Talk:The Mitchells vs. the Machines

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

Rename page[edit]

I feel the page should be redirected to the page Connected (2020 film). The name Connected (upcoming film) seems unprofessional and should be moved. Other future films are listed under the year they're released, not as "upcoming film". Adamtb24 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connected as former name rather than "working title"[edit]

To stress, "Connected" was a name used by Sony Pictures in its marketed when it was planning on releasing this film to theaters - that was not a working title being used during development; if the film ended up in theaters at that point then "The Mitchells vs the Machines" would have become the working title (at that point, never used in promotion). But then COVID happened, the film was delayed, and Sony sold the rights to Netflix, where they opted to rename it back to The Mitchells...". That doesn't change the fact that "Connected" was a planned title but changed on that sale, but not a working title during production, since production was already over by that point.

Further, because people could be landing on this page by searching on "Connected", we need to have that term in the lede to be clear about that. --Masem (t) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any title used prior to release but not for release is a working title, and working titles do not belong in ledes. There is still a redirect from the working title, so searching is not an issue. Thanks. Jenny Jankel (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, working titles are used while the project is under developed but before the movie is first publicly announced, and no used in marketing materials. For example, over at Spiral: From the Book of Saw, it definitely being under a working title and rumored as "The Organ Donor" until it was officially announced as "Sprial", so clearly "The Organ Donor" was the working title. For this film, it started under the working title "The Mitchells vs the Machines", and then announced to the public as "Connected" in 2020 and clearly advertized by Sony under that title (see eg [1]) That's not at all a working title in any sense. Then when Netflix bought the rights, they opted to rename it back to what the working title was. --Masem (t) 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite right. A title can have several working titles, and a previous working title can end up the release title too, like in this case. It makes no difference if a film was advertized under one name and then renamed. Any title used prior to the premiere is a working title. Jenny Jankel (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's still not true. The "working title" is specific a title used for development but not for marketing - its generally a temporarily title not meant to be used in public-facing discussions. "Connected" is absolutely not a working title because that is how Sony wanted the film to be named if it had remained in theaters. The unusual situation that COVID caused the film rights to be sold to Netflix, and that Netflix opted to change the name, does not cause "Connected" to be a "working title" because it never was one. --Masem (t) 12:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing does not affect the definition of a working title. What was intended doesn't, either. What actually happened does. Any title used prior to the premiere is a working title. Any provisional title used prior to release is a working title. I'll wait for someone else who knows what they're talking about to chime in, and failing that, I'll start an RFC. There is no point in us two arguing and reiterating the same points. Jenny Jankel (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For sake of argument, I've reworked the lede to keep "Connected" there, but less emphasized but as part of the summary of the dev of this work (Sony planned theatric, COVID happened, they sold to Netflix). --Masem (t) 18:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's some concession, but a working title - any title not used for release - should not be included in the lede because it's not a significant AKA. Explaining it in the relevant section of the body is the correct procedure, as you will notice all other similar articles do. It is minor trivia. The current lede is unnecessarily cluttered. Jenny Jankel (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is supposed to summarize the major parts of the article. The shift from theatrical to streaming is a major facet of this film's history (already described in the body) and thus should be summarized in the lede. Thats also the most appropriate place to bring up the original planned title. --Masem (t) 18:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lede is supposed to summarize the major points. A title not used for release is not a major point, and neither is the fact that it was planned for theatrical release originally, but you can mention the latter without mentioning that the title was once supposed to be something else. The lede needs to be more streamlined, and focus on the actual major points. Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are several mistaken about "Connected" being a working title. Working titles are "behind the scenes" names for projects, which is not the case for "Connected" - that's an upfront title Sony wanted people to know this film by, not hidden behind the scenes. Further, per MOS:BOLDSYN, "Connected" needs to be in the lede as a valid search term for this film because for a good half-year, that's how this film was named before the distribution rights were sold. That's rather significant and needs to be in the lede. I would agree if it was a trivial working title that never got coverage that we wouldn't have it, but the bulk of coverage of this film prior to release is around this change of distribution. (This is comparable to The Emperor's New Groove where its working title Kingdom of the Sun is mentioned in the lede, but because the switch from that project to the film product is a major amount of study in sources.) --Masem (t) 17:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The definition of a "working title" is much broader than that. Connected is a working title. And to repeat myself once more, a working title doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede, regardless of it once being used to promote the film. The redirect does that job! Jenny Jankel (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read MOS:BOLDSYN - if there is a significant redirect from an alternate title to an article, we are required to include that in the lede to assume the reader they have arrived at the right article, and that is absolutely the case for Connected here. (See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Connected (upcoming film) as people are still using that for example, apparently). And no, you're still on the working title definition; it's meant as a temporary, behind-the-scenes title; "Connected" was not that once Sony announced its plans to release the film under that name to theaters last year. They didn't foresee COVID, but that doesn't change that they fully intended to have this film be called "Connected", and never was a working title. --Masem (t) 16:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at MOS:BOLDSYN that is relevant to this article. Any title never actually used for release, regardless of early promotion, is a working title. Jenny Jankel (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Connected" is a "significant alternate title" as defined at BOLDSYN. And you're still very much mistaken about the definition of a working title. Titles used in promotion are never working titles. --Masem (t) 15:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Titles never used for release are working titles, and there is nothing at BOLDSYN that suggests "Connected" is a significant alternate title. Jenny Jankel (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jade[edit]

