Talk:Marty Supreme

Production

Details about Adam Sandler’s previous project with the Safdie Brothers should not be written in such detail under a movie that has nothing to do with it. It is more so background information in relation to the split of the brothers, not Marty Supreme. Soe743edits (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Rumored movie with Chalamet & Sandler was just that. A rumour. No reliable news outlet reported on it and hence does not need to be included in this project, atleast until either parties have mentioned that this project did exist.

Same goes for Adam Sandler’s movie with the Safdie brothers and the split. It has nothing to do with Marty Supreme. For what reason are you writing essays about it under a different movie? This isn’t Adam Sandler’s movie or Benny Safdie’s. Please transfer these details to the article page of the brothers’ split or Adam Sandler’s previous/upcoming works. Soe743edits (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

See that's where you're wrong. Deadline, Collider, The Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly and IndieWire are all reliable outlets. Far from a rumor. And Marty Supreme would not exist without the film's cancellation. Perhaps the information itself could be dumbed down but it's absolutely relevant, and absolutely worth mentioning for that reason. You're the only editor—so far—who seems to think otherwise. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me clarify again, None of these reliable outlets that you just listed have ever reported on an Adam Sandler-Timothee Chalamet movie that was cancelled, and thus led to the development of Marty Supreme. this is the only kind of information that can be deemed necessary enough to be included and it doesn’t exist. These outlets may have reported on a previously rumored Adam Sandler-Safdie movie, but again, it has absolutely nothing to do with Marty Supreme as far as we know, until stated otherwise.

To counter your other point as well, you are the only editor that deemed it necessary to include these details and you did so just in March. I don’t think you should speak for every editor as I dont see any other editors here supporting your claims.

It is only natural that information about the brothers’ split and/or any previously rumored movies with other actors be on their respective article pages not explained in essayed details here. It is extremely irrelevant. Soe743edits (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The only outlet I found for your claims of a Chalamet-Sandler-Safdie movie was a world of reel article and that is definitely not a reliable outlet. Soe743edits (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The Sandler/Safdie was a development regarding these projects. I understand the "unreliability"; then remove just that and not the whole thing if you're not happy with it. Don't be a baby by removing entire body of background I have for the production. You keep suggesting I add it to the Career bio of the Safdies and I don't see how it could fit well there at all. All the information is best put to use here. As clarified at the end of the info, the project was never a Benny Safdie project, as he said he was never involved in its writing process. Therefore, the info is not relevant to include the Production section for the lead up to his film The Smashing Machine. However, you are wrong in that it is not relevant here. It's really quite simple; Josh was writing another movie, developed it for years, was weeks away from shooting, then the strikes happened, and he chose to direct Marty Supreme. The other project is now scrapped. How is that not relevant to Marty Supreme? ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

And I ask again what relevance do previously rumored projects that never saw the light of day, have to do with a completely different project that has moved forward with a different actor?

It is truly not my intention to “be a baby” here, but I fail to see the need or relevance of this information on the page.

Many directors have projects with other actors that were stuck in development prior to shooting a different movie, but I haven’t seen editors including these previously rumored projects in the article page of their new movie.

I went back to read your edits again and I’m even more baffled as to why you would think any of those detailed paragraphs are necessary here.

This isn’t Adam Sandler’s Movie or one with both Safdie Brothers.

I can concede on adding strongly related information for Josh, but it still has to be in direct relation to this project and Chalamet, and from a reliable outlet.

If not, then we wait for other editors to key in their opinions and then proceed as consensus dictates. Soe743edits (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Once again, it is not a rumored project. It's been confirmed by all three parties: Josh, Ben, and, most of all, Adam. What relevance does it have? I thought that was made clear before. Marty Supreme would not be a film if the other film were not made. Therefore it is "relevant" to mention Josh's pivoting to one project from another. Your hangup seems to be on the Sandler/Chalamet source— which I thought was relevant. But if one wants to remove it because of "unreliability", I understand that. I do however, no understand the point of removing all of the information. Because where better will it serve its purpose? Nowhere. It belongs here, on the Marty Supreme page. Perhaps a different subheading should be given to avoid confusion: "Background", a kind of history that led up to the project's inception. Many articles have that. Nothing new with regards to history/backstory on films. Common practice on Wikipedia. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

