Talk:Glass (2019 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Release date & page link[edit]

Hello, my edit to redirect this article to the page Glass (2019 film) has been reversed. This was done on the basis that this film has no release date. The film however does have a release date of January 18, 2019. This release date has been confirmed by the director himself. Various sources:

The only reliable secondary source there is The Guardian, which makes no mention of any release date. In any event, the correct procedure would have been to move the existing article to Glass (2019 film), not start another article! Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand those may not be considered the best sources, but Universal Pictures's official website lists the film's release date for 2019. https://www.universalpictures.com/movies#future-releases. I believe that should be considered reliable enough to justify including the release date in the title.
Additionally, I did move the existing article to Glass (2019 film), not start another article. The article already existed, as a redirect page. AgeofUltron 03:41, 26 September 2017 (PT)
Release date is given by an article in Forbes as November 2017, and they say it till be the final in the Eastrail 177 Trilogy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/04/how-m-night-shyamalans-glass-takes-the-right-lessons-from-the-avengers/#395f4ef43d90 .

Music[edit]

What's the source for James Newton Howard and/or West Dylan Thordson doing the music for the film? They're both mentioned in the infobox, but there's nothing in the article itself about it, so I'm suspicious of it being speculation. -- I need a name (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.Luciusfoxx (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 Reviews[edit]

With regard to the "Critical response" section, can someone clarify on how reviewers at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have seen the film before its release planned on 18-Jan-2019?

"On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 36% based on 36 reviews, with an average rating of 5.2/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Glass displays a few glimmers of M. Night Shyamalan at his twisty world-building best, but ultimately disappoints as the conclusion to the writer-director's long-gestating trilogy."[43] On Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, the film has a score of 45 out of 100, based on 18 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[44]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindan Shanmugasundaram (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critics get to see films at things called advance screenings. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Age of SLJ's Mother[edit]

Have just noticed that the actress playing Samuel L Jackson's mother in the film is 65, whereas he is 70. Cary Grant in "North By Northwest" is another famous example of this biological phenomenon, and he wasn't even a superhero.

Might be worth a mention if it gets mentioned on some film review site ...Paulturtle (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial, not worth mentioning. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes worth mentioning if film critics mention it, like they do about Cary Grant being older than the actress who plays his mother in "North By NorthWest". The reason I found out is because I looked up the actress who played his mother, idly assuming her to much older than she actually is (and Samuel L Jackson is actually a bit older than I thought he was).Paulturtle (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Actually, and in the interests of keeping my comments accurate, I've just looked up the actress who played Cary Grant's mother, and her (in)famous claim to be a year or two younger than him is actually false - she is now known to have shaved 8 years off her age, as women sometimes used to do, and was actually slightly older than him, albeit still not old enough to be his mother. But still notable.Paulturtle (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

As usual, a number of editors really want to synthesize the reviews into one statement. So, varying from one moment to the next, we find that this one film has "received mixed reviews", "received mixed to negative reviews", "received generally negative reviews" and been "panned" or "generally panned".

