Talk:The Double (2013 film)

Request to change wording in Box office section
The article is currently blocked for editting. Therefore, could someone with access rights change the wording of the Box office section. This because it is focused on the US: 'The film opened in two cinemas in the United States and grossed $14,646. It ended up grossing $145,511 in North America and $1,306,588 internationally for a total of $1,452,099.' Note:
 * - as a non-US film means it is inappropriate to focus of the US box office.
 * - the very limited release, and small takings, in the US also means it is inappropriate to focus on the US box office.
 * - splitting the world simply as 'North America' and 'internationally' is insulting, inappropriate for both a UK film and an article on the WORLD Wide Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.211 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Character Names to be swapped
I'm quite sure James Simon is the downtrodden one the the film begins with and Simon James is his eccentric doppleganger. No good at referencing but there it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.212.15 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018
Please Update Rotten Tomatoes In Critical Reception, Now It Is 83% With 124 Reviews And 6.9/10. And Please Change Access Date As Well. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  09:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A play before the film?
The Double (Dostoevsky novel) says that the novella "was adapted into an English play of the same name, which was later adapted into [this film]". But this article doesn't mention the play at all. Who wrote the adaptation? Where and when did it play? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

US-centric
As the page is locked for editing please could somone with access rights edit to remove an egregious UC-centric edit, which is '''The film opened in two cinemas in the United States and grossed $14,646. It ended up grossing $145,511 in North America and $1,306,588 internationally for a total of $1,452,099.'':
 * It is a British film, and so:
 * - starting with the US (where it had a very small release) is in appropriate.
 * - the gross from one area, North America, is listed before the total. The latter is more notable, and should take precedence.
 * - the use of 'international' to describe non-North American revenue is wrong for a British film.
 * - the international revenue is far greater than that from thehighlighted small area.
 * - splitting the World into two grotesquely uneven parts (North Ameria, and everywhere else) is small-minded, parochialism of the highest order.


 * And this should be a globally-focused encyclopaedia on the WORLD Wide Web, and so such parochial writing should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.67 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)