Talk:Don't Look Up

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

You might want to reword this[edit]

The first paragraph says, "warn mankind about an asteroid that will destroy Earth via a media tour." I don't think you mean to say that the asteroid is going to destroy the Earth via a media tour. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, since no-one else has fixed it, I did. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character names[edit]

Where did most of these come from? I feel I was seeing them crop up here before they showed up on IMDB. That W magazine article is even sourcing IMDB for their use of the character names. Can anyone tell if the names originated here or not? Rusted AutoParts 18:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly from the leaked script. Trillfendi (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Streep talked about her and Hill's names and rolls in an interview. Grande talked about hers as well. Also, as said, the script is definitely out. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from what I can tell some of it is coming from journalists who are watching it being filmed. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm late, but where was the leaked script? Asking for a friend.165.73.227.21 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jonah hill[edit]

get rid of jonah hill. he is not in this film Iknowthef444cts (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

he is Kuhnaims (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

It has had a theater release, where is the plot summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.171 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is one Kuhnaims (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hmma[edit]

can somebody add the hollywood music in media awards to the accolades table? it received 3 nominations and one win Alex5675 (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Budget[edit]

No way this movie's budget is 75 million. Multiple reports are saying that DiCaprio and Lawrence took $55 million total. And the remaining movie couldn't have been made on a $20 million budget. Please remove the budget unless there is a confirmed source with an updated figure.

Navjot Singh (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the film probably cost around US$110 million. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change?[edit]

I read the movie would be about "climate change". How? An asteroid hitting planet earth, annihilating it in a handful of seconds: how would that be connected with "climate change"? Sounds like a character of the movie crafted the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.201.7 (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it has nothing to do with climate change. However the creators use the impact event as a stand in for climate change. Goodness knows why. I've added this into the opening paragraph. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its incredibly easy to understand why, both lead to the extinction of humanity (and possile all other life) but a comet impact is more fit for film since it happens faster and is explosive.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm necroing this to add: It's all about climate change. The asteroid is a stand-in for the crisis, the behaviour people in the film show surrounding the asteroid is 1 to 1 based on how people thus far have been behaving when confronted with climate change. That's the allegory. The only places where the film deviates from the allegory is the fact that the asteroid wasn't brought onto collision course by humanity & the ending which is a satire of some people's idea that they could colonize Mars as an escape to fixing earth. 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:54D4:1998:D9B0:F03E (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's called an allegory, which means that it has two levels. Yes, it is about an impact event, but it uses the impact event to satirize the reaction to climate change from media, government, Big Tech and the overall culture. Watch literally any interview with the director and writer if you are having trouble understanding. Also, climate change poses an existential threat to much of life on earth and that's how it compares to the comet impact. The writer and director have both explained this multiple times. Whether you agree with them or not, they are the creators of the film so they know more of what it's about than anyone else does. Please do your research. Quagga1883 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The movie begins with a shot of two polar bears along with the sound of boiling water on the soundtrack. This might be an important clue as to just what the allegory is referring. 71.255.130.67 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Producer David Sirota says in this interview (starts discussion at 1:05) that the comet impact is an allegory for the climate crisis. I'm thinking of adding this as a citation. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the interview with David Sirota would be a helpful citation. It explains how the allegory came about and provides evidence that Sirota and McKay set out to make a film about climate change. I found it interesting, thank you. 82.10.72.55 (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with global warming[edit]

A comet on track to destroy the planet earth has nothing to do with global warming. Take the reference out 76.72.148.7 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it has nothing to do with climate change. However the creators use the impact event as a stand in for climate change. Goodness knows why. I've added this into the opening paragraph. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spamming about how you don't get the film on the talkpage.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change, Greta's effect[edit]

Don't you think this is an ironic film for about climate change? It should/could be included in the article. 79.116.98.225 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Chris evans doesn’t play Peter isherwell. 120.21.145.183 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Links[edit]

Never seen external links on wiki before and I've just accidentally clicked on the description of Don't Look Up and it's taken me to a life insurance policy site, then proceeded to bombard me with so many pop ups I've had to shut down chrome.