And you're also wrong about other articles not mentioning projects that filmmakers were supposed to take on before making one that was made. Not "passing mention" reports of "set to direct" type-stuff. No, I mean projects that were going to happen, that were set in place to happen, that miraculously didn't for one reason or another, and then the director moves on to something else. Here, I thought it was more than relevant, considering the amount of information and what led up to it—the brothers amicable split (which readers/commonfolk might want to know about going in regarding these directors' outputs)—as well as the mention of Chalamet in the "unreliable" reference, I thought would be an interesting way to tie it together, as in, there were murmurings of a collaboration in the past. Again, also relevant for background. Doesn't matter if the source is "reliable" or not. But, in this case, even though it's World of Reel, they had provided reliable updates on the film that no other news publication had, so the earlier source I think is also relevant in this project's case. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We’re not going to agree on this unfortunately. Which is why I think it’s best to wait for other opinions and then proceed as decided.

I still don’t see why a previous project that did not involve Chalamet or Josh Safdie as a solo director, needs to be included in the background information of Marty Supreme.

Also you saying that this “confirmed” project not being made is the reason Marty Supreme moved forward, just sounds like something you pulled out of thin air. Can you give me a reliable source that ties these two projects together??? I haven’t seen any. Josh, Benny and Sandler may have mentioned their project together but neither have said anything about Marty Supreme in relation to this project. Soe743edits (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If its any consolation; I agree with you on that first part. There just doesn't seem to be much interest from other editors-- at least not that I can tell. Better to include the information in the article until its settled. Since we are the only two in disagreement, it would make more sense to include the information then to not have it there at all. But if there is dispute from other editors, then I will take it down-- personally. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

You can include a discussion link to the talk page for other editors, however while waiting I do not see the relevance of this information being included as explained above. It is irrelevant and completely disrupts the article page. Soe743edits (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Once again, so far you are the only one who believes this or feels this way about the information. Thus, the information will stay in the article until someone else has an issue with it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Unnecessary information that only (you) think is relevant should not be on the page until decided otherwise. Soe743edits (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody else seems to think it's irrelevant. Therefore, it should be on the page until there is further dispute. End of discussion, I'm not doing anymore of this back and forth, it's gotten us nowhere. Either find another editor who disagrees with the information, or deal with it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Right back at you. Find another editor to corroborate your unnecessary additions that make no sense whatsoever, otherwise leave page as is.

I created this topic for clarification on why you think this information is relevant here and yet so far you’ve given absolutely no valid reason or reliable source/reference that tie these 2 projects together. Just rumours from thin air and bloated background information that very clearly do not belong here.

Find another editor that supports your additions or find a sensible source that ties these 2 projects directly, until then it is deemed irrelevant. Soe743edits (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

My presented sources include Deadline, Collider, The Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly and IndieWire, and those are all reliable publications. I'm still not sure what you mean when you say they are rumors. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Your presented sources are for the supposed Sandler-Safdie brothers’ project that was stuck in development and may have included Chalamet. (Still no source but a blog, proving Chalamet was ever linked to this project mind you).

You also claim that this project not moving forward is in direct relation to Marty Supreme moving forward, hence the need to include it on the page. Yet you however have not provided any reliable sources backing this claim and linking these two projects together??

Neither parties have mentioned Marty Supreme in relation to this project so where are your claims from?

Kindly provide sources or leave the page as it is. If there are no valid sources linking these 2 projects, it has no business being in the background page of Marty Supreme.

Again, completely irrelevant. Soe743edits (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if a source did exist on that, it wouldn't be necessary to include it, and would only prove redundant. And it's not assumptive at all. It's "Background and development"; meaning what led up to a project happening. A backstory, a history. I think perhaps that's the issue; you and I have have very difference definitions of what that means for an article page. When, in fact, the definition of "Background and development" is quite simple: background and development. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No offense but you’re not making much sense. You can’t just pull background information out of thin air?? If you’re going to include bogus bloated information, find a REAL source that ties these projects not just made up voices in your head or rumors from blogs.

