Talk:Dear Evan Hansen (film)

Deletion?
Per Wiki guidance: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films,_incomplete_films,_and_undistributed_films Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films[edit] I will nominate this article for deletion. /k8 11:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Kolma8 (talk)

Trailer received "positive/generally positive/overwhelmingly positive" reviews
I've had to remove several instances where someone was fluffing up the trailer of the movie. I M NOT SURE this is being done by fans, editors in the pay of some marketing firm (aka, utter loathsome, scummy opportunists), or just someone not reading the sources they are linking, but the sources make no mention of any positive reception of the trailer. There is plenty of sourcing that criticizes out the portrayal of a fully-grown man as a teenager. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Cast order
Per the official website, the cast is ordered Platt, Adams, Moore, Dever, Stenberg, Dodani, Pino, Ryan, and Copes. Not sure where the other order is coming from. We should use this sourced order until we have the billing block. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

For Forever (Finale) in the movie?
Some IP user is constantly placing the musical's original finale on the track list of the soundtrack album when it isn't there and it's still not confirmed that it's in the film. Can we wait until after the premiere tonight to confirm that, and if so, make a new article for the soundtrack to separate the track listing from the songs that appear in the film itself? 2021 10:59, 9 September 2021 (EST)

Casting criticism in lead
I restored the casting criticism to the lead because I thought it had been deleted by a vandal. I thought this criticism of the film received substantial coverage and elicited responses from the director and the actor. I think the sources in the body are sufficient to mention it in the lead (but more sources could be added).

Turns out it wasn't deleted by a vandal, but that an editor believes it is WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead. I think he is mistaken. I think that beyond knowing that this film is a musical the next most significant thing it is known for is an older looking actor cast as a teenager. (The correct response may be to get over it and enjoy the movie anyway but that is another matter.) It it not about agreeing with the criticism, but it was significant and it is appropriate to mention it in the lead. -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The content you are adding is about far more than just the lead actor's age. Content summarizing the critical reception in the lead needs to be widely supported and not based on misleadingly taking a single review or two to support claims. Taking individual reviews and claiming they represent critics generally is a form of WP:SYNTH. The audience reception is also not important enough to include in the lead unless multiple sources have discussed it as significant. It is also obviously inappropriate to take sources describing the views of some audience members and claiming that represents the consensus of professional critics. If you think that something about Platt's age is relevant, then the main body should be improved first with adequate sourcing. However, please stop restoring unsupported content to the lead per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * wallyfromdilbert wrote in an edit summary "None of this added material is supported in the body", but that is not the case the article body does discuss this criticism. "not significant enough to be included in the lead" is an argument that it is WP:UNDUE, that is a valid argument, but it does seem to be due, because this criticism elicited responses from the director and the actor. If you still think the phrasing has issues of synthesis and unfair generalization then that is reason to rephrase and copyedit, not to delete the statement entirely.
 * I have nothing to do with the ipv6 anon who was persistently edit warring to claim the reviews were mixed, and at first glance I thought by restoring the text I was undoing their vandalism. It was only on closer inspection and to my surprise that I noticed the delete was by wallyfromdilbert who frequently removes bad synthesis from the lead of film articles WP:FILMLEAD but I don't believe this is one of those cases. The second time I restored the material was because I believe it is due. Other editors may agree or disagree with the appropriate level of emphasis but it is supported by the article body, and the reality that the (mis)casting was a significant part of how this film was covered in the media, deleting it from the lead does not improve the article. -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The ending was also altered?
The section on differences from the original, just says the ending was altered without elaborating how. Isn't that a bit too vague? I haven't seen the film, but can someone who has please add some more information? JjStrawb (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Professional language
I've had to revert back out some rather slang-y, chatty language to a more universal standard twice now. I look forward to discussing why referring to some one as being interested in someone else is far, far better than calling them their 'crush'. We are an encyclopedia, and need to write as such. Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)