Talk:RRR

Here is a detailed table regarding the collection of RRR

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt8178634/ N0riooo (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Please update the the box office to 166 million usd converted to inr — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0riooo (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the correct figure. However Box office section of RRR RRR#Box office seems excessively bloated and uses 872 words to report outdated box office figures.

Let's correct this.

Tagging Ab207 too who seems passionate about improving the readability of the article.

Shall we make this much more precise @Ab207 ? Here is a sample draft:

"RRR is estimated to have grossed $166,602,994 or INR 1395+ crore worldwide. During its theatrical run, RRR became the third highest-grossing Indian film, the third highest-grossing film in India, the second highest-grossing Telugu film, and the highest-grossing film in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, surpassing Rajamouli's previous film Baahubali 2 (2017). "

Why do we need more words to report correct box office figures? SaibaK (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt8178634/ 2409:40F3:2B:ABAF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, User:SaibaK. May I know what is the reason you’ve reverted my edit? RfC consensus was to retain the section as a whole. It doesn’t mean no improvements can be made.

As tagged by User:BarntToust, the earlier version in list form is very badly written for an encyclopaedia. I’ve added some context to it and converted into prose, without deleting any content. — Ab207 (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ab207,

The original edit was widely discussed in an RFC for over a month and was generally agreed to be easy to read and well cited and was overseen by various parties including mods. Link below:

Talk:RRR#RFC: Section on Reception by International Filmmakers SaibaK (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@SaibaK Nope, RfC outcome says ”There is a consensus that the section on "Reception by International Filmmakers" should be included at the end of the Reception section.”

No discussion has taken place on how the information should be presented. Writing it in prose is the most encyclopaedic way rather than dumping everything as list without context. — Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The exact message-including the list format- was also a part of that discussion under the supervision of wikipedia mods/admins. No comments or observations about need for converting this data to prose were made and people participating did comment on it being easy to read and well cited.

If you feel it should be otherwise, kindly start an RFC and open it to comments to the general readers or take any other comparable venue so that your subjective opinion can be put to at least as much scrutiny as the original format in the RFC has already gone through . But until then it's best to defer to RFC which has been very widely discussed under the supervision of wikipedia mods/admins. SaibaK (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@SaibaK RfC consensus was to include merely include the section and not WP:STONEWALLING the content without substantive rationale. I don’t think there is any sanctity for “original format” as such as you claim.

Requesting the participants (User:Rigorousmortal and User:Ships&Space) and the closer (User:Robert McClenon) to clarify their position on this. — Ab207 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Let's wait for them (User:Rigorousmortal and User:Ships&Space) to clarify their positions before we take this discussion forward. The closer, wikipedia mod (User:Robert McClenon) is neutral and the only thing his involvement means is that he didn't think that the content was against wikipedia standards which is what you're implying in your first statement here (your words: "very badly written for an encyclopaedia").

As we wait for their opinion, perhaps you'd also like to elaborate on why exactly you think your edit is an improvement. SaibaK (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

“earlier version in list form is very badly written for an encyclopaedia” is what I have stated. Big difference.

Writing in prose form adds more context for the WP:AUDIENCE on why reception from international filmmakers is important for this particular film—

RRR received widespread appreciation from international filmmakers and actors, particularly Hollywood. RRR is identified as a crossover film from India to the USA, and has been compared to the likes of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000).

The above statement helps the audience understand why the film’s international recognition is noteworthy. Directly listing the statements of filmmakers does not add give any value to the reader, and in fact sounds more like WP:PUFFERY. — Ab207 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree that the fact that the film makers made statements should be included, I don't agree that it should be included as a separate subsection or that every single one should be included, as I don't believe that there's enough material to avoid undue weight, nor is it necessary to quote most (or any) of them (also note that the "international" film makers are almost all American/Hollywood). So something like this:

RRR has also been well–received by acclaimed film directors including Steven Spielberg and James Cameron.^[1][2] Edgar Wright said that the movie "an absolute blast" and was "The only film I have ever seen where the intermission card itself got a round of applause."^[3] These sentiments were echoed by James Gunn, Joe Dante, and others.^[4][5]

This is obviously very quickly done, but hopefully this helps. Ships & Space_(Edits) 17:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds much better, thank you for your input! -- Ab207 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ships&Space, there are plenty of other filmmakers which were not included because of the detailed attempts by certain users to not include any of these.

For example there are major japanese filmmakers who've said similar things and not just American ones.