Where was it stated that Marty Supreme only came into existence because the Sandler-Safdie project didn’t pull through ?? Who reported this?? Did the Safdie brothers mention this? Did Sandler? Did Chalamet??

We are definitely not going to agree on non existent/irrelevant “backstory” being added here. Clarify your sources. Soe743edits (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You're making some dangerous assumptions. The background information has not been pulled out of thin air— it's a tailored sequences of references, sources, updates, and developments. And they are real sources, so I'm not sure what you qualify as a real source, but most of them are reliable publications. You keep using the word "projects" plural, which I also don't understand. It's one project—the baseball film—that was wasn't made and then Marty Supreme. So that's one unmade project, plus a film. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I really don’t know if the miscommunication problem here is a lack of grammar comprehension or something else, but I keep having to repeat the same thing in cycles to no avail.

You have made claims that the Adam Sandler project that did not move forward is relevant to Marty Supreme yet there is no source that confirms this ever happened.

Could you provide me with a source that links these 2 projects together, I haven’t found any!

Your sources only confirm that the Sandler-Safdie project was in development but (AGAIN), what does this have to do with Marty Supreme moving forward? and why does it need to be mentioned in such detail here?

It’s very evident we won’t be coming to an agreement so I’m glad another editor has weighed in. I still think the Sandler project is extremely irrelevant here but a fair compromise on one short paragraph is accepted.

Your bogus background information will be deleted until the new editor has reconstructed it. This user is a known editor and does a decent job with coherent phrasings. Soe743edits (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: No new adjustments done by you, will be accepted. Leave it to the new editor. Soe743edits (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, no one bothered to remove it. Therefore, any other editor who came across it was not bothered by the info's inclusion and/or (if that's too assumptive) didn't see any reason for it be removed, because they otherwise would have. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, another editor chiming in. While I think it might be relevant to include info about this unproduced Adam Sandler movie, I don't think its necessary for it to be this long, we certainly don't need a play by play of everything Sandler has said about the movie. I think condensing it to the essentials is enough and don't think it should be longer than a paragraph. I don't have time to edit it now, but it definetely needs to be shorter IXCat (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate you weighing in. If you could maybe find the time to edit it better, that would save us a lot of dispute and prevent the article page from looking as bogus as it does right now.

I still think we remove all of it until you can do so.

Leaving it up as it is right now just makes the page look incoherent. Soe743edits (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, putting in my two cents. Unless you can directly connect the two movies, I don't see how it's related. Adam Sandler and the Safdies' working on another movie before this one doesn't automatically warrant its inclusion. If you can find something relevant, it should be a few sentences at most or just put in the Safdies brothers article. I can't find any precedent for this. People are coming here to read about Marty Supreme, not detailed paragraphs about Adam Sandler's unreleased movie. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for joining in on the conversation! omg I’ve been at this for days now with this user and thought I was losing my mind. We have no sources directly linking these 2 movies so there’s really no reason to have information about the Sandler project included on the page. Soe743edits (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus reached. 2 editors want it removed, 1(one) thinks it can be rephrased to a paragraph.

That leaves you outvoted. Kindly do not disrupt this page any longer or you will be reported. Soe743edits (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Already edited. I think it gives sufficient context on why Marty Supreme became Safdie primary focus, without being confusing for readers. Do tweak anything if necessary. Hope this edit is satisfactory for both parts IXCat (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just read @Noonehasthisnameithink comment after editing. Do remove my paragraph if you see fit. IXCat (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for taking the time to rephrase to a shorter paragraph, it’s a lot less bogus.

But if it’s okay with you, could we maybe just remove it completely since we can all agree that there’s no direct relation between both projects.

Atleast until we can find a source that states otherwise. Soe743edits (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That has not been agreed upon. A compromise was made. It's not ideal for either of us. Move on. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

We also still haven't gotten enough outside editors to have a truly unbiased discussion. I appreciate IXCat stepping in, so far they have been the only one to actually make progress on this issue. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

2 editors disagree, 1 is neutral. You have been outvoted here. No idea what you mean by “enough outside editors”?

This is a very unbiased discussion page naturally based on common sense, that clearly not everyone seem to have.

Find a source that ties these two projects together, otherwise stop disrupting the page with your bogus unrelated information. Soe743edits (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

"Bogus" is not a technical term; and is basically the basis for your entire argument, which is very subjective. You enlisted the help of an editor who is aligned with your view, as opposed to the discussion attracting editors who truly have no stake. That's an unbiased outside discussion. That's not the case here. We have a neutral editor, who provided a compromise. It's not an ideal situation for either us, but he understood the information's relevant. Now, it's better to include information in the article than to damage it by not having it in there. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

So basically any editor that doesn’t agree with your very BOGUS addition based on again common sense, has been enlisted by me or is aligned with my view?

Mind you I went out and sought all recent editors to the page to weigh in on the discussion while you remained here and just resorted to edit warring, disrupting the page based on non existent rumors and no valid sources.

Unfortunately for you there will be no compromise. I’ve decided I’m not interested in one anymore. Until you can find a valid source tying or linking both these projects together, it is irrelevant to the page. Soe743edits (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No, but you an enlisted an editor you knew by soliciting their attention on their user talk page. And your over-usage of the word "bogus" is invalid; you can't even describe what is exactly wrong with the information I've added. There isn't anything wrong with it. Which is why you're repeating the same word. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's going to stay the way it is as IXCat has formed it. I'm dealing with it, so you should follow. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

IXCat is neutral and open to removing the information.

Noonehasthisnameithink wants it removed, i want it removed. That’s three editors to one and the majority consensus has been reached.

If you want more editors to weigh in, go find these editors. I’ll bet you they follow the same consensus, why? because AGAIN, it’s common sense that unrelated information does not belong on the page. Soe743edits (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

An editor you enlisted whom you know who agrees with your stance, plus an outside editor who is neutral, yet decided to keep the information, is not three against one. At all. It's not a black/white, yes/no, right/wrong situation as you seem to think it is. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't know them. They left something on my talk page so I responded. I maintain mentions of this other movie are only tangentially related to Marty Supreme, if that. The current edit is way less disruptive and confusing but still not really needed. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. No article page really NEEDS a background section, but it's helpful and necessary for readers if they want to understand the inception or history of what led up to a production being mounted. Here, the information is vital for a Background. Perhaps maybe it warrants it's own heading, and having it under the "Production" section is confusing. It was presumed that following Uncut Gems, the Safdies with be returning to co-direct. It's relevant to know why all of a sudden they did not, and decided to direct solo, six years after their last film. And it wouldn't be relevant on their individual pages, since the baseball project was revealed to be only developed by Josh... I could go on and on as to why it is relevant for the page to have. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I “enlisted” the opinions of recent editors to the page, for general consensus, instead of edit warring. which is what any human with common sense would have done. I do not know any of these editors personally.

Again, the previously rumored Sandler project is NOT related Marty Supreme and has no business being on the page. We have asked you countless times to provide a valid source linking these 2 projects. As you are yet to provide one, it is deemed irrelevant until you can prove that the inception of Marty Supreme is linked to the Sandler project.

There is also no biased decision based on my personal relationships with any of the editors here, as you claimed. I do not know them.

Both gave their opinions and we will proceed with the consensus as such.

2 editors think it is not needed and should be removed completely, 1(one) very clearly stated in their last reply that we can remove it if we see fit. That leaves just you.

Based on wiki rules, we will proceed with the consensus until another majority consensus decide otherwise. Soe743edits (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No, you're actually the only one who's asked for a source. And, do the math again, none of the editors feel as passionately as you about having the information removed. In fact, based on their last response, the editor you enlisted appears to be leaning slightly into more indifference, but I could be wrong. Their hangups don't seem to be in line with yours. And you're still wrong that the baseball project has nothing to do with Marty Supreme. Even IXCat in their description of the compromised edit of the page itself admitted that it does. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It also took you eight edit reverts before you enlisted the help of other editors and "any human with common sense" would have done so much earlier. I think it's because you know deep down that your stance is heavily opinionated, and not honestly backed up with enough logic to remove it. Your stance is honestly just destructive, which is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Editors like you don't contribute. They take away. Shame on you. Seriously. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, none of the information (that I added initially, or that is in the article presently) outright says something to the effect of "the cancellation of the baseball project led to Marty Supreme." Why? Well, because, yes there's no source for it. But as I said yesterday, even if there was, it would not be necessary to include at all. I think the two other editors at least understand where I'm coming from. You just have this very close-minded conviction of why it's not relevant, and it is an opinion. I'm sorry, but it is. If it weren't, why aren't there more editors who are just as passionate about the removal of this "bogus information" as you are? Answer me that. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I did agree on a compromise earlier until you resorted to false accusations of unbiased personal relationships with other editors. So considering there’s still no relevance between both projects, there’s really no need for a compromise. The information is irrelevant.