Which one is right? None of them are. They are all synthesis. Find a reliable source (not an aggregator's algorithm), quote it, cite it and be done with it. Or, just keep on changing the wording every few hours until the excitement wears off in a couple of weeks and I'll come back and remove it. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed clearly say this movie was "generally panned by critics." Or "slammed" or "panned." This is a no-brainer actually. I noticed someone idiotically using Metacritic as their source for "mixed" when the precedent for competent articles on wikipedia is that it is NEVER used. We should directly quote the sources, or at least closely paraphrase. The consensus on this movie is quite clear, critics were lock in step they this movie disappointed them. However, audiences and fans liked it and this movie has superfine who like to come to this page and vandalize it because of anti-intellectual reasoning and critic-playa-hating. Again, in the best case scenario this is just another case on wikipedia of fans of a movie who are passive-aggressively protesting the critics. Worse case scenario, studio hacks and corporate trolls working for the film company who made "Glass" are coming here, worried this is bad press, and trying to salvage it. Go ahead, I'd fix it and restore it to what the sources already listed are saying. Or I will just do in a day or two. Thanks for addressing this.Luciusfoxx (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TL;dr: I don't care what the article says as long as there's a source to support it. I reverted (twice) the addition of phrasing that made claims about the movie, and included a reference to the New York Times, but that reference did not make anything close to the statement made in the article. I have zero problem with this movie being labeled "the best movie ever" or "the worst movie of all time", so long as there's a reliable source to back that statement up. There have also been a number of anons/new accounts attempting to change the wording, hence why I requested page protection to try and curb the back and forth this article has been going through. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TD;DC The sources don’t support your contention that this was “mixed.” And Wikipedia has made it clear that using Metacritic to speculate the way you are doing is called “original research” and that is a violation. All the press on this says something along the lines of “the majority (most) critics negativity reviewed Glass” or the “consensus in the press is that critics were disappointed”. Nothing “mixed” about it. And you don’t have a prevailing consensus on this talk page to back your stance. You are just edit warring. Will give you a day or two to correct this or I will do it myself, or enforce change through arbitration if need be.Luciusfoxx (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Luciusfoxx: Your ignorance is truly stunning. Please, go begin arbitration against me. I'll be waiting. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says the editor who cites "Metacritic" as a 'direct' source.lolololol Given your odd post about "another" banned editor in your intro, an SPI would be more appropriate. "Ignorant" indeed. P.S. The prevailing consensus on the page is TWO against "mixed". Have fun with that. Thanking you in advance to respect that consensus per the established rules on consensus until something changes in your favor.Luciusfoxx (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I've cited nothing. You are attributing to me things I did not originally add to the article. You're also being a dick. Don't do that. You also don't understand what consensus is. Consensus is not majority rule. You can learn more about that at this page. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for bickering over who did what to whom. Discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly reading comprehension is going out of style around here lately. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole If you are not happy with the consensus in the press or the emerging one on this page, then I suggest you move to arbitration and an admin will explain it to you. No longer necessary on my part as the sources and discussion, including the contributions of other editors following your tantrum, are sufficient for the proposed change. Will give this until the end of the day. You said you "don't care what the article says source as long as there is a source to support it" and the sources clearly support the proposed changes and do not support "mixed" at this time per rules against synthesizing an article and speculation. If following the imminent correction you still can not accept the edit to the article, please take it up with an admin. You are just trolling us at this point. Peace out.Luciusfoxx (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration does not settle content disputes. It is only used for behavioral issues between editors, typically. I don't need an admin to explain it to me, because I think I understand the situation better than you do. There's been no "tantrum", you just didn't like your unsourced additions being reverted, and you're angry at me for it. Maybe next time provide reliable verifiable sources instead of just adding a single New York Times ref that doesn't support your additions, mm'kay? As I said before, I will continue to remove, with impunity, any additions that do not provide a relevant, reliable and verifiable source. Good luck! —Locke Cole • t • c 02:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still TD;DC The metacritic source was already removed by another established editor. And the NYC source, given that the publication redacted the content, will also be removed. Not sure what you are still lecturing about. The proposed changes by SummerPhDv2.0 are reflected by the present sources and verifiable according to your own logic. Sans any other objections, that will be the change made moving forward, by myself if the not self-reverted by the end of the day. This conversation no longer serves a purpose. Moving on. Cheers! Luciusfoxx (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I DID NOT ADD THE META CRITIC SOURCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT NYC SOURCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT (AND I DON'T CARE, AT ANY RATE). Literally my only contributions to this article have been to change the name of the "series" (after a consensus was reached elsewhere), and to remove unsourced additions regarding the reception of this film. Given your ongoing hostility, I absolutely refuse to work with you on this on this talk page. If you add what you tried to add while you were editing as an IP with the same lack of references/sources then your edit will be removed. If you provide references, your edit will stand. It's really that simple. I'm not pushing some agenda like you imagined further above, I'm not a sockpuppet of a banned user like you claimed on my talk page. I truly only care that information that isn't sourced/referenced isn't added to the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving along[edit]

Well, moving on. I looked for summary statements in reliable sources, directly stating what critics thought of the film. At the moment, three sources are cited to call it "mixed".

Rotten Tomatoes signed article says critics are calling it "a disappointing trilogy conclusion...an underwhelming missed opportunity."[1] Mashable says critics called it "dull and disappointing" and that critics "agree across the board: … an underwhelming squelch of a conclusion not worth the price of admission." [2]

The New York Times article cited says nothing about what critics thought.[3]

Additionally, we do have a number of individual reviews. We cannot, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

None of the sources cited say "mixed" directly. Interpreting them as "mixed" is both synthesis and hard to imagine. Both sources say "disappointing" and "underwhelming".

