# Talk:Moonrise Kingdom

according to imdb and several other sources it will be produced by Anderson, Scott Rudin, Jeremy Dawson, and Steven M. Rales.
Its also been said by several sources, though strangely never hugely announced, that Harvey Keitel is in the film, and Owen Wilson implied he'd be in it. Bob Balaban was also spotted on the set.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.18.68 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 

Harvey Keitel and Bob Balaban have been confirmed to star  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.18.68 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the orphanage an orphan correction facility or some such horrible sounding place? If so, should it be mentioned in the plot? 98.116.189.111 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"juvenile refuge" was the term used I believe, at one point there was a brief flash of a period-looking newspaper article depicting the cafeteria of one such place.142.167.161.194 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
meh. I put that in, because the Social Services lady explicitly said he would not go to another orphanage due to past misbehaviour. If that's not the correct term used in the film feel free to change it.142.167.161.194 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The Social Services lady has no name. She simply identifies herself as Social Services. So does the pilot that gets her to the island, when he says "Hang on, Social Services". So does everybody else. Whenever she says Social Services, she gestures to herself. I think it's her only name. Useless information. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me to suggest a narrative written by a 13 year old, with simplified concepts as names. Like the story the girl was reading.124.149.127.244 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a new section about the music (which played an important formative role in the film's conception as well as featuring in it); I originally included "Violins' Variation" in the Young Person's Guide, but can't swear to this, having seen the film for the first time yesterday, and not being so sure as it's not listed elsewhere - though IMDB fail to list the Fugue, which is definitely in the film. Alfietucker (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

During the flooding scenes, when the children are holed up in the church, it should be noted that the rogue/missing scout troop are disguised as foxes, in disguises stolen from the production of Noye's Fludde. This is likely a nod to director Wes Anderson's earlier film, Fantastic Mr. Fox. Trivia is discouraged, but these tidbits are usually allowed. I just didn't see anywhere to add it to the article. Feel free to do so. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to voice my annoyance with the phrase "a nod to...".124.149.127.244 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I cant believe there isnt any box office info!!! Can someone please add it?! 71.191.233.2 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What about Moonrise Kingdom#Box Office? It's short, but it reports the total figures from the theatrical run. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Didnt see it. Man, that was embarassing. 71.191.233.2 (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

At least two editors (myself and another) clearly have a problem with how "starring role" is defined by certain editors of this article for a film like this. Dictionary definitions of "starring role" include "a main part for an actor in a film, play, television programme etc" - MacMillan Dictionary; "(cinema, theatre) a main role; the main role" - Collins English Dictionary;"To play the leading role in a theatrical or film production" - The Free Dictionary.
Furthermore, both Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward are described as "stars" of the film by Moviefone, USA Today, and The Hollywood Reporter (and probably other sources, but I only have so much time for Googling).  
Gilman and Hayward clearly have the leading roles in the film - the story is primarily about their characters; and to deny this merely on the basis that they are not listed on a commercial poster (where, understandably, known "stars" are listed to draw the punters in) seems to fly in the face of commonsense. If there's some obscure Wikipedia rule saying that nobody is to be listed as having a "starring role" if they are not on the poster, then perhaps it's time to consider amending that rule. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
p.s. If there *is* such a rule about allowing a film poster to decide what is a "starring role" (since when were posters designated that role?), then perhaps this (i.e. Moonrise Kingdom) is a prime case for recognising an exception. Alfietucker (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This is long-standing policy and consensus in the Filmproject and is stated in the MOS for film articles. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not an obscure rule, it was recently discussed and serves a useful purpose to stop conflict between editors over who they personally feel is important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to use a full list of actors to garner the 'starring' roles rather than movie posters, which are known to sometimes omit important actors simply because the audience doesn't know them and wouldn't pay to see them? Movie posters are not the best source when it comes to actual information of a movie. I too, with Alfietucker, support listing the principle actors (the two unknown child actors) on the starring role list. Jesseoffy (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is absurd. You seem to promote the idea that anyone with an average size part is a *star* — when viewing the plot section, the cast section is in view, as is the pertinent portion of the info' box — so there is no requirement for more than the usual 2 - 5 actual film stars to be listed there. This nonsense is, sadly, a product of the "celebrity" world that we are afflicted with nowadays. We have an established criterium. Let's stick to it!— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard  | —  17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
With respect, it is absurd giving a well-known actor credit for "starring" in a film when he or she only appears a handful of times, while a lesser-known actor who played the leading/co-leading role in a film is omitted for later reading. This suggests that the "starring" list is just an advertisement for any famous actor in a film, much like a movie poster, rather than a factual summary of the leading roles. Nevertheless, I now know the modus operandi of the "starring" list and will not try to change it, though I do hope the two leading actors will not be offended if they stumble upon their movie's page. Jesseoffy (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The rule was created precisely to avoid these kinds of debates.  We use the poster so that it is not left to editors to decide which roles and which actors were more important.  If you want to change that rule, this is not the place to have that discussion. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been away from my PC for "real world" reasons. While in most cases I'm sure I'd accept OldJacobite's point, it's surely self-evident to anyone who has actually watched Moonrise Kingdom what the two leading roles are: viz, those played by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward. Gareