Talk:Without Remorse (film)

Plot

WP:FILMPLOT says plot sections should be to 400-700 words. The plot section of this article is nowhere near 400 words, and a little over 700 words.

WP:FILMPLOT also says "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary."

Getting rid of the mid credits sequence as the guidelines recommends is one of the ways the plot section could be shortened, and WP:STREAMLINE suggests several other. -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the mid-credits sequence, there IS AN EXCEPTION. The sequence is meant to set up a sequel for the movie, so stop removing it. Dibol (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please get at least a WP:3RD opinion and establish that their is a clear consensus to ignore the rules.

I cannot take the opinion of Dibol alone in good faith as he was already trying to ignore the guidelines on plot length without explanation. -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing is one thing, and repeating the edit you want would be understandable, but reverting past obvious fixes like MOS:STRAIGHT and WP:FILMPLOT does not show good faith.[1] -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:3RR I will have to wait until tomorrow before repeating my good faith edits.

I am willing to discuss the mid credits sequence but I think it should be made clear that there is a consensus before breaking the rules. -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus to include the mid credits sequence, as it was deleted by User:Emir_of_Wikipedia who stated that it was already mentioned elsewhere in the article [2] but without discussion and the edit summary "minor edits" Dibol restored it anyway.[3] -- 109.76.146.37 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the mid credits sequence is a part of the plot, but a sequel hook. If we do decide to include it in the plot we must comply with WP:EGG. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that WP:EGG even applies in this case of disambiguating the word "Rainbow" to relevant context of Rainbow Six. Even if I agreed, I would not repeatedly add a verbose attempt to explain it to the plot section because it is not plot.[4][5][6][7] Also because of the word count recommendations of WP:FILMPLOT. I might rephrase it into "Codename: Rainbow", or I would simply delink the word and instead use {{Explanatory footnote}} to explain it (and I recommended using a Footnote in my edit summary).

When a plot summary is not too long and reasonably well written then we can include more more details (not limited to post credit sequences), but in any plot summary we need to take care not to put undue emphasis on non-essential details. I strongly objected to including the mid credits sequence when the Plot section was overlong and editors appeared unwilling to shorten the Plot section, and even make bad faith edits like removing the long plot tag.[8] Due to the limited word count it is often better to address the sequel in other sections, and Emir of Wikipedia pointed that the sequel is already mentioned in several other places in the article.

The plot section is currently about 620 words, but I still wonder if the climax has been properly explained in enough detail. Only after the Plot section is concise and the important plot points are clearly explained, only then should we even consider including a minor detail such as the mid-credits sequence. -- 109.76.198.86 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Emir does not seem to have read the edit summaries or this talk page discussion. He seems to think that fixing what he believes is a case of an ambiguous Easter WP:EGG link is more important that keeping a clean and concise plot section. Again I urge him not to mess up the Plot section and to add a footnote if he really believe a verbose explanation is needed. -- 109.76.202.211 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I made a lot of small changes but they were to make room to include other details. I will clarify some of the larger plot section problems I was trying to fix. I thought it was important to mention that when the plane crashes Kelly must dive to rescue their equipment, because they say they cannot complete the mission without it, and that also explains where they got the zodiac boat from. The film explains that the finding of any American soldiers on Russian soil could trigger a war. I thought it was important to explain the why Kelly could stay behind to cover their escape, because as a convict his death would not have the same impact. I also thought the explosion that provided cover was as important to his escape as the uniform and ambulance. The end says "With Clay's confession" but if you were to explain the plot section to someone who had not already seen the film you might want to mention that Kelly did not have only a confession but had an actual recording of it from a device he took out of the glove compartment. Plot mistake introduced[9] "causing Greer to illegally pass confidential information to Kelly" is a less accurate summary than the previous wording "Greer then illegally passes confidential information to Kelly". Greer chose to break the rules, she wasn't forced to, the only thing "causing" her to do it was her anger and her own choices.

What's a tape?

Dibol seems to have made a good faith effort to fix one of the plot problems,[10] but the phrase tape recording is sub-optimal.