To clarify again, 2 editors including me, asked for valid relations between both projects to justify including it here yet you haven’t provided any because it doesn’t exist. You’re also wrong in your listed assumptions, as i am actually very confident that no sensible editor would see fit to include these details which was why i sought the opinions of other editors in the first place.

I can’t say i feel that passionately towards your inclusions, i just think only related information should be present on the page, not bloated bogus details about an unrelated project.

And yes i would consider myself a “human with common sense”, i did seek help from other editors regardless, while you had no intention to do so but rather keep edit warring.

Thankfully i have a life and no interest in continuing a conversation that mostly just constitutes arguing with a wall, so this is where we part. Do go ahead and proceed as you see fit and I’ll do the same, based on wiki guidelines.

Have a lovely evening xD Soe743edits (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WHEN did you agree to a compromise? As soon as IXCat dumbed down the information, you were against it from the very beginning. And, no, you're the only one who's asked for a valid relation between them. As IXCat explained in his edit; "I think it gives a bit of context. The fall through of the Adam Sandler movie, might have lead Josh Safdie to star work on Marty Supreme as quickly as possible." There's proof. Now, where's your proof? And that's not for you to say that you don't feel passionately about the information being included. It's how it's coming off. You were against it and vehement from the very beginning; don't act all innocent and indifferent now-- ridiculous. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, actually, nevermind, now I see the whole problem: you're a Timothée Chalamet fanboy (per your edit history). I'm sorry, I didn't realize. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I was alerted to this conversation by Soe743edits (talk · contribs).

It seems pretty tendentious to discard the opinions of additional editors and claim that even more editors are needed to form a viable consensus, especially if one is not making an effort to get those additional opinions. To me it would be more indicative of good-faith to respect the consensus that appears to have developed unless and until additional editors weigh in favoring a different approach. My most immediate question, though: Has anyone notified WP:FILM of this discussion, and if not, why not? Why are specific editors arguably being canvassed? I also strongly recommend that everyone involved in this discussion review WP:3RR; the edit-warring needs to stop; frankly, if I'd been aware of this earlier I would have issued warnings and possibly reported editors for edit-warring. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the continuous edit warring and will stop immediately, but I’m also unsure what else to do. I sought out editors to weigh in on the consensus and we did agree to remove the information as evident above, but User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 has vehemently refused to accept the decision. they keep coming up with hypothetical scenarios of these new editors not being “passionate” enough about their decisions.

I have also posted a request for dispute resolution WP:ANI but the same user is still refusing the consensus, claiming it doesn’t exist and instead repeating accusations of bias and aggression. Soe743edits (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As there's an ANI discussion, I'm going to defer to whatever the findings may end up being there (and please note that ANI can take days to reach a conclusion). I'm still not sure why WP:FILM wasn't notified of the dispute here before things spun as wildly out of hand as they have, but again, the ANI filing would seem to supercede that at present. I'd note that ANI is not for dispute resolution but is rather for addressing user conduct issues. Dispute resolution would be handled at WP:DRN. That would also currently seem to be a moot point, but may be relevant if ANI concludes that this should be handled strictly as a content dispute. DonIago (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Soe743edits (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Should the information in "Background" be removed?