Would you like me to expand this section? What amount of material according to you will be a good source for this? 20 names? 30 names?

No other Indian movie can claim anything similar to this, right? SaibaK (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really that knowledgable about the film scene in general, so I don't really know who counts as "notable enough" to include; I've heard of Spielberg, Gunn, and the Russo Brothers, but no idea of who McCay or Dante are.

You can absolutely expand it if you want; use your own judgement for the number of names (I'd say that anything more than ten is excessive).

As for No other Indian movie can claim anything similar to this, there are plenty of non-Hollywood/American films that have achieved this. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sharing more detailed thoughts. It provides a basis for a more rational and amicable conversation. Highly appreciated!

May I broadly divide your reply in two points- about uniqueness and about the other directors that you are less familiar with:

a) Uniqueness:

You correctly mention that "there are plenty of non-Hollywood/American films that have achieved this"

Non-Hollywood/American films: yes.

Indian film: None besides RRR.

Thus, it becomes a unique feat in the Indian movie industry that caters to 1.4 billion people and stands unique in that achievement in India and thus acquire notability. If you can think of a single Indian production that has matched this feat then kindly share.

It's precisely because of this uniqueness that this section has been so heavily attacked by some people (one user Jayanthkumar123 even got banned from this page because he just kept deleting this information)

b) Notability:

You mentioned that you're not fully familiar with who's "notable enough".

May I humbly suggest that that's why this section becomes so important. All these names are pretty significant filmmakers and for any cinephile this is a highlight of an information which shouldn't be removed or abbreviated.

Here's a brief introduction for them (am including those you already know for the benefit of third parties reading this):

1. Spielberg: Widely regarded as the most commercially successful director in the history. Seven of his films have been included in National film registry by the Library of Congress, USA.
2. James Cameron: Director of Avatar, Titanic, Terminator 1 and 2. His movie Titanic won 11 Oscar awards setting a record.
3. JJ Abrams: Director of two Star Wars movie. One Star Trek movie. And many other action and sci-fi movies.
4. Edgar Wright : This is a British director and not an American one. Particularly notable because the film talks about Britain's dark past and yet here is a British director celebrating it. He's the maker of Shaun of the dead, Baby Driver and was the person who conceptualized the Ant Man movie.
5. Christopher Miller: One of the most creative modern voices. He has co-directed "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" movies
6. Adam McKay: Made widely celebrated movies such as "The Big Short" which was about the financial crisis in 2007 and Leonardo DiCaprio's "Don't Look Up" which is about climate crisis.
7. James Gunn: Head of Warner Brother's DC movie-verse. Earlier directed the celebrated series of Guardians of the Galaxy.
8. Russo Brothers: Best known for Marvel movies' The Infinity War featuring the Avengers. It remains among the highest grossing movie in the world till date.
9. Scott Derrickson: Best known for directing Doctor Strange
10. Joe Dante: The classic director and a frequent collaborator of Steven Spielberg, Dante is best known for directing the classic movie, The Gremlins.
11. Jason Blum: He's the founder of Blumhouse productions which has made Get Out (multiple awards and acknowledgment including Oscar and National Board Review list), Paranormal Activity and many other famous movies.
12. Daniel Kwan: Director of "Everything everywhere all at once" which was a direct competitor of RRR in the oscars race and which won 7 oscar awards.

The interesting thing is that this is not an exhaustive list. Given that this is a unique achievement by an Indian movie which normally is widely ignored by the worldwide filmmakers, this is an unparalleled breakthrough (which eventually resulted in making RRR the first Indian production to gaining an Oscar in 95 years of its existence and 75 years of the country's existence.) Thus, within the category this is an accomplishment unachieved by any of its peers and needs higher emphasis compared to critical reception which almost any movie receives and is thus not as notable. SaibaK (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've explained is better conveyed in prose and by giving context, using commentary from reliable sources about why RRR is such big phenomenon. You can perhaps give 4-5 examples like Spielberg and Cameron but not more than that. Blindly listing 20-30 names and their comments makes the read boring and uninteresting. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

For @Ab207: Information becomes boring and uninteresting when it's a common pattern. Are these names common or random? Any other Indian movie which can have these many names of international filmmakers praising it and publications like Variety, TimesOfIndia, HindustanTimes etc. writing detailed articles about each and everyone of them?

If so, then please provide a name of any other comparable Indian movie production. SaibaK (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's interesting to note that @Ab207's stated objective has changed. Rather than trying to convert the information to prose, he's now arguing about deleting information. Which seems to be his real objective.