Had no idea this could happen, I get anyone can edit, but surely external links should have some kind of vetting before they're allowed. 2A02:C7D:FA28:8D00:B0A3:197:52D3:781 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two references for an activists viewpoint[edit]

Just adding two references if anyone wants to work in an activist viewpoint.[1][2] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another.[3] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kalmus, Peter (29 December 2021). "I'm a climate scientist. Don't Look Up captures the madness I see every day". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2021-12-29.
  2. ^ Lu, Donna (30 December 2021). "'It parodies our inaction': Don't Look Up, an allegory of the climate crisis, lauded by activists". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2021-12-30.
  3. ^ Robinson, Nathan J (26 December 2021). "Critics of "Don't Look Up" are missing the entire point". Current Affairs. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. ISSN 2471-2647. Retrieved 2021-12-30.

How much has the film earned?[edit]

How much has this film actually earned, combining box office and streaming revenues? A recent article stated that, based on 111 million hours of viewing, this could have equated, in box office terms, based on an average ticket price of US$9, to a take of about US$441 million. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy[edit]

It’s a comedy film, director Adam McKay said so. It’s also in the Golden Globes nominations for Comedy/Musical and it’s not a musical. starship.paint (exalt) 05:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of additional stars (footnote 5)[edit]

Why is the list in its current order? Meryl Streep has a vital role as the president. She is the recipient of 3 Oscars and numerous other awards - and is probably the most successful and widely known actor in the list. So why is mentioned last? Cate Blanchett is also very successful, with 2 Oscars to her name yet she is second to last in the list. Why is that? 82.10.72.55 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Despite opposing comments, this has very strong support at 17 for and 7 against. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Primary topic per page views. The 2021 film has been receiving 100k+ page views per month since the article was created in January 2021, while the 1996 film has received only five thousand views in five years. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Too recent to judge if it is the primary topic. It was released in December 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly oppose: Only three choices offered when "Don't Look Up" alone is entered in the search bar, so I don't think navigating under the current status is problematic. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Misleading to look at views while the movie is in wide release. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, massively overwhelming primary topic. Most of the Japanese film's traffic was driven by the release of the 2021 film. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too soon to determine primary topic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Xezbeth. – Anne drew 21:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If I understand the proposal correctly, this is that the article be remained simply 'Don't Look Up', in which case I agree with comment made by Laundry above. 144.139.198.37 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that there is essentially no chance that film this will drop down to anywhere near the 1996 Japanese limited-distribution film in views or significance. If you like examples, see the page views of some movies from a few years ago. They had less views at their peak than Don't Look Up does now. Years later, they still have monthly page views in the tens of thousands. "Too soon" is not a reason to delay indiscriminately. There has to be an affirmative case for why the 1996 film rivals the 2021 film in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC factors, and I don't think there is. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Review in 10 years time or so.--Smerus (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – ^ 10 years? What? This is the primary topic. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This was just a movie, and not even very good movie. Wikipedia should be equal platform, its content should not be biased on something, which is hype now. Ktt (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Page views don't decide anything. Trillfendi (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as even taking WP:RECENTISM into account this film is already much more notable than the 1996 film, at least for English-speaking readers which is what the English Wikipedia focuses on. —El Millo (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Xezbeth. This move also recalls to mind the move discussion for Marriage Story. Οἶδα (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and especially Adumbrativus' rationale. This film will clearly remain much more significant in the long term than the 1996 film by all possible metrics. Lennart97 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kleinpecan. --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Adumbrativus and El Millo. Zaxian (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Huge film. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per PTOPIC. Most English-language reliable sources seem to refer to the 2021 film, and the difference in page views is unlikely to reduce even after several years. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Adumbrativus. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is clearly the primary topic now, and in all likelihood still will be the primary topic ten years from now. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the vastly higher page views combined with extensive media coverage leave no reasonable doubt this is the primary topic. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Doing the WP:IAR, I have gazed into my contraband WP:CRYSTALBALL and, behold, there isn't a snowflake's chance in an age of global warming that the 1996 film or its remake, which doesn't even have an article, will ever approach the 2021 film in page views. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If in the future the 2021 film is no longer the primary topic, it can be moved again, but at this time and for the foreseeable it is the primary topic. Calidum 17:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support given that there's only one other article with the same name and it's a 90s foreign movie. Given that this is one of the most viewed Netflix films- ever, it's definitely the primary topic. shanghai.talk to me 12:30, 12 January 2022 (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.

