Talk:Megalopolis (film)

US Home Video

As of July 24th, 2025 the film still has not been released on blu-ray, DVD or as a PPV rental/purchase. Has Coppola issued any statements why this is? It's available in Europe on blu-ray, making the lack of a North American release even stranger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:7800:9F15:A8C0:80F5:E8B3:C95 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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:

10 minutes:

The most important question is, why does it need to be added at all? Mike Allen 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The term just means commercially/theatrically unsuccessful/unprofitable, which Cleopatra was. Filmgoer (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was the highest grossing film of the year it is hilariously inaccurate and misleading to call it aa flop. P Reader EO11 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See the article development hell. It is industry jargon. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (Or, less significantly for this article, that Manohla Dargis felt Plaza should be nominated for the Oscar for Supporting Actress).[8]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sasaguay, Chris (October 5, 2024). "Aubrey Plaza Is the Only Person Who Knows What Type of Film 'Megalopolis' Is". Collider.
  2. ^ McNab, JM (September 10, 2024). "'Megalopolis' Works Best as an Aubrey Plaza Comedy". Cracked. ...[Plaza] was able to lock into the vibe of this movie in a way that not everyone else in the cast quite could...
  3. ^ Howard, Brandon (December 14, 2024). "Megalopolis Would Have Worked... If Aubrey Plaza's Character Was The Protagonist". ScreenRant. From her very first scene, Aubrey Plaza understands what type of movie she is in... Focusing more on Plaza's Wow Platinum could have been a fantastic solution to Megalopolis' shortcomings, as she already was the most interesting aspect of the film.
  4. ^ George, Joe (September 27, 2024). "The Weirdest and Wildest Moments in Megalopolis". Den of Geek. Without question, Aubrey Plaza understands the tone of the film better than anyone else...
  5. ^ Sledge, Philip (October 4, 2024). "You May Have Heard Megalopolis Is A Big, Hot Mess Of A Movie. I Saw It, And There's One Performance You Really Need To See". CinemaBlend. ...one actor in particular seemed more committed than the rest, and that is Aubrey Plaza... this is one of Aubrey Plaza's best performances, even if the rest of the movie is a big, hot mess.
  6. ^ Kurp, Josh (October 1, 2024). "Aubrey Plaza Understands The Assignment In The Fascinating 'Megalopolis' Mess". Uproxx.
  7. ^ Pappademas, Alex (September 27, 2024). "Yes, Of Course You Should See Megalopolis This Weekend". GQ. But nobody here matches Coppola's freak like Aubrey Plaza
  8. ^ Dargis, Manohla (January 5, 2025). "Who Should the Academy Nominate in 2025?". The New York Times.

GA review

Closing this GA since no further improvements or discussions were made since 20 June. All editors are thanked for their efforts in improving this article. Feel free to refile at GA in the future should anyone wish to repursue. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

Stability

Sources

Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

@Filmgoer: Thanks for the work. There's still some areas I think could have improved prose, but what you've addressed now meet source integrity. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Complete review: direct quotations

  • Though I feel this review at this point should at least be put on hold while awaiting action on a split-out "Production of" article, based on the trend noticed above, a review of the integrity of sources with direct quotations (or what those quotes have been rewritten as) needs to be done. If there are any concerns, they can be noted with recommended action - either for now or to be picked up in future.
    • Ref numbers are still as of this version - for consistency and also because direct quotations were cut down on afterwards (e.g. this and all of this) (diffs included for own reference: I'll also try to address integrity of the replacement text, referring to this version).
Kingsif (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #16:
  • Most instances, all good, with previous integrity/excessive quotation concerns addressed. checkY
  • 16[d], which in the more recent version is now 12[e], has an integrity issue introduced in the editing. The article text now says that Coppola being touchy with extras "were affectionate gestures"; the source doesn't say that, and I don't find that 'affectionate gesture' is a properly accurate way of describing what the source does say, especially with this subject. Source says [Coppola] walked around the set to establish the spirit of the scene by giving kind hugs and kisses on the cheek to the cast and background players. It was his way to help inspire and establish the club atmosphere. Here's the thing, this seems to be a 'different opinion' on Coppola 'getting the extras in the mood', which other crew members disapproved of (same source) - not affectionate gesture, but instigating a party atmosphere in an old-school way. Coppola and Demetre apparently saw this method as reasonable, other crew did not. I would, for source-text integrity, remove "that his hugs and kisses on the cheek to cast members and extras were affectionate gestures, emphasizing" (so that the article just says Demetre defended Coppola by saying there were no complaints made to production). Then, to incorporate all the info in a better way, use either quotes or balanced descriptions of Coppola's behavior and how different crew members interpreted it.
  • Ref #18:
  • 18[b] says that Le Ribellion di Catilina was the film described as "so big and complicated it would seem impossible". However, the book does not actually say whether Ribellion or the other unnamed film is the one Coppola was referring to.
  • 18[b] also suggests that Schumacher was referring to this description when saying Le Ribellion di Catilina sounded like Megalopolis, but he isn't (naturally can't be), he was basing this view on THR's description.
  • 18[c] article text includes "(merging) the images of Rome ... with the New York of today", which is not a precise quote even with the elision (from source: the images of ancient Rome will merge and blend with the New York of today)
  • 18[c] also says Coppola was referring to Ribellion when saying he doesn't want producers; the source suggests this was a view on his reasons to potentially move to Italy, not specifically a philosophy to make one movie in particular.
  • The two sentences sourced at 18[c] have too many direct quotations in general.
  • I would *at least* move the ref for 18[e] to immediately after ""no earlier than 1996" after Coppola found himself prioritizing other projects," in the article; the source in fact contradicts the rest of the sentence, which presumably the other refs are there to support. However, a better change (and which there would definitely be room for in an expanded split production article) would be to include more info from all the sources to paint a more accurate picture of his personal and financial motivations for postponing Megalopolis and taking other projects into production in the early 90s.
  • Ref #30
  • 30[a] says that Dillon said he was "too old for the part". This is just out: the source has the author write many of the young actors Coppola originally hoped to cast in Megalopolis are too old for the parts., and quotes Dillon as saying I certainly would be too old to play it. It's not a misleading mistake, and not that out - but honestly, it's such an innocuous and simple statement we don't need it as a quote, i.e. "too old" is easier in wikivoice, however it's written. Of course, the article can/should add information from the source to say that Coppola had, throughout the years, approached actors to be involved and even by 2001 many were then too old.
  • Note that since the Beatty info in the sentence supported by 30[a] is not in the source (but in the other one), it would be easier to source check/confirm with 30[a] moved to the end of the relevant clause.
  • Ref #15: the Romberger source (mentioned above in excessive direct quotations discussion) - at 15[b], which has now been rewritten not as a quotation, I'm still not convinced there's not close paraphrasing:
Source: expansive, elaborate and carefully rendered pencil or charcoal halftone architectural drawings of huge buildings and urban plazas that appeared to mix ancient Roman, art deco and speculative sci-fi stylizations.
WP article: detailed pencil and charcoal architectural drawings of grand buildings and expansive urban plazas, blending elements of ancient Roman design, Art Deco influences, and speculative sci-fi aesthetics.
  • Ref #25 - 25[b] quote checks out but is long. It should either be standalone in some way, or try to find a way to incorporate the info.
  • Ref #39 - ditto (as 25[b]). Since there's a similar 'shelved but could revisit' quote in #25, it might be possible to do some rewriting for a statement on this with both sources.
  • Ref #41:
  • 41[a] - has since been rewritten into prose. Info is accurate to source. checkY
  • 41[b] - quote is in the source, as part of the longer woke Hollywood production that’s simply lecturing viewers. The latter part which is not directly quoted in the article seems like the more relevant part - while it's absent, the article uses "didactic" in wikivoice, which I think covers it. checkY
  • 41[d] is where we have a bit of an issue. The source only has one of the quotations, presumably the other is in the other ref, and the Hopper comparison - ref placement is now moot as the sentence has again been rewritten to not use direct quotes. The issue, instead, is moreso in the Hopper comparison but also the tone. The article (both versions, though more the rewrite with non-exact synonyms added) presents all this information as if LaBeouf was an absolute pain to work with. However, the source here says that while Coppola considered LaBeouf's method crazy, it worked and Coppola recognized this; per the source, Coppola says LaBeouf took to the experimental rehearsals really well through such methods - for the comparison to Hopper, Coppola said He [LaBeouf] reminds me of Dennis Hopper, who would do something similar [create tension], and then you’d say, “Just go do anything,” and then they go off and do something brilliant. It could be considered complimentary, while our article has it almost as an insult. Some editing, maybe reinstating or adding quotes, is needed.
  • 41[f] has otherwise been addressed. checkY
Kingsif (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #51: source integrity good, but naturally as it's Coppola speaking he says "my kind of actor" - should be '[his]' in the article.
  • Ref #63: 63[a] Honestly just looks like a stray " before "trustafarians", this whole sentence reads a bit wonky, which can be addressed in a prose review.
  • Ref #72: *72[a] - our article says with certainty that the production pivoted to the green screen approach, with only the description of the green screen as a direct quote. This isn't necessary to be a quote, it renders "green(-)screen" differently to the source, and - most importantly - it is not what the source says. Trimming the info quoted down to a bland level means missing out that the full info is that sources say the production is attempting to pivot to a less costly, more traditional green-screen approach. Besides being pre-emptive (TBF, we'd usually accept "the production will pivot..."), it's speculative, and even the unnamed sources are not saying with certainty that the pivot is planned happen but that Coppola and co were merely trying to make it happen. Presumably, it did - but the source doesn't say that.
  • I can't see "unstable filming environment" in either #72 or #83?
  • I can't access either #19 or #44 to check "to a degree that it was decided that the best thing would be if I hired a concept artist and came up with frames that showed what I wanted, which I did" - is it possible to get this whole quote and the surrounding text for context sent (talkpage) or a screenshot/web pdf (email)
  • Same for #19 and "The art department was frustrated because they felt I was evolving the look of the picture independently of them" ... "They wanted giant sets and images. I wanted other elements like costumes and live effects to do some of the work and have it not all be art-department-centric. So, there was disagreement along those lines"
  • Ref #84
  • 84[a] - quotes good, as is the rephrased version. But noticed a bit of a problem with "150–200 extras", as the source says that it was 150–200 people including crew. Only small tweak needed.
  • 84[b] - good. Might reintroduce the (alleged) direct Coppola quote with context from source about the quote itself being 'controversial', but current is also fine. checkY
  • Ref #85 (in the more recent version, #83) - issues raised above (currently at the bottom of the "Minor/text issues" box) are significant and have not been addressed. See there.
  • Ref #86 - quote good, rewritten text good. I would additionally use other info the source to expand/improve the article - info such as the previously-mentioned video not making much of a splash, and to re-add that Menz was the extra in the video filmed being kissed by Coppola and that she was more upset that someone else had filmed her on the closed set and tried to use it "to convey a message". Looks like the video's circulation was more controversial than its content? Which is to say, not very in either case, but we are beholden to the sources.
Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #87 - quotes good, excessive direct quotes has been addressed and rewritten text good. I would add other info from this source that it was a crew member who filmed the set video, wherever best in the flow of this part.
  • Ref #99:
  • 99[a] (104[a] in more recent version) - the quote is present but I'm not convinced it's Coppola expressing "that Catiline-esque plotters could try to overthrow the American government just as Catiline tried to overthrow Rome" as the article claims. This goes back to the detailed discussion already had about this Rome allegory section. Besides the source and immediate context of the quote having Coppola discuss his inspiration from the Catiline conspiracy in detail, with various statements that seem somewhat critical towards all of a patrician class, the rest of the answer that contains the quote in article (Rome became a fascist Empire. Is that what we’re going to become?) is about financial crisis - comparing NYC's struggles with the emergence of debt in the Roman Republic - not about individual plotters. In the next answer (and boy I literally stood up to mentally unpack that in 1999 an interviewer was asking if Coppola thought Trump would bring down America), Coppola compares his version of Catiline to Robert Moses in the sense that he thinks Moses could've helped NYC's finances? All in all, the source context doesn't position Coppola's view, especially around this quote, with the idea of a real potential modern Catiline conspiracy.
  • 99[b] (104[c] in more recent version) - again, quote is there but the article context seems almost fabricated when compared with the source. The article positions this quote as Coppola expressing that an empire will fall without artists to provide inspiration to the masses. In the source, it's primarily just an answer as to whether the film will also depict the fall of an empire as happened with Rome, but secondarily Coppola relates it to a spontaneous idea for a political party with the purpose to headhunt competent public servants.
  • As an aside, I think there's a way to get more of the source's info, including the Trump namedrop, into a production article.
  • Ref #6: 6[j] - I mean, quote in source checks out, but the old sort of 'intro' to it in the article wasn't totally sourced. This sentence has been retooled in the expanded revisionist narrative section, and the same issue is still there. The source doesn't really say that Cicero was a political conservative, nor does it frame Cicero's opposition to Catiline/young Caesar (even the revisionist version) as an "excuse" to crush his policies - the quote has Coppola describing this potential reading of Cicero as reactionary. In the same negative way, but using someone's policies as an excuse to stop them taking your power requires foreplanning while being reactionary necessarily does not.
  • Ref #3: 3[f] (97[f] in more recent version) - I think this source has been discussed for the content here, when this section was being fleshed out. And it looks good except I'm not sure how much "although the precise extent [of the film's divergence from academia] is disputed" (in the article's little 'intro' to the quote) can be read in the source - Saller noting that Seager's view is not widely accepted, but saying that historical bias should be acknowledged, isn't really showing a scale of disputation levels of the historicity of Coppola's take.
  • Ref #102:
  • 102[a] - it's a bit of a mined quote, but it's there. But the context apparent in the source is lost. In the article, it really gives whiplash between the 'film is optimistic' and then this 'Trump sucks'. Real non-sequitur stuff. Adding more from the source - of Coppola reflecting that how (American) society treats the poor has improved but he thinks it's hard to see that because of people like Trump doing what is said in the quote - and how this relates to the movie theme? It's not the best quote for this, really, there's other things in this source directly talking about the movie and polarization. (Side thoughts: Coppola's stats are not verifiable, I watched Soccer Aid a few hours ago and they repeated that 1 in 6 children lives in poverty enough for me to know 9% can't be true. Maybe 9% of Americans. And even in Oliver Twist the orphan kids weren't made to pay to eat... wild)
  • 102[b] - I'm not seeing where in the source (new version of text) "Coppola himself acknowledged the value of visionary ideas but rejected the notion that Catilina's project should prescribe a specific vision of the future"
  • Ref #2: 2[b] - The article's context for the quote seems absent from the source. I can't see where the source mentions the film ending with an impassioned speech, nor mention of Coppola's rage against the studio system (source does mention lacking a distributor, but this is not Coppola fighting to prevent studio interference in production). Nor does the source relate the quote to polarization. However, there is more in the source about artistic idealism, possibly to add once this adherence is resolved.
  • Honestly, the Artistic idealism as antidote to polarization section is a bit of a jumble of catchy quotes with invented connections, none of the sources quite saying what the section wants to be about. Bit forced, worth a discussion.
  • Ref #103 - the source doesn't give as much detail on Atlas Shrugged as is in the article. Nor, the plot details of Megalopolis as used to double down on the quote. It's more forgivable to have the plot of this movie source itself in this article, but we'd need something for Atlas Shrugged.
  • Ref #110 - quote integrity mostly good. Maybe too much quoting when things could be better written out otherwise. Just missing one word: "they" should be before "fear[ed]" in the last of the quotes.
Kingsif (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #129 - quote is good but the source doesn't say Labadie is Le Pacte's founder, just that he runs the company.
  • Ref #69: 69[b] - the quote is not in the source. The source says the Alexa unit would instruct the cinema’s projector to screen the most relevant response from a pre-filmed selection., which means the same thing, but is not what the WP article quotes.
  • Ref #139 - This ref is currently #38, which I add because none of the information (let alone quotes) is in it.
  • Ref #143 - Oh no. This ref is currently #155:
  • It is going to have to be relabelled as a permanent dead link (and the archive link removed), as the original source text has been replaced (at the same url) with a report on the trailer using fake quotes, and the earliest archived version is of the new content.
  • Are there other sources that have the (original) information about the trailer, that can be used to source the first sentence here?
  • Speaking of, this first sentence could use improvement on how (and how much) it quotes the trailer's narration. It's in storytelling parrot mode.
  • For the second sentence, since I can't verify what Kreps said, I don't know whether to AGF or not. I'm leaning not: there's a reason for doing a complete quote integrity review, and when I search the quote there are only 3 hits for it on the entire internet (Wikipedia and two mirrors) - I'd expect it to at least partially crop up somewhere if it was written exactly like that...
  • So perhaps we should find an accessible source for what the trailer content was/is, and remove the unverifiable Kreps opinion? FWIW, this whole part reads as if information was tacked on the end as it was learned, and could do with rewriting - we know the trailer had fake reviews, that shouldn't be a second-paragraph 'reveal'.
  • Ref #150 - the quote is there, but our article has it incomplete. WP articles says that consultant Egan made "an error in properly vetting and fact-checking the phrases", but the source instead specifies that there was an error in properly vetting and fact-checking the phrases provided by the consultant [Egan] (i.e. by others).
  • Ref #153 - all checks out. Why am I not ticking it? Because the source also says The lack of negative critic reviews doesn’t diminish the intended point, that Coppola is a mad visionary, and I think that's an interesting alternate take on the situation that could be added to the article.
  • Ref #156:
  • The "stimulates the third eye chakra" part isn't written (in those words) in the source, and in the source has a separate explanation that follows, not the quote as in article. Can resolve by just taking that part out of quotation marks, which I think would be better anyway.
  • This sentence in the article could use more explanation, or anything grounding. The source mentions that this tone is unusual (particularly in a movie trailer), which is a start. (Annoyingly, there's a quote in the source from the musicians about the tone giving insight into life that kinda sounds like they're connecting it to movie themes or suggesting it's subliminal advertising, which would be interesting to include... but the source's author describes this quote as the trailer being good for health, so we can't.)
  • I'll tackle all the quotes in the Reception section later.
Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