Should the biggest section in the article for this movie really be a long stretch of unrelated information about someone who isn't in it at all? Why wouldn't that be over in a 'possible future projects' section on Sandler's page? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see my original addition to the article. The way the information was written, was as a lead-up/background to the production/inception/creation of Marty Supreme. Not uncommon for Wikipedia pages of films or books or music pieces to have a "Background" section. Doesn't matter who or what was involved. Adam Sandler was indirectly related to the inception of Marty Supreme, and there is no disputing that. Among the featured references, he is mentioned. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And the only reason Sandler was so consistently included in the information, is because he was giving consistent updates. Perhaps that's part of the issue there. He acted as an "updater" for what was going on with the Safdies, or what they were working on at that moment. But it makes it confusing for people who see him as having no involvement in Marty Supreme, because a lot of the references are comprised of interviews of him updating about a project that preceded, but also led to, Marty Supreme.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, what is the biggest section currently, will not still be the biggest section once the film has come out. It will not appear as glaringly over-detailed, by a stretch. So, perhaps I'm a little ahead of my time; perhaps this information was curated and added all too early. That's why there's so much controversy. Well, really just controversy from one user: Soe743edits, excuse me. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all. Several other editors have questioned it and suggested that it be reduced, because obviously most of the information has very, very little connection to the movie this article is about. Have you been able to find any RS that state that this movie is only being made because those specific other ones were cancelled, or that there is some notable connection between them, or is this WP:OR?

And please don't go around reverting everyone else to your personal preferred version and then pretend that you are in a position to tell anyone else not to edit war. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all. Those "several other" editors do not count because they were canvassed by Soe743edits, as additionally assumed by the user Doniago, as well as myself. Not an unbiased discussion, in any sense of the word, and therefore no concensus ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I was actually fine with how the information was shortened by another user, until Soe743edits changed it again. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a lead-up to what went behind the scenes, creatively, before the film went into production. Why is that so hard to understand? A particular set of events; the Safdies breaking up, the mention/rumor of them working with Chalamet (or him starring in a film of theirs), and finally Josh's decision to direct the film himself, before finally deciding to direct Marty Supreme altogether instead. Missing a few things, but that's essentially all worthy of and warranting a "Background" section. There's just too much information for it not to be acknowledged somewhere somehow. And since all of the information came out in such quick succession, it would make no sense in a Career bio. It makes sense here. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And again, please see how all of the information was added by me initially, the first edits. Perhaps it can be adjusted again. I have no problem with that. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

To reiterate my previous thoughts on this - Clearly a lot of this is unrelated to Marty Supreme and should not be included in this article. If there is a reference for the unrealized Sandler movie being directly connected to Marty Supreme then a short mention could be made. I think this is perfectly reasonable. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked Zander if there were any sources that make that connection, or if it was just his own Original Research and Synth.

He responded to everything else but ignored that question. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I took a closer look and none of the sources in the article directly correlate the unrealized the Sandler movie with Marty Supreme. Does a previous project being delayed/cancelled before starting another warrant its inclusion here? If not, in favor of removing mentions of it here. Seems more appropriate for the Safdie Bothers, Sandler or another unrealized project page. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently still no reference from a valid source that tie both these projects together or show direct connection. Neither of the Safdies, Sandler or Chalamet have spoken about Marty Supreme in relation to their unrealized project. I have asked this editor repeatedly to provide a source that directly links both these projects enough to warrant a mention, instead I have been subject to harassment and false accusations in response. Soe743edits (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to have to recuse myself from weighing in on this further. Zander's repeated mischacterization of things I've said in the past has poisoned the well for me, especially in regard to a film article I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with. If Zander in the future makes any statements regarding what I allegedly said, thought, or did, please ping me and I'll review. DonIago (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Another editor removed the edits. I support the current article as there's no source relating the two movies. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Reception. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

plot summary

I wrote a plot summary which was (justifiably) reverted for not being concise enough. But if someone else wanted to add a plot summary at some point, it might be easier to take mine and cut it down, than to write a new one from scratch. Its in the edit history. If that helps ~2025-42598-37 (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

14th placement

Why is there a placement at 14th in a subsection titled about lists of top ten films? ~2025-43227-97 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That whole section pretty nonstandard, don't think I have ever seen a top ten list section for a film, except for older films and their inclusion in more established top 100 lists for that decabe or century. I think it should probably be removed, maybe some could be integrated into the reception section prose. Ajheindel (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Male child?

