# Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

At the top of the Plot section, Marvin Schwarz is referred to as Rick Dalton's agent.  He is not.  in fact, Dalton mispronounced Schwarz' name.  Schwarz is a producer trying to induce Dalton to join Italian westerns he has an interest in. 2601:240:4980:88F0:AC91:CB27:2C43:D24D (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In the article the name of  Wojciech/Voytek Frykowski is spelled in two different ways. It seems that the real person was named Wojciech and the character is Voytek (based on the IMDb listing). The article seems to be inconsistent about applying these spellings and never clarifies the difference in the first place. Lww22 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wojtek (read: Voytek) in Polish language is a diminutive of the name Wojciech, just as well as Tom and Kate are diminutives of Thomas and Katherine respectively. Frykowski is know both in the movie and in the reality as Wojtek or Wojciech. There is no mistake. Fruflea (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Whereas I can appreciate the writer(s) of the main article trying to nail down all of the characters, both actual and fictional, it’s all way too wordy and confusing. Some of the explaining of the composite characters goes on and on. ( i.e., explaining who someone was based on, say, a specific stunt person - good. Going on an additional tangent about that person, all their quirks, etc. - not so good.). There’s also a want to describe the character, then add the additional footnotes from the novelization, and differences that makes to the character in the film. ( We get it, you REALLY like the material.). Part of what confuses the reader , a lot , is the references to “Lancers” , a real television series of the time, but, again, the writer wants to cover “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” + the real “Lancers” + the fictional “Lancers” + the real actors + the fictional actors + their real & fictional events + the kitchen sink!
I’m not saying it’s pointless to have in the article - I love Tarantino’s in-jokes and Easter eggs too - but, there’s got to be a better way to present it in the article. Perhaps two sections? “The Real Characters” / “The Film Character”. Just a suggestion, to make some of this less confusing. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Cliff Booth was not a Green Beret WWII veteran. The Green Berets came into existence during the Kennedy Administration. 2601:644:9100:6746:E98B:A373:858:379C (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This film isn't a documentary, it's fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
What was I thinking……? Touché. 2601:644:9100:6746:6458:964E:7434:9B6C (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

All the promotional material for the film that I can find online renders the title as Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood. Note the placement of the ellipsis (three periods). However, this Wikipedia article renders it as Once Upon a time... in Hollywood in the first line of the article. I realize there's a note that says  "Stylized in promotional materials as Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood, or known simply as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood", but what is the rationale for including an ellipsis but in the "wrong" spot? 158.174.187.218 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Check out the title in the end credits, which matches how it is initially given in the article. I'm not sure how the official title is determined, but that seems like a pretty good indication. I suspect Tarantino changed it at the last moment, which is why the promo materials have it different. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nyn218 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nyn218 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The announcement that David Fincher would be making a sequel to the movie for Netflix is obviously an April Fools Day prank. The section should updated to show as such. Pewtercupcakes (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s also quite literally advertising…? What is going on here Mackenziebowes (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
What's advertising? — Chrisahn (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Announcing an upcoming sequel is advertising for the sequel - literally raising awareness and anticipation, therefore demand.
I apologize, new to Wikipedia and learning best practices. It is certain that Variety reported a sequel is in production. Still, documenting this seems to violate the idea of organizations and products needing significant notability, including cultural impact, to have a page? There's also a specific disclaimer against including new organizations simply because famous people are involved.
A production company creating a movie is unlikely to have been able to create significant cultural impact yet. Nobody has seen it. It isn't finished.
Afaict, this means the sequel is not notable, shouldn't have a page, and mention of the sequel on this page should be minimal: "A sequel to this film started production in 2025."
Or are Tarantino, Pitt, et al just so goated and based that the 'mere association' rule doesn't apply to their speculative associated works? Mackenziebowes (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
It's very common that a Wikipedia article about a film contains a few sentences, or even a whole section, about a possible or upcoming sequel. Similarly, an article about a band might say something about their next album, and so on for other artists and artworks. If the wording is neutral, that's generally not considered WP:PROMO.
Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films (WP:NFF) says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". That was the case, the article was at Draft:The Adventures of Cliff Booth before shooting began.
WP:NFF also says: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". I guess the latter applies in this case, e.g. because Fincher, Tarantino, Pitt et al. are highly notable, because the film's budget is said to be huge, etc.
If you disagree, you could start a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion explains how), but I guess it's very unlikely to succeed. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this better.
In summation, I was incorrect about:
- The frequency and normalcy of sequel mentions
I did spot that:
- WP:NFF would normally propose that a sequel page not exist until released
However, I missed that:
- Fincher, Tarantino, Pitt et al. are highly notable, their collaboration is itself noteworthy enough to justify the page at this relatively early stage.
I think the guideline about mere association is mostly in service to avoiding promo - eg. a One-Hit-Wonder's 3rd band since notoriety, washed businessmen, etc.
Fincher, Tarantino, and Pitt consistently create impactful and notable works, so their work passes muster.
Thanks for your help again! Mackenziebowes (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
A Fincher-Tarantino crossover is hard to believe, but unless it's an extremely elaborate April Fools, filming of The Adventures of Cliff Booth actually started a month ago... — Chrisahn (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)