Suggestion to reinstate a critical review[edit]

A recent edit removed a review critical of the film — diff and passage below. I feel that material should stay. I read the source and found the content informative and relevant (albeit not sentiments I would align with). A suggestion. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Fry Schultz of the Washington Examiner wrote that "McKay manages to deliver nothing more than a derivative and meandering “satire” of capitalism, Donald Trump, and climate deniers that will be forgotten in less than six months."[1]

References

  1. ^ Fry Schultz, Madeline (30 December 2021). "Don't Look Up: another lazy anti-Trump movie". Washington Examiner. Washington DC, USA. Retrieved 2022-01-02.
The bulk of the full article is more of a political rant about the US government's response to Covid 19 than a review of the film. Could that be why it was removed? 82.10.72.55 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 2 sentences out of 26 that referred to the pandemic and one of those compared DiCaprio's character to Dr Fauci. So no I don't accept that characterization of that review. But stepping back, the wider issue is that the film drew a whole range of responses and these deserve coverage, unless they are completely distasteful. Moreover the relevant section is headed "critical responses" and not simply "reviews". RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That removal has now been reverted, see below. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Look_Up_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1063706297

Comet impact[edit]

In the event of an Oort cloud comet impacting Earth in 6 months with high confidence, the observation arc (including precovery images) would need to be months/years, not hours/days.[1] In the movie I see no mention of precovery images, only 5 photos (1h ago, 2h, 3h, 4h, 5h ago) with a 4 HOUR arc (What the Minor Planet Center would call a "single-nighter"). To reach an impact probability of 80% would require a nominal trajectory that is an impactor and has 3-sigma uncertainties of the order of 15000 km for the encounter. Just for those that want to know. -- Kheider (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research, you need reliable secondary sources that back up this info in order to include it, if it's even notable enough in the first place. —El Millo (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it may not add anything to the article. But science is never as clear-cut as movies make it out to be or we would get nothing but snorefests. One-night stands are never good for predicting the future 6 months from now. -- Kheider (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a good example of how unreliable short arcs are: With an observation arc of 2.6 days comet C/2017 K2 was estimated to come to perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) at 9.8 au in the year 2027. But it is now known that it will come to perihelion 1.8 au from the Sun on 19 December 2022. -- Kheider (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note — as the article does too — that "astronomer Amy Mainzer, principal investigator of NASA's NEOWISE mission that tracks Near-Earth objects, served as an "astrotech adviser" for the film. She provided scientific advice and supported with writing scenes from an early stage of production".[2] And that the Scientific American article quoted is supportive of the approach taken. That is not to suggest that Kheider is mistaken in any way. But a reliable secondary source would be needed, as Facu-el Millo indicates. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the timing of when the probability got really high was too detailed a point for Hollywood to worry about. Even your link mentions "transgressions" in the science. Another reference about the movie mentions, "When we talk about close approaches, what's important is how much we know about the orbit of an individual asteroid. When we first find something, we know almost nothing about it. Usually we just have a handful of snapshots. That's not a lot to go on. So then the race is on to gather more information about it (the orbit)." And then states, "The process depends upon collecting more observations over time and then gradually refining those orbit estimates." (Should be usable for a footnote. Also note comets with non-gravitional forces (via outgassing) need a longer arc than an asteroid.) Using the above reference a footnote should say something like: "A few images showing a short observation arc of only a few hours is not long enough to have high confidence in an impact 6 months away. The observation arc would require precovery images and/or follow-up observations to reduce the uncertainties of the encounter." This would leave out the requirement of an observation arc of months to achieve high confidence, but this is a notable scientific omission from the movie. Hollywood wanted to make a comedy and Amy has to pick the her battles when trying to get her messages across. -- Kheider (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first comet of 2022 is known as C/2022 A1. It has a short 5-day observation arc, and will make closest approach to Earth tomorrow 2022-Jan-08, but the 3-sigma uncertainty in the approach distance is ±1 million km because of the short arc. -- Kheider (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "How to determine the orbit of a comet?". esa. 2014-03-07. Retrieved 2022-01-08. It took 44 days of observation to achieve even a semblance of an orbit determination – one that was still all over the place
  2. ^ Oppenheimer, Rebecca. "Hollywood Can Take On Science Denial: Don’t Look Up Is a Great Example". Scientific American. Retrieved 2022-01-04.