The current plot summary says that Rachel had a son, but I don't recall any indication of whether the baby was a boy or a girl. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Box office failure, and NPOV issues

This article has NPOV issues. The opening paragraphs of the article heap the film with praise in an unbalanced way.

Additionally, the fact that the film was a box office disappointment is not mentioned; which is usually information that is included in articles like this. Compounded with the NPOV issues at the top, I think the opening paragraphs of this film need to be re-written to fit site guidelines. Jack6754 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

While I think the lead section could be more improved for balance (it probably doesn't need the quotes about Chalamet's performance), I'm not really seeing any indication from major publications that the film is under-performing at the box office. From a rough chronological standpoint:

• Variety (December 21, 2025, before the film's U.S. release) - the film grosses top 10 at the domestic box office, earning $875,000 playing on only six screens
  • Variety states that the film's per-screen-average (PSA) for ticket sales is the best of 2025, the best PSA of all time for A24, and "the highest PSA for a platform release since [...] La La Land"
• Deadline (December 28, 2025) - reports opening 4-day ticket sales as "fantastic" at $27.1 million; they state that its 3-day period of $17.5 million is A24's second-highest opening ever
• Variety (December 28, 2025) - elaborates that the film is "expected to remain a box office draw due to positive reviews and great word-of-mouth"

I know what you're getting at Jack. It was an expensive film to make for A24, and it's possible that the film might not make back its estimated $70m production budget plus marketing expenses. This recent Variety article (dated January 4, 2026) alludes to this, stating that Marty Supreme will "need to remain a draw into the new year to justify its budget".

However, at this time, I don't think any editor can make the claim that the film is under-performing; it's too early for that. Do you see any reliable sources that say otherwise? FrostFairBlade (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, I may be jumping the gun, it may indeed be too early to say. Jack6754 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this: Variety reported yesterday (January 18, 2026) that Marty Supreme is A24's highest-grossing film in North America with over $80 million earned (i.e. it made back its production budget). It has also earned $17 million overseas, with additional territories to come. This means that the film has grossed $97 million in total so far, with no signs of it slowing down yet.

This is obviously fantastic press for A24, following Chalamet's wins for Best Actor at both the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice Awards this month. Variety also said in yesterday's report that Chalamet "will likely find himself in the Oscar race" once nominations are announced this week.

Jack, while I understand your concerns about the film not recouping the full amount including its marketing budget, I think it's difficult for any editor to claim that the film is a "box office disappointment". It would have to be reported in the press that way, and it's clearly outperforming what people expected from a film about a ping pong guy. What are your thoughts? – FrostFairBlade (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

just because something was high revenue by A24's standards, or unusually high revenue for a ping pong film, doesn't make stop it from being a commercial failure if the project is unprofitable. At this stage though, its too early to say, I agree Jack6754 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

there is no inbalance of praise being heaped. Every quote pulled there is backed by several recurring references. You can take it up with the numerous articles that have chosen to “heap” praise on the film.

Also calling a film that’s tracking extremely well and have broken domestic records for its distributor a “box office disappointment” really does sound like made up projections in your head and perhaps a bias against the film. It is in no way accurate as evident by the numbers so far. Soe743edits (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because something has broken a record revenue amount for a distributor, doesn't make it successful. It had a huge budget and evidently has made a substantial loss. It is well known that films need ~2x gross revenue to break even on their budgets. Omitting the fact that this film has been somewhat of a financial flop for the distributor I think is a substantial omission. Jack6754 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, breaking significant records imply strong legs. There is also no “financial flop” as this movie has only been released in domestic theatres for 2 weeks and 4 intl markets in less time, and has already made back its budget. Again, this just sounds like made up projections or possibly the voices in your head.

I would advise you focus more on the repeated wiki block/suspension you seem to be undergoing and less about a movie doing extremely well at the box office. Soe743edits (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

breaking records for a -particular distributor- does not imply legs. If I put $50M into a film, and it grossed $10M, that would be a significant record for me, but it still would be a financial failure.

Similarly, A24 has put $70M into this film which hasn't grossed the required ~2x its budget to break even. It hasn't already "made back its budget" yet. Matching gross revenue to budget does not mean a budget has been made back, this is basic knowledge.

anyway, as the comment above said, perhaps I jumped the gun on this and further revenue is yet to play out.