Seeing some edit warring about Jade being Katie's friend vs girlfriend. In the video call at the end of the film, Linda asks Katie if she and Jade "are official" and if she'll be bringing her to Thanksgiving. Katie responds by saying it's only been a few weeks. This is an explicit confirmation that they are dating. If anything, the question should be whether Jade should be listed as girlfriend or simply a love interest, because they don't get together until the end of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.190.97 (talk • contribs)

That is in no way official confirmation. It could be "a few weeks" since she's been at college rather than a few weeks into her relationship. I know the movie heavily drops hints that Katie has more feelings for Jade but per WP:NOR we cannot make assumptions. --Masem (t) 15:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one says "are you official" in a context that isn't related to romantic interest. Jade is absolutely Katie's love interest, regardless of if they count as dating. 68.9.190.97 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be immediately obvious it is a love interest, and not inferred, otherwise it is interpretation under WP:NOR. --Masem (t) 21:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people are going to keep edit warring about this, then I personally think we should wait for an official confirmation from either Rianda, Lord and Miller first (though having seen the film twice already, it very likely is). IceWalrus236 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like for example, we can very nearly say that Katie is LBGQ by the line her mother asks at the conclusion ("Are you and Jade a thing?") or something like that, though I'd still would like to see something from the production staff to confirm that a bit more. Whether she and Jade are actually a couple would need a bit more on that even. That's why we have to be super careful if its not said explicitly. --Masem (t) 00:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will comment that it is confirmed that Katie is queer; but since the section being edited is the Cast section, I agree that Jade being Katie's love interest is only a detail rather than a plot point in the film -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 13:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily a confirmation from production, though if broadly reviewers have little question to Katie's queerness, we can accept that to document her. --Masem (t) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video with better cast confirmation that eventually Katie and Jade ended up together -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 14:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, we can use this NBC News source to affirm Katie's in the LBTGQ group, as it has her VA speaking "She’s totally herself, wildly creative, a great big sister, hilarious, queer, [and] excited to dive into her passions." I would also be reasonable to use that along with the above twitter to say she and Jade connected by the end. --Masem (t) 16:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are good additions (to the production section), but I thought the point of this discussion was to whether add the label of "love interest" to Jade's description in the cast section. The original poster wanted to list either "girlfriend" or just "love interest"; having gathered this evidence, is there consensus to add (or keep since its already there) the descriptor of "love interest" for Jade in the article? -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 16:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Girlfriend" would be the best given the sources. There's simply not enough going on in the movie that we could even say "love interest" as a plot-relevant point but that they end up girlfriends is very much fair. --Masem (t) 16:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So FWIW, the Thrillist article I added just now has absolute confirmation Katie is LGBT from the writers/directors, and I still would say Jade as "girlfriend" is fine from that same article. --Masem (t) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real Mitch family[edit]

So in the credits it says that there is a real family mitchel to which the movie is dedicated. does anyone knows anything about this family and could add it? Jonmediaproduction (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is director Mike Rianda's own family -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Connected (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Connected (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mitchells_vs._the_Machines&oldid=1209504017"