Focus

Writing

Neutrality

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I agree with Filmgoer. Namelessposter (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Filmgoer and Namelessposter: We've had two replies at the film project, and it doesn't look like it'll get more attention. The views there seem to be that for the current content, the length of the section is suitable, but for anything additional, a "Production of" article would be needed. One of the views is that this expansion-split will probably have to happen eventually. I think this reflects my views - given there's also agreement that the article in its current state manages the length and content it has well, I'll leave it up to you guys on whether to start work on a separate article or leave it as it is for the purposes of this review. Kingsif (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I defer to @Filmgoer, I think the production section is especially convoluted and warrants its own dedicated article. Namelessposter (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illlustration

  • 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? Blue question mark?
  • 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)[reply]

Overall

  • @Kingsif: I see that your latest round of source checking has been very long and surely tedious. Your contributions are much appreciated. Before I provide a more granular response to your comments, would you kindly let me know whether you are alleging that I "fabricated" the claim corresponding to source 99[b] / 104[c], or whether you are simply using extremely vivid language to illustrate that my language is unsupported by the source? One of those claims is more serious than the other (WP:AGF???), but I can look past a discourteous turn of phrase as long as we agree that manners are a two-way street.

Please kindly consider the following points:

(1) I never asked to promote the Megalopolis article to GA status, and I feel no special investment in the outcome of this nomination. I drafted portions of this article because I think that the film is better than it is sometimes given credit for, and that understanding some Roman history makes its political sensibility more accessible to the broad audiences Coppola presumably budgeted the film for. I worked on this review as a courtesy to Filmgoer and because I have enjoyed working with you on this review (well, until today). I thought that even if this GA review was doomed - and that may well be the case - you could still make me a better editor. (2) In fact, as you might be able to tell from our prior dialogues, I don't even think Megalopolis is a particularly good movie. (3) I wrote a minority of the article, and I've stated from day one that I didn't feel ready to help overhaul sections I didn't even work on. However, for the sections I did work on, I believe that I have timely responded to all of your comments and requests, engaging with you in good faith, with the shared intent of improving the article. Under the circumstances, I believe my consistent track record of good faith editing is hard to square with an accusation of "fabrication". Does it look like I care enough about this movie to lie on its behalf? (4) I know you are deeply frustrated by the slow pace of this review, and it sounds like you would like me to work on some of the other sections to speed up the process. With apologies, my position has only solidified over the last few months; "some" could quickly become "all".