I may be mistaken and his intentions might be genuine, if so I'll look forward to @Ab207's explanation about how this kind of international acclaim is common for Indian productions and how many/any other Indian movie has achieved this. SaibaK (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't have to provide anything. Just because RRR happens to be the only Indian film that got attention doesn't mean we write every comment ever made on the film by notable filmmakers. The article should keep it simple and precise to get the point across. Alternatively, you are free to split the section into a new article on this subject, to write everything which you feel is important.

My only intention here is to improve the article. I'm not fixated whether to add or delete the information. Ab207 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're not fixated on adding or deleting information, then we can easily come to an agreement: the only change your edit really brought in was an extra paragraph , this:

"RRR received widespread appreciation from international filmmakers and actors, particularly Hollywood. RRR is identified a crossover film from India to the USA, and has been compared to the likes of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)."

If you want to include that as the beginning para of the section for context and leave the rest as-is then I think we've an agreement. Do we? SaibaK (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear @SaibaK. We are not in middle of business deal to make an agreement. Yes, I'd like to add some context for the readers. But also, I also don't see any merit on why the list should be fixed as writing on stone. Like @Ships&Space pointed out, some of the comments can be easily merged for brevity. We can work together on that part as well. But if you call any edit on the section as "attack", it doesn't give me much confidence. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is community edited, which means discussions and coordination are the key instruments unlike one-sided subjective judgments which you seem to prefer.

You've also changed your stated objective to deleting the information.

In stead, we should see why the article is so long and even a quick glance shows there is too much bloat elsewhere, like in the Box office section. I've added a proposal to correct the box office section (which is 820+ words right now for reporting simple box office earnings!) and has incorrect information presented there.

If readability is the main criteria, I think other sections need much more work and am happy to contribute to that correction rather than directly messing with an RFC approved section. SaibaK (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You can start contributing by focusing on the content, and not the contributor. — Ab207 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe someday I'll focus on other sections, but for now let's bring this discussion to a conclusion: regarding the content of this section, mod/admin @Robert McClenon has kindly clarified his position below. They have also kindly offered mediation so if you feel inclined for further discussion for this section then that may be the best route for you. Regards. SaibaK (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ab207, after more consideration, I have come to agreement about that the main focus of the RFC has been content.

And even though the RFC form has received more community scrutiny, I now think it's ok to change the form which perhaps allows for a greater context to be added there. As long as the RFC agreed content is not changed in the base information, i.e., the mentions of the filmmakers is not fundamentally removed, perhaps it's best to allow changes to see how the community might add greater context to it.

Thanks for the discussion. I've now restored the edits made by you. SaibaK (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the edit, SaibaK. Looking forward! -- Ab207 (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ab207 - User:SaibaK is right when they say that I am neutral. I closed the RFC because I was uninvolved, having only mediated a previous stage of the dispute and developed the RFC. I found that there was consensus to include a section on reception by international filmmakers. As noted, that also did mean that I saw nothing against Wikipedia policy in including the section. I am willing to conduct another round of moderated discussion to try to mediate this content dispute. Because I am willing to conduct moderated discussion, I do not intend to offer an opinion on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Though I was tagged above, above above, I have no interest in reading these walls of text. The info belongs. Nobody in the RFC said anything bearing about the presentation of the section. Having said that, the presentation is terrible. Turn it to prose. The list formatting reads horribly and almost like blatant advertising. If that's not been concluded by the walls of text above, well.... not much more to do. Hah, have a nice day everyone. BarntToust 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In short: The list format needs to be gone. This now looks like a section of intertitles in a post-release movie advertisement touting critical reviews to promote the film. BarntToust 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BarntToust. Thanks for your views. You're replying to a message by a mod @Robert McClenon who has kindly volunteered to conduct a moderated discussion. Perhaps you'd like to participate in that to facilitate a fruitful discussion for the improvement of the article? SaibaK (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for recognizing that your first message came off a little bit too, uh, well, it's gone now, that's all that matters. When that gets going, I'll probably jump in, eh? I'm tweaking a few other articles right now in a way in which things are like to actually get done, unlike this whole thing here about the section of international filmmakers. See ya later, all! BarntToust 20:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. While a difference of opinion is inevitable among volunteer editors in wikipedia, I did feel compelled to modify my first message. If a moderated discussion takes place then will be nice to have you there at that time. Regards. SaibaK (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)