I see no sources for movie goers reactions, other than possibly misinterpretation of CinemaScore and PostTrak. Both provide scores from early movie goers, disproportionately fans of the franchise/director/stars/genre. You might think a B from [[CinemaScore] would be pretty good and a C would be OK. You'd be wrong. "A's generally are good, B's generally are shaky, and C's are terrible. D's and F's, they shouldn’t have made the movie, or they promoted it funny and the absolute wrong crowd got into it". Even with that, it varies with genre and audience demographics. We currently do not have a basis for saying "audiences", "moviegoers", "fans" or anything else loved/liked/disliked/hated/were unsure about/anything else. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text: Critics found the film "disappointing" and "underwhelming", citing Mashable and the RT article; additionally, remove the OR about audience reactions and the NYT cite.
Comments? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics found the film "disappointing" and "underwhelming", citing Mashable and the RT article; additionally, remove the OR about audience reactions and the NYT cite." Perfect! Much better in the lead. Yeah, re-read the NYC article. Missed that. Nuke that. I think between the clear SYN violation and the prevailing consensus, we can move forward with the change. VOTE: Approve.Luciusfoxx (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Will be adding a better source that provides a nice, authoritative summary after the fact.(see embedded link) Bolsters what is already the case, but acknowledges in its post-mortem that Glass has received "generally unfavorable reviews." Can't get any clearer than that. Without further ado --> (Revised) proposed text: Glass has received "generally unfavorable reviews", with critics finding the film "disappointing" and "underwhelming". At this point, the praise for the performances is subjective at best and limited to individual reviews. It's not like there is some breakout performance there ala Heath Ledger's Joker. It's another example of synthesis. But maybe an individual review in the critic's section below could mention the performances, particularly McAvoy and Jackson. Anyhow, my final thoughts on this. Sans a self-revert, or a reasonable objection (which I will honor by giving this a day or so) I will move forward with the change regardless. Discussion on this feels exhausted at the point. Thank you everyone for your feedback!Luciusfoxx (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why people keep changing it to say it received negative reviews. It has received mixed reviews and many sources can back that up. Zvig47 (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then list all those sources here...and not blogs or some aggregator that requires speculation on our part. I have 3+ sources that back up the current contributions. I'm a fan of this film too, but that doesn't make me a critic, the majority of which simply don't like it. Please respect the facts, and the present consensus.Luciusfoxx (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honest I didn’t know what talk was. I know this says talk but I thought there was another one I didn’t know about and I was on the wrong one. I know it seems like I’m trying to do something bad here, but I just really don’t know what I’m doing. I’m not trying to vandalize anything. I’ll stop editing this page. I’m sorry. Can you reply so I know you’ve seen this? Zvig47 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also if I ever edit a page again, I’ll make sure I have more facts. I’m gonna learn more about how to edit before I do it again. Zvig47 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Appreciate the candor and honesty. Take care.Luciusfoxx (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You too Zvig47 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the summary of the reception in the heading. If it is said the film received mixed reviews: "Glass received "generally mixed reviews" from critics, with some quoting the film ending as "disappointing" and "underwhelming"." Should there not be a contrasting reference to what exactly is mixed about critical reception? I only see the negative. In other film articles when reception is mixed, I usually see "a and b were cited as being bad but x and y were praised." Transfo47 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plotpoint[edit]

"Staple reveals to him a global conspiracy that has masterminded the suppression, pacification and genocide of superhuman heroes and villains for over 10,000 years" I just saw the film, and I think the meaning was more "Humanity has done great without superheroes for 10 000 years." not that her Illuminati is that old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic[edit]

In particular, I found this advice from Wikipedia itself on how to deal with this dispute. A contention on this article, and many like it, is the use of aggregators. Having researched other disputes they 100% come back with the same conclusion: don't. But the saltatory neglect is they are heavily used anyways. Aggregators if quoted directly almost always violate verifiability rules since they are not true articles like the Washington Post or Variety. I suppose it can't hurt to list them, or even quote them, if they match verifiable sources, especially if directly quoted sources. RT at least attempts a bit of journalism so I understand why it's more prominent. Metacritic's canned bot analyzes around only about 50 reviews, compared to the 300+, and has been called out on other forums here as even more flawed than RT for leaning on a handful of English language reviews. That these reviews are scored or weighted doesn't mean they are any more valuable than any other piece of journalism. It creates a WP:UNDUE problem.

Again, in particular, I found this advice from Wikipedia itself on how to deal with this dispute: "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." And then proceeds to explain using extreme caution with the aggregators to supplement or compliment verifiable sources. Good read that better articulates my concern here than I could, recommending that it remain lower in the article (for instance) when a film is "generally panned or praised", so as to not give undue weight.

