Talk:Don't Look Up

Two references for an activists viewpoint

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

And another. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

How much has the film earned?

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)

No that 111 million hours was on Netflix, so theater ticket price doesnt really apply. Plus the movie creators dont get 100% of the ticket price anyway ~2025-31859-35 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion to reinstate a critical review

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)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Look_Up_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1063661059

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."

References

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)

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)

That removal has now been reverted, see below. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Look_Up_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1063706297

It's not a film review, it's a partisan hack attack on a film based on zero substance. The writer is a political activist who works on behalf of not just an unreliable source, but far right interests noted in her byline. There's nothing to add here, and I reject the reinstatement. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Comet impact

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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". 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)

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)

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)

References

projected DVD or blue ray release?

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)

You're right. The usual suspects were at work disrupting this article with their nonsense, preventing people from improving and adding a home media section. Same thing happened over at Moore's Sicko article some time ago. It's an old tactic. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

Mid Credit scene

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)

That's an interesting connection, as I'm familiar with the book and didn't recognize the homage. I'm not exactly certain there is a direct relationship between the two, as the generation ark crash landing on a hostile planet predates Douglas Adams, and I think he was playing around with it in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Challenged text

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You failed to get consensus. The content has been removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: what's the status of this discussion? Has the issue been resolved? Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

No consensus thus far and discussion stalled for years. I still argue that there is nothing wrong with this source, a review of the film by a writer from the well known socialist magazine Jacobin. The only argument the other party has is that this writer allegedly published "conspiracy theories" somewhere, without providing real evidence of course.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the material currently in the article? Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Material in question. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit weird that HEB removed Jacobin but left the Washington Examiner. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep. C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you take a look at the Washington Examiner (WE) article (and my comment in the above section about it) and compare the two articles. Here's what I see: the Jacobin article is an actual, academic analysis of the film and its related issues. While we are still responsible for using this source accurately and fairly within the guidelines and policies, it meets the RS guideline and is relevant to the topic. Now, compare to WE. It's not academic, it's not even about the film, it's an angry political rant about how we all need to bow down and worship Trump as our King. I cannot imagine how the two articles are even comparable or why one was removed and the other remains. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

After looking over the WE article I completely agree with your analysis. From the portion I have access to, it is definitely just a highly politicized screed against all the “villains” the right likes to pillory, like Thunberg and AOC, and is not much of a movie review at all. I would support removing the WE article at the very least and perhaps reinserting the Jacobin review, per WP:DUE C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You can read the entire piece here. I may have been a bit harsh in my initial appraisal. I did some digging and it turns out the author did study journalism at Hillsdale College. While not ideal, there may be a way to make it work. Perhaps we could start by noting where both authors agree. Schultz admits that the film is satirizing capitalism, while Marcetic basically says the same, saying that democracy as it is portrayed in the film has been hindered by billionaires and greed, while also nodding towards Schultz in his recap of the negative criticism the film received, but more importantly, countering it: the film is treated negatively by the mainstream media precisely because it is a pointed indictment of top-down elitism and institutions who are responsible for distracting and manipulating us, in other words, the media itself, and the film captures this moment. This is a point that Schultz should have herself realized but doesn't, because she carries water for the elites on the right; the spectrum hardly matters as the outcome is the same. Finally, Marcetic nicely addresses many of Schultz's main complaints. Schultz, like many on the right, mistakenly thought the film was about the pandemic. Historically, conservatives have great difficulty with ambiguity and allegory. Schultz not only gets it wrong entirely, but attacks the wrong people in her piece, ignoring that her own employers are the problem. Maybe there is a way to use both in the piece to illustrate this problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

A deeper reading of the WE source only worsened my opinion of it. It’s hardly a movie review at all and is basically just an ignorant, childish rant. So much for her journalism degree! But if the Jacobin material is restored (and modified if necessary) to balance it out, I guess I can live with that. C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m contemplating restoring the challenged text and the Jacobin source as the other editor has failed to submit evidence that the author of the piece has written debunked “conspiracy theories.” Thoughts on this? C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I support your restoration. If possible, consider modifying your text (and that of many others if possible) in prose form, rather than quotes, such that it forms a kind of topical narrative. If you can’t do that at this time, that’s okay, too. Viriditas (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Done.✅ C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No the other editor removed it. C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Error in Easter Egg?

"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)

Good point. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)