As for your final comment, that is quite unnecessary. I'm as entitled as any other editor to contribute to this topic. Perhaps you should focus on being more constructive in discussions in future instead of attacking other editors. Jack6754 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Where is it stated that it needs to make 2x its budget to break even? Guz13 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It is a widely known fact that films typically need 2x gross revenue from box office sales to break even. I encourage you to Google this. The accounting has somewhat changed in the streaming era where productions are now substantially financed through streaming rights; and so the rule of thumb might not apply here. However, the 2x gross revenue rule is a general rule-of-thumb across all films as to what what constitutes a box office success or bomb. It doesn't need to be stated in relation to only this specific film in an article, as this is common knowledge. Jack6754 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

We need to verify everything that we add, especially material that is likely to be challenged. This is not backed by an inline citation, and we cannot pass an editorial assessment even on what seems obvious. Our role is to summarize what reliable sources are saying about the film, including its box office performance. For example, this came out recently, and that is something that could be referenced in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That is not how it works. If something doesn't sell at all, compared to its budget, it is fair to call it a commercial failure within a Wikipedia entry; even if a source doesn't specifically use the phrase "commercial failure". So long as there are sources that show something's revenue was far lower than its budget. You're misapplying the verify rule. Jack6754 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the final paragraph of the article you link is a fluffy and promotional way of glossing over to the reader the fact that the film was indeed, a commercial failure.

"However, “Marty Supreme” has been proving its value to A24 beyond the balance sheet and through the awards circuit."

There is subtext to that sentence, which is that the films value was not the balance sheet. The article specifically even notes: "That’s because theater owners are keeping about half of ticket sales", spelling out the rule of thumb mentioned above. Jack6754 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait until RS say its a box office failure. They could be banking on the awards season bump to carry it over. And you don't know if it's commercial failure given the streaming deals they can get out of it. Guz13 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

as stated previously in this thread, I agree based on the above discussion that my initial edit was premature and we should wait a bit longer before concluding this film was a box office failure or success Jack6754 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The movie still has to be released in like 40 countries. Saw this article saying experts predict it may end up at like $170-180 million worldwide. Please keep in mind, the 2x multiplier is not applicable in all cases, for example, A24 sells their international rights, they essentially made 35-40 million or higher before it even played on a screen internationally. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

that is interesting, thank you Jack6754 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Many good points made here. Personally, I have a hard time seeing a film that earned almost twice it's production budget as a failure. Maybe too much was spent to promote it? That's speculative in the extreme. But it was a critical success. In my humble opinion, that's a films true metric of success. The Iron Giant flopped in ticket sales, but critics and audiences loved the film. A movie can't be considered a failure just based on ticket sales. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

it's not about someone's personal opinion of success, it's about the numbers. Transformers: Rise of the Beasts made more than twice it's budget and it is noted as a "box office disappointment," and many other films have also achieved this feat and are labeled as such as well as "box office bomb." Therefore, if it applies to one (and in this case numerous movies) as a rule it should apply to all, otherwise those other movies would need to have this moniker removed from their articles as well. Ninjawarriordex (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Marty Supreme has grossed $172m worldwide on a $70m budget, and is currently tracking for $200m, while still yet to open in SEVERAL markets including china and japan. That is more than double its budget and then more while STILL in theatres, This is the opposite of a ‘box office bomb’.. get yourself familiarized with wiki terms before disrupting pages.

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/timothee-chalamet-asia-tour-marty-supreme-1236680072/ Soe743edits (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Variety also mentions that the movie currently holds the record for being the highest grossing movie for the distributor in over 20 countries, and counting. These are all parameters for success, definitely not ones for a ‘box office bomb’. Soe743edits (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a sports comedy or a crime movie too

while the first half of the movie is a sports movie. the second half turns into a crime heist movie, i wanna hear what anyone else thinks about it Mysterymarvelous2102 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Should no one mention the deviation from historical accuracy?

For example, the 1952 championship when Marty lost the match happened in Mumbai(Bombay), India. Not in London. Nathularog (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)