Metacritic itself, for instance, is only concerned with its limited sample and doesn't pretend that its methodology speaks for ALL critics everywhere.

So, with that advice, I will NOT remove the "mixed" part of Metacritic in the article, as it is located where it should be according to the above advice and represents a loose, unofficial consensus of sorts. However, as the word "indicating" isn't actually a quote from Metacritic, and really isn't a contention or dispute here, I will use the advice from above to more appropriately re-word it to accurately represent all the sources and the site itself. Should a consensus emerge that finds other wise, let me know. For now, I am respecting the consensus loosely in place for now.Luciusfoxx (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim[edit]

I removed the Exclaim! review because I have seen this be abused as WP:REFSPAM in the past. Lovetowrite03 is the guilty linkspammer here. I'll be removing these reviews across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good 

Kdjfhshshs (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"but"[edit]

Grandpallama: "Not going to edit war over this, but the use of the conjunction "but" indicates two differing outcomes; it does not mean those outcomes correlate to one another.

The use of a conjunction indicates the two statements are related. Someone might say, "I like picnics, but it is raining", because rain would ruin a picnic. No one would say "I like pie, but it is raining", unless, perhaps, the weather would interfere with pie. The first makes sense, but the second does not.

"But", my magical thinking box tells me, is "used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned." Your use here is implying that it is somehow extraordinary that a film did well at the box office, but got bad reviews, implying that good box office returns somehow prevent bad reviews. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our thinking boxes mostly agree with the use of "but", but (irony!) I think your conclusion takes things too far. Someone might say "I enjoy pickles, but I hate eggs." "My son is good at math, but he sucks at sports." " I love my dog, but I hate cats." The sentences show connection between their subjects, in that the first is about food, the second about activities commonly associated with school, and the third about pets; no one would argue that there is anything illogical about the connections in those sentences. Saying "the film performed well with critics, but it was a box office bomb" shows that there were contradictory outcomes regarding the film's performance, as considered on two different metrics. It does not indicate that the performance in one area made the performance in another extraordinary, or that one metric correlates to the other, any more than one would find the three examples I offered up to be extraordinary or intertwined. It is why we have multiple articles about films that comment they performed well at the box office, but bombed with critics (or vice versa). I think you are injecting an element of connection that doesn't exist, and implying an anticipated incorrect conclusion on the part of readers that is unlikely to occur. Grandpallama (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As one sentence, it compares two metrics, implying the unsourced conclusion that the two measures do not match. That is synthesis. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an incredibly over-broad, and I would say incorrect, interpretation of synthesis. If I say Shaq was a great basketball player, but he was terrible at free throws., your earlier interpretation of the use of "but" would be justified, because the second clause directly contradicts the first clause. If I say Shaq was great at slam dunks, but he was terrible at free throws., "but" simply plays a comparative role. We have multiple sources that say the film made money but was critically unloved, and to combine both of those understandings in the same sentence (in that they both refer to the reception of the film, when reception of films is generally determined on those two metrics) isn't synthesis; if I included both the lay-up source and the free throw source to backc up my statement about Shaq, that's not somehow synthesis, because I'm relaying--directly--what the sources said about him. Both of the statements about Glass are fully sourced statements about the film's overall performance. You say a conclusion is drawn that the metrics don't match (and we do know that they don't), but I don't see any statement to that effect. Breaking the sentence apart without any sort of restructuring would suggest that there is, in fact, nothing at all wrong with the wording. Grandpallama (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not "know" the metrics don't match. Without a source, that is your interpretation. My interpretation is that the two metrics are often completely unrelated.
If you have a source clearly making that comparison, cite it and we are done. If not, I'd suggest either "and" or two sentences. (In either case, it seems odd to have the box office results -- from the entire run of the film -- before the critical summary.) - SummerPhDv2.0 20:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? They don't "match" in the sense that the critical reception was negative, and the financial performance was positive. Those statements are sourced. There is no interpretation there, and you don't have to have a single source that states both, although many of the sources provided in our reception section do. They are unrelated in the sense that they're not interdependent upon one another, but they fact they are two metrics by which a film's success is measured is why it's perfectly reasonable to present both of them within the same sentence. It's already cited in the body, so this increasingly feels like a ridiculously tendentious argument on your part. As I said, if there was an actual synthesis issue with these statements, the wording would be more problematic than the use of "but." The fact that the sentence could be reversed to say the film was received unfavorably by critics, but was a financial success, and have exactly the same meaning, undercuts your argument that the sentence in any way suggested that the two issues are tied together. Anymore than my earlier example about Shaq's free throws vs. his lay-up ability suggested that the two were dependent upon one another. It's not synthesis because, unlike the example at WP:Synth, the use of "but" here does not indicate a causal relationship. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on something that I said I wasn't going to edit war over, and that I began by discussing in a friendly manner, but your understanding of both policy and usage here is fundamentally incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the comparison is sourced and important enough to be in the lead, it should be in the body and cited. Having the comparison in the body allows for the argument it belongs in the section summarizing the body's most important contents. Having an inline cite for the comparison allows you to stop arguing that there is a source (somewhere) and that the uncited claim is obvious.
(Thought experiment using these two supposed metrics of success: Movie A gets horrible reviews and grosses $750 million on a $100 million budget. Movie B is beloved by critics everywhere and grosses $10 million on a $100 million budget. Which one is stockpiled in the DVD section at Walmart, crowed about in the studio's annual report and gets a sequel?) - SummerPhDv2.0 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Eastrail 177 Trilogy vs Unbreakable Trilogy[edit]