Modern Dictaphones or voice recording devices don't use tape, and an encyclopaedia should try to avoid using unnecessary archaic terminology. -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dibol despite not discussing does at least seem to be reading these comments and has rephrased to avoid the archaic terminology.[11] So if you are still reading I again encourage you to imagine you are explaining the film as if to someone who has never watched it, and I hope you will also realize there are some earlier plot points that could be trimmed and later plot points that should probably be made clearer. -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I restored the Rainbox Six footnote one more time.[12] I'm not convinced that User:Emir of Wikipedia's argument of WP:EGG was ever valid but I'm not going to restart the tedious slow edit war over it either. -- 109.78.194.120 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a footnote now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Connections

I thought that since this film was released by Amazon and connected to the Jack Ryan stories that maybe this film was connected to Jack Ryan (TV series). Also in the film Ritter mentions to Greer how much he respected her uncle (implying James Greer, played in the tv series by Wendell Pierce).

Sources say it was not connected, and only ended up at Amazon because of the pandemic.[13] The source does leave open the idea that it could still be retconned later, but to mention any of that in this article would require new information and reliable sources. -- 109.76.141.135 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If the sources say it was not connected then it is not for us to say otherwise at the moment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my point was to make it clear that there was no connection.

By writing here what I had learned (and with a source) I was hoping that it might save other over-enthusiastic editors from trying to find a connection when there is not one.

Also by pointing it out I hoped I might make it easier for editors such as yourself, to know to revert any naïve assumptions about a connection. -- 109.76.198.86 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:RUMOR and speculation does not belong in this encyclopedia. "Possible connections" were not connections at all, rumors and wishful thinking. Please remove them again[14] if any over-ethusiastic editors try to add them. -- 109.79.67.139 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There is still no connection to the Amazon Jack Ryan show it is wishful thinking and misrepresentation of speculation to claim otherwise.[15]. Please stop. Please read carefully what was actually written by The Wrap and Screenrant. I wanted to include this but when I read the sources it was clear that they were not good enough to be used in an encyclopedia. -- 109.79.78.194 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Rescue Without Remorse (specific advertising campaign)

I feel like this specific advertising campaign deserves a section. It involves some high profile streamers: CallMeKevin, RTGame, JustaMinx & Anna Rudolf.

On Twitch it received 97k views on RT, 94k views on Kevin, 289k views on JustaMinx.

Unfortunately the only secondary source appears to be an IGN article that is also a sponsored article.

Nathanielcwm (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That IGN article is useless,[16] it is barely enough to verify that this was an official promotional campaign.

I found an article reviewing the marketing campaign and they seem to have missed the social media/twitch promotion,[17] which makes me wonder if it was really all that notable.

Variety has an article about the Marketing using Drones and Twitch so maybe it is significant. You can't get a much better source than industry bible Variety, so it does seem to have been an important part of the Marketing campaign but I would urge you to be cautious and try to avoid giving undue weight to the social media echochamber. While there seems to have been some clever use of Twitch and social media in this marketing campaign I think the more important part of the whole promotion of the film rested on high profile and star power of Michael B Jordan.[18] -- 109.76.203.249 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The title is "Without Remorse"

The title of this film is "Without Remorse". See also WP:COMMONNAME. Attempts to changes the film title to match the long title of the book have been reverted by several different editors[19][20] The title should not be changed without establishing discussion and consensus first. -- 109.79.67.139 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what the title is displayed for the article. Mike Allen 19:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that @DisneyMetalhead: restored it a few days ago. Please do not change the titles in the article to one that is different than the actually article title. It says "Also known as Tom Clancy's Without Remorse" in the lead sentence, no one should be confused. However, if you want to start a move discussion, you can. Mike Allen 20:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Users: 109.79.67.139 and MikeAllen; didn't see this as a controversial move, especially given the fact that it is on the poster and onscreen during the movie. I am not trying to reflect the title of the novel at all, as the novel does not have the "Tom Clancy's" identifier. Am I missing something here? I may take to the talk page eventually, but am busy working on other things at this time. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Yes!!! You repeated the same edit after being reverted several times. Clear edit summaries were provided multiple times. Please make a good faith effort to at least glance at the article history before repeating the same edits over and over again. (Please also read the section above titled "Connections" and do not repeat the edits adding speculation from TheWrap and Screenrant.) -- 109.79.78.194 (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)