By way of a substantive response, Coppola's interview with Nocenti plainly provides no specific explanation why he compared Cicero to Ed Koch. This continues a 35-year trend, during which I have not been able to find a single interview where FFC explains the analogy. In a recent interview with The New Yorker, he says, "What if he were someone who would have brought something wonderful, but what usually happens happened—the traditional forces subdued the new idea? I started to develop that, and then I thought about having a Mayor Koch or Mayor Dinkins character. ... there was going to be this Cicero character, a conservative and a classicist, against this enlightened artist opponent..." I don't know if that adds anything, but it does rule out the idea that Ed Koch is simply Coppola-speak for "Cicero is conservative", as it would take an impressive degree of Overton-window shifting to characterize David Dinkins as a conservative. This 2008 interview is likewise sparing on detail. This 1990 interview implies Coppola saw Koch as a corrupt figure but the quote provided says no such thing. Under these circumstances, I hope you can understand why I went with the AIDS crisis as Koch's claim to fame, since that's what he's mainly remembered for today. I will cheerfully admit that this may be a generation gap thing. Or we could just delete all references to Koch since throwing up a catchy real-world analogy and not following through with it is a recurring theme in this movie.

Thanks for considering my comments. Namelessposter (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re. my use of "the article context seems almost fabricated" (note: intended as an adjective about text, not a verb about actions), it was just an illustrative way to quickly say I couldn’t see anything in the source that would contextualise the quote that way. It was not intended as an accusation, nor as discourtesy or insult, nor an expression of frustration - just a way for me to use fewer words to express that the article and source text didn’t align, as I had been explaining such lack of integrity quite a few times for other sources. I’m sorry for using a strong word so flippantly - I can understand how having the text you’ve written described as such can hurt and make you feel your efforts aren’t appreciated (they are!). I was in a light mood when I wrote it, and clearly my intentions weren’t conveyed, so I am sorry for not using more professional language.
Re. your involvement with the review: it’s been incredibly appreciated because I find you an intuitive editor with a strong understanding of the material. I, however, don’t want people to take on a responsibility that is not theirs, especially when it is stressful. I hope I haven’t seemed to pressure you, rather than just try to include you. I, personally, have wanted more engagement in this review from Filmgoer and part of the reason I have tried to be so thorough is so that my comments can be referred back to in a future review that feels inevitable should this one be left unactioned any longer.
Re. Koch (and AIDS) - I’m not entirely sure why you’ve brought this up. Maybe the source labelling is off with the current version, but I haven’t brought up this part in the source review. It’s something I did have questions about, as you say the AIDS mention is a little random, but would have brought up if we ever get to the Focus criteria. Now, of course, that New Yorker interview would sort of source the idea of a society needing artists to not stagnate or collapse, the part of concern. I’d be happy to examine the source more and suggest ways to incorporate. Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kingsif. I'm glad we got this cleared up. I accept your apology and I'm happy to move forward on this. I appreciate your graciousness. For the avoidance of doubt, what is source 99[b] / 104[c]? Namelessposter (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you bringing up concerns with interaction - especially with a long, heavy, GANR. Source is the 1999 Scenario interview, and the article text is Megalopolis argues that for a democracy to avoid falling into fascism, it needs a bold and inspirational vision for the future, which artists can help provide. In 1999, Coppola said that "Rome didn't fall for a long time. But how does an Empire die? It dies when its people no longer believe in it". Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay - haven’t had the time to sit down and do serious work on the wiki this week. I’ll take a closer look over the weekend. Namelessposter (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Filmgoer and User:Kingsif: What is the status of this GA? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your ping didn't work, but this GAN is in-effect a fail based on at minimum warranting structural work and a split out. It's been kept open to address source-text integrity concerns, especially regarding direct quotations - something which would have realistically been a quickfail but certainly needed addressing. What's really left to do before this can be closed is to review the direct quotations in the Reception section. Ideally the #Complete review: direct quotations comments would be resolved at the article, but having record of concerns should be enough at this stage and for any future reviewers to look back and see if everything has been improved by then. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want to go ahead and just close it? It looks like it’s been several months since any work was done on it, and like you said, if someone chooses to try GA again in the future, the work here will still be available. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree - changes in my life have made it pretty difficult for me to work on Wikipedia, and as my editing history reflects, I’m barely semi-active at this point. It has nothing to do with this review, and I thank Kingsif for their conscientiousness as a reviewer. I will try to address preexisting concerns when I get a chance someday, but they don’t have to be under a GA nomination framework. My apologies for not being able to be more helpful. Namelessposter (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have to agree with the comment above. Close it for now; let some future user with time reopen it. Filmgoer (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Megalopolis_(film)