While the wikipedia page has been using the "Unbreakable trilogy" as the term for the three movies, the actual official title is the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy". Both are commonly used, however Unbreakable trilogy is confusing because that is *also* a series of romance novels. The director calls it the Eastrail 177 Trilogy, and that's whats on the three DVD set. Considering both get used, there should at least both be on here, though considering there are multiple Unbreakable trilogies referring to different things, I would suggest we use the unambigious Eastrail 177 Trilogy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 08:45, August 2, 2019 (UTC)

As noted with your earlier discussion at Talk:Unbreakable_(film_series)#Eastrail_naming, the general consensus was that while "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" may be the "official" name, it is neither the WP:COMMONNAME nor in particularly widespread use with the general public. As a result, the article is at "Unbreakable (film series)".
Yes, a series of non-notable romance novels also exists. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what we call the trilogy or name the article. Though there was a "Bill Clinton" in my first grade class, we still call the former president "Bill Clinton". Thought his "official" (legal) name is "William Jefferson Clinton", the article is still at Bill Clinton. Throughout the thousands of articles that mention him, we do not refer to him as "Bill Clinton, a.k.a. William Jefferson Clinton".
If for some reason you feel this article and the several hundred other articles linking to Unbreakable (film series) should all use the cumbersome, verbose, overlinked phrase "Unbreakable (film series), a.k.a. Eastrail 177 Trilogy", please discuss the issue and build a consensus for the change. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that seeing that Eastrail 177 Trilogy is the official name for the trilogy, for the information of the wikipedia user, it should be at least mentioned in the article? I don't think one or the other should be left off the page, I think they are both relevant to the article and both should be included. Both are in common use, and get around the same level of results in Google. The main Unbreakable Trilogy/Eastrail 177 Trilogy page certain has both namesDeathlibrarian (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:COMMONNAME, you can't just apply that to "Unbreakable trilogy" because they are BOTH commonly used, so the policy applies to both the names ... plenty of articles about these movies that uses both. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 RfCs at Talk:Unbreakable_(film_series) found that the current title is more widely used, especially in more recent and more general sources. If you disagree, you will need to start another WP:FRC on that page and attempt to overturn the consensus.
Yes, "Eastrail…" is the official name. Wikipedia uses the most widely recognizable names from things. Often, that is not the "official" name: FIFA for Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Mueller Report for Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Seven Samurai for Shichinin no Samurai. If you think Wikipedia should not do this, you will need a much broader discussion than you will establish here. I would suggest taking it to the Village Pump for discussion.
As for other articles using both, what other articles do is irrelevant. They might be right or wrong. Further, after checking the first ten articles that link to Unbreakable (film series), none of them mention "Eastrail…" (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Unbreakable_(film_series)). - SummerPhDv2.0 19:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Glass (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Glass (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote to link to the material?[edit]

The title of this article is unambiguous, but I still think that a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page or to Glass would be helpful, since it seems some external search engines will link to this page even when they recognize that you are not looking for the film. I have not made any changes because I do not think this is standard wikipedia practice, but I think someone with more experience should consider it.

LordM000 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would not use a hatnote in this case. The basic idea is this: Would someone looking for Glass search for "Glass (2019 film)". Clearly not.
OTOH, someone looking for an article about this film quite reasonably would search for "Glass". This would lead them to Glass (which is clearly the most common use of the term) where there is a hatnote leading to Glass (disambiguation) which gives numerous articles someone searching for "Glass" might be looking for. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glass_(2019_film)&oldid=1207437384"