Talk:King Richard (film)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 31 January 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Who is kind enough to add the plot?
edit78.177.44.212 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- I wrote a little plot in the "Premise" section. It has been trimmed since.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Clarification re Smith's bonus-giving?
edit- "Will Smith reportedly received $40 million for his role. When production concluded, he reportedly gave his co-stars "a nice bonus" via checks, due to the decision to release the film in theatres and on HBO Max simultaneously, on top of the compensation already received from the studio."
Obviously the person who wrote this knew what they meant, but for the rest of us: So no one imagined the film would be streamed so soon? And consequently Smith made so much, so suddenly, that he wanted to share the extra wealth (possibly because he felt guilty for getting an even more obscenely larger payday than anything anyone had heard about till then)? But the film would've eventually been streamed, right? So what's the difference? And we are still talking about Smith here, even though he grammatically disappears halfway through the second sentence? And does that passive-voice bit mean that "the studio" paid him for the theatrical release only, because the film's actual production and theatrical release are somehow connected independently of the streamed release? I'll hang up now and take my answer off the air. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Epilogue, and spurious qualifier
editThe final, "Epilogue" paragraph of the Plot section says, as of 17:42, June 30, 2023, "Serena… would become… considered by many to be the greatest female player in tennis history" (emphasis added). The actual wording in the film (time 2:17:09 from start of film, per Netflix) is, "She is considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the sport." Note the absence of the qualifier, "female". I have removed the spurious qualifier "female" from the Plot section of this article. The article describes the film. The film does not use the qualifier. The article should not introduce a qualifier without evidence from the subject of the article, namely the film. --Jdlh | Talk 18:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)