Talk:Mickey 17

Spoiler for an unrelated work

I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but it seems like a totally unnecessary spoiler to include the section "See also" that exists only as a spoiler for the film "Moon, 2009 film with a similar premise". That reveal is the whole climax of that other film with no other connection to Mickey17. 2605:A601:901A:3F00:150:ED49:F7DC:FB4C (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Missing release date

The world premiere was in London on the 13th of February. Should it not be listed above the Berlinale? 2A00:23C8:4D0C:7601:B826:280D:7BBB:1BBE (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Moon

I added a See Also link to Moon (2009 film) as both movies center on an “expendable” character in space who is repeatedly cloned.173.27.3.111 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Biased editing?

The lede stated that this film is a 'box office bomb' - it's in the top 10 of the year so far, and has grossed a few thousand less than Bridget Jones' Diary.

The film does feature a character that seems to be an unflattering parody of Donald Trump / Musk, and isn't very subtle about it.

This does have quite a strong potential to antagonise some people, but I don't think that's a good reason to randomly claim it's a huge failure, when critical responses and box office figures do not bear this out.

I'm not actually sure why box office figures need to be mentioned at all in the lede, as it's a statistics that's going to go out of date very quickly, but if it's there it should be accurate.

And I suspect the page might benefit from some protection, as there was glaringly inaccurate info and I immediately concluded a political reason - which very probably makes me biased the other way, so if anybody isn't bothered about the current political situation and / or about the film, you're probably better placed to judge than me. Moubliezpas (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

'box office flop'

The 2 users who keep editing the lede to call the film a 'box office flop' (found in the edit logs just before the regular 'updated box office figures' change and unspecified minor edits with no change log)

- Wikipedia is not the place for you to decide whether or not the film is, or should be, a success. 

Critical and audience reviews are overwhelmingly positive, as stated in the article, and the film is in the top 10 highest grossing films of the year, as stated at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_in_film#Highest-grossing_films as of April 2025.

If the professionals like it, the audiences like it, and it's among the highest grossing films of the quarter, it is patently absurd to call it a failure based on your own personal opinion.

Please stop doing it. All it's doing is drawing attention to the fact that it parodies a certain controversial president and has an inter-racial relationship, and that gives some people Very Big Feelings that they can't contain. These Very Big Feelings are not in any way relevant to the film, to Wikipedia, or to the billions of people who want to find information from objective sources.

There is an entire website devoted to 'non woke shows' that you can support. There are countless places for you to publicly post your opinions on films, actors, politics and (fewer but still there) racial policies of society and media. There are not many websites that aim to stick to established, non biased facts. Let's keep them separate and all enjoy the rest of our day and our lives without fixating on a random film. Moubliezpas (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's sourced reliably in the Box office section. It's about BOX OFFICE numbers, not reception. You are the only one bringing up "Very Big Feelings", whatever that means. With a combined $198 million spent on production and marketing, it was estimated the film needed to gross $240–300 million worldwide in order to break-even. Variety later reported the film would lose Warner Bros. $75–80 million during its theatrical run. Mike Allen 11:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the information is not lede-worthy. Also, it'll take more than a couple months to determine the film's ultimate profitability. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It really doesn't take the experts more than a week or two to know if a film is a flop, there is a pattern that most films follow. American films used to hope the domestic gross would at least half the budget Most films gross less and less over time, with the gross dropping by half (or more) most subsequent weeks. If they haven't grossed more than half the budget in the first week then a film is going to struggle to gross more than the production budget. There are variables but Mickey 17 is already flop. I would still agree that there's no need to belabor that point in the lead section and it is better explained in the article body. -- 109.79.165.195 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This clearly means a lot to you, but Wikipedia is not the platform.

There are quite literally thousands of other films that were actual box office flops (as in, not in the top 10 highest grossing) that you don't have that anywhere on the page.

If your concern is that everybody knows which films are, in your opinion, 'flops', can I suggest you start with the 100 films from 2025 and 2024 that grossed poorly at the box office.

Until then, I can't see any reason you'd insist on this one, apart from the fact that it contains a blatant parody of fragile masculinity and that millions of people around the world have enjoyed it. I personally don't see the need to tie my self esteem to a random wiki article of a comedy film, so I'm still thinking this page does not need your opinion or predictions.

Like I said, feel free to start with the lowest grossing films if that's your concern 2A0E:CB01:36:D600:55B3:5977:1482:4E57 (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Help

People are reverting edits just because "it's subjective". Per TonySt, "has been interpreted by some critics as" is appropriate. However, others disagree and we've got an edit war. Established editors, any ideas of resolving this? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a gross reduction of the actual topic at hand.

A journalist believes that apples are actually sentient, thinking beings, and proceeds to write an article about that. Wikipedia then includes the sentence "Many people are concerned about the loss of sentient beings." in a deforestation topic linking back to that article. At that stage, it is agreeing full stop that apples are sentient; rather than merely agreeing about the worry that apples are being lost, or agreeing that some journalist somewhere believes them to be sentient.

Saying critics interpret something as relating to authoritarianism, while linking back to no less than FOUR Trump-centric articles, is affirming their opinion of Trump being so, rather than explaining that they BELIEVE him to be authoritarian and that they BELIEVE the film relates to him in that way. 2600:8803:3E01:1F30:5499:83B3:BD44:BF19 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me that the text was biased. 2600:8803:3E01:1F30:5499:83B3:BD44:BF19 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd call the situation, the edit war over NPOV violations. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

A reception section is exactly where we want to use opinions & reviews by RS; multiple critics are cited for this sentence: "has been interpreted by some critics as a caricature of authoritarian leaders". Instead of "authoritarian leaders", we could use "politicians and dictators" which would more accurately reflect the descriptions used in the sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt, MikeAllen, Day Creature, Dhoru 21, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: pinging editors who did reverts - any thoughts on this alternative phrasing ("politicians and dictators")? I don't want to implement it if there is an argument for retaining "authoritarian leaders". Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "politicians and dictators" works. The Yonhap News source quotes Ruffalo as saying He is an archetypal petty dictator. We've seen this kind of leader time and time again over the last century. They are all the same -- egotistical, fragile, self-centered and self-serving. This is not just "politicians", it's a specific type of self-absorbed authoritarian politician. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I mostly suggested it because the three cited sources don't use the term "authoritarian" - Reason uses politicians, Screen Rant uses politicians & quotes the director using dictator, Yonhap News quotes both the actor & the director using dictator. While I don't agree with the IP removing it entirely, I just want to make sure we're not running into a WP:SYNTH issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. I just think "politician" is too broad because politicians have very diverse political positions and stuff. But if you think that's the best term to use, I'm ok with it. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I might be totally overcautious on if it is SYNTH so I'm fine waiting for other editors to weigh in. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

"Ylfa kills herself" part in the Wiki article is factually incorrect

In fact, in the film, Ylfa (the Marshal’s wife) does not kill herself. She is killed by Mickey 17 during one of the final scenes: where Mickey 17 is walking at night and accidentally encounters her at the printer illegally reprinting Marshal. So, he kills her and also destroys the half-printed Marshal. The killing and destruction are not shown explicitly but undoubtedly follow from what is shown. The film contains no scene or implication of Ylfa committing suicide. Wentwog (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Wentwog (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)