Jennifer Lawrence Twitter[edit]

@Draco9904: and this one? Theys York (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Jennifer Lawrence publicly joins Twitter to comment on racial injustice[reply]

"AILF" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect AILF and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#AILF until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-credits scene[edit]

There's been a slow-mo edit war over including the post-credits scene in the plot summary. I don't care much either way, but would like a talk page consensus over back-and-forth editing. I've seen MOS:PLOTBLOAT cited as a reason to exclude the content. Do proponents of inclusion have a response? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't Look Up (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Don't Look Up (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Don't Look Up (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

projected DVD or blue ray release?[edit]

I see nothing mentioned about timing for any DVD or BlueRay availability. 2603:6081:7803:9F1A:3852:264:9C46:FC61 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Critical Methods -- Sec. 001[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2022 and 3 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bluekat343, Rebsmartyside (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rebsmartyside (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to reorganize "Reception" section[edit]

A banner underneath the "Reception" section noted that it was too long to read and navigate comfortably. I wanted to propose putting the review websites, like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, under the heading of "Audience ratings"

Next, I want to suggest separating the various news media reviews. The second paragraph of the "Reception section" beginning with "The San Francisco Chronicle" seems to be more general reviews focused on the tone and overall performance of the movie, while the third and fourth paragraphs are more focused on partisan and other socio-political comments. Perhaps we can separate these by putting the paragraphs that start with "In a negative review" and "Nathan J. Robinson" under another subheading of "Socio-political critiques" instead.

Lastly, I believe the sentence about Bong Joon-ho can be moved to the end of the second paragraph -- I feel like it's a little out of place at the end of the section Bluekat343 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Credit scene[edit]

The mid credit scene is an Easter egg. Any one who has read The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe will recognize this scene for what it is. The general fitness for survival in a hostile environment of the now stranded ark passengers the reaction to the local fauna by the presumed leader all point to the 2000 odd passengers being the metaphorical equivalent of the passengers of the Golgafrincham Ark B from the above named novel by Douglas Addams. Fitting in a most relevant way. 47.135.195.68 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Who was billed first or second and what the inspiration of an actor was have no place in this section. 193.242.214.5 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged text[edit]

@C.J. Griffin: can you explain why you want to use this author here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a movie review. Jacobin - listed as a reliable source when proper attribution is included - publishes quote a few of these, and his analysis seems relevant to the section it is published in.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The author also has to be reliable, source can refer to three things as you well know. This author publishes conspiracy pieces... Do you have anything which says that they're reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked there is no consensus on the reliability of the author's work. Given that the source is listed as reliable, I see no problem with including it. And there is hardly anything controversial stated in the text. The film was indeed made to pillory these aspects of American society as he says in the review. The material is also long-standing, being originally added in January of 2022, shortly after the film was released on Netflix. It passes WP:DUE by my estimation.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am asking you to get a consensus for the reliability of the author's work as you are required to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, again, that the source is considered reliable with proper attribution, so the consensus is already established on the source. This should be enough to establish reliability for its inclusion here, given the material included from the piece is not controversial or disputed. Regarding the author, the discussion is already underway on the RSN and there is no consensus reached as of yet. Edit: it’s closed for now it seems.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not challenging the publisher I'm challenging the author, for WP:RS purposes there are three components which make up the source (the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)) and *all* must be reliable. An unreliable author in a reliable publication is unusable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess we are at an impasse. You don’t dispute the material that you are removing, and it looks like you acknowledge that the publisher is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but you want to remove material that is perfectly reasonable to include here because you take issue with something the author, an established writer who has written not only for Jacobin but also The Nation, said somewhere else on an entirely different topic. Perhaps other editors can offer their opinions on this issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to get consensus. The content has been removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Easter Egg?[edit]

"The film ends with a scene that reflects the Last Supper. Dr. Mindy, his family, Kate, Yule, and Teddy all sit around a dinner table and engage in a hand-held prayer, spoken by Yule. After the prayer, Kate Dibiasky gives Yule a kiss, and moments later Comet Dibiasky destroys Earth. The scene also resembles a Hieronymus Bosch painting."

The last line appears to refer to the dinner scene as "Bosch-y" as it were, but the cited source (145, i believe) seems to direct that assertion to one of the mid-credit-scenes. idk for certain though, i just found it odd for a dinner scene to recall bosch 65.99.103.126 (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_Look_Up&oldid=1213933987"