old and free to use. Now, I honestly think this image could be made bigger - the caption refers to figures and areas of the painting that appear small at this size. And the caption itself is the same size as the current rendering of the picture. ? Increased to 350x228, hope that works. Namelessposter (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Solid size. ✓ Pass Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Coppola at Cannes - smart use as already mentioned. License is good. Crop here is good. ✓ Pass Accolades table seems to meet requirements. ✓ Pass

• The quote box at the end of the plot section seems unnecessary for what it contains, and is ...ugly... Could this just be put in the plot description. Or, if there's an argument to highlight it beyond simple plot, should it not be in some section on theme analysis? ?
• Economical multi-image box for the main ensemble cast, with very small photos of six of them. ?
  • Are they all suitably visible, e.g. there are significant differences between widescreen desktop and mobile view
  • Some "(L-R)"s needed in the caption
• Photo of Trilith sound stages. ?
  • Based on its small size and thin dimensions, this is not suitably visible on either widescreen or regular desktop views (yet to check others). It's just a small grey-other grey rectangle.
  • Rather than just make it a larger size, I think the full version (File:Trilith Soundstages.jpg) should be used. It's much better. Even in full screen view, the current version's close crop, removing 'grounding' other features around the building and preventing any visual contrast, honestly makes it hard to just recognise the building as the subject. Like, it actually takes a bit of thought to determine the building edges near the photo edges, and the plants obscuring part of it make it even harder. The road sign is all that really feels visible. The full version of the image has more sky and ground, offering greater contrast to make the building more obvious and visible, and offering the dimensionality that humans generally find useful in photos, some surrounding space to help with seeing the subject.
  • Commons license seems good.
• Photo of the Tabernacle. ?
  • First, I also think the minor crop here was unnecessary. All it did was shave off the street in front of the building, and the real result of that is giving a bit of a floating building feel to looking at it, again harder to see the building as being in its space. Surrounding features don't all need cropping to be tight on the subject most of the time, but it's especially unnecessary when those features help compose the whole photo.
  • However, I don't think this is the best view of the Tabernacle in general (plenty of recent front, rather than corner with angled camera, views on Commons), and in particular not for the illustrative purpose in the article. The scene being discussed is an interior nightclub scene. Best practice is the photo should be of the Tabernacle's interior nightclub (then, if not possible, interior other, and only then the best exterior image). We don't have to worry about other options, though because Commons does have a photo of the Tabernacle interior used as a nightclub: File:Tabernacle wide.jpg. That should be used.
  • The caption isn't the best. Allegations didn't arise in the Tabernacle, it's where the alleged behaviour took place. Of course, with the new photo, a new caption would be appropriate anyway.
• Given the length of the article, I think more illustrative elements could be a boon. The first I think of is the quotes trailer - I feel a relevant screenshot would meet fair use (taken down sure but still licensed out to trailer platforms and so accessible without copyvio, e.g. ONE Media). So yeah, further illustration is not absolutely needed, but if during review or another read-through, other parts that could be improved with illustration jump out, I would encourage it. Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 13 March 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: Have now covered your suggestions. Let me know if anything more is needed. Filmgoer (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)