Talk:Mickey 17

Spoiler for an unrelated work

I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but it seems like a totally unnecessary spoiler to include the section "See also" that exists only as a spoiler for the film "Moon, 2009 film with a similar premise". That reveal is the whole climax of that other film with no other connection to Mickey17. 2605:A601:901A:3F00:150:ED49:F7DC:FB4C (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Missing release date

The world premiere was in London on the 13th of February. Should it not be listed above the Berlinale? 2A00:23C8:4D0C:7601:B826:280D:7BBB:1BBE (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Moon

I added a See Also link to Moon (2009 film) as both movies center on an “expendable” character in space who is repeatedly cloned.173.27.3.111 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Biased editing?

The lede stated that this film is a 'box office bomb' - it's in the top 10 of the year so far, and has grossed a few thousand less than Bridget Jones' Diary.

The film does feature a character that seems to be an unflattering parody of Donald Trump / Musk, and isn't very subtle about it.

This does have quite a strong potential to antagonise some people, but I don't think that's a good reason to randomly claim it's a huge failure, when critical responses and box office figures do not bear this out.

I'm not actually sure why box office figures need to be mentioned at all in the lede, as it's a statistics that's going to go out of date very quickly, but if it's there it should be accurate.

And I suspect the page might benefit from some protection, as there was glaringly inaccurate info and I immediately concluded a political reason - which very probably makes me biased the other way, so if anybody isn't bothered about the current political situation and / or about the film, you're probably better placed to judge than me. Moubliezpas (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

'box office flop'

The 2 users who keep editing the lede to call the film a 'box office flop' (found in the edit logs just before the regular 'updated box office figures' change and unspecified minor edits with no change log)

- Wikipedia is not the place for you to decide whether or not the film is, or should be, a success. 

Critical and audience reviews are overwhelmingly positive, as stated in the article, and the film is in the top 10 highest grossing films of the year, as stated at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_in_film#Highest-grossing_films as of April 2025.

If the professionals like it, the audiences like it, and it's among the highest grossing films of the quarter, it is patently absurd to call it a failure based on your own personal opinion.

Please stop doing it. All it's doing is drawing attention to the fact that it parodies a certain controversial president and has an inter-racial relationship, and that gives some people Very Big Feelings that they can't contain. These Very Big Feelings are not in any way relevant to the film, to Wikipedia, or to the billions of people who want to find information from objective sources.

There is an entire website devoted to 'non woke shows' that you can support. There are countless places for you to publicly post your opinions on films, actors, politics and (fewer but still there) racial policies of society and media. There are not many websites that aim to stick to established, non biased facts. Let's keep them separate and all enjoy the rest of our day and our lives without fixating on a random film. Moubliezpas (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's sourced reliably in the Box office section. It's about BOX OFFICE numbers, not reception. You are the only one bringing up "Very Big Feelings", whatever that means. With a combined $198 million spent on production and marketing, it was estimated the film needed to gross $240–300 million worldwide in order to break-even. Variety later reported the film would lose Warner Bros. $75–80 million during its theatrical run. Mike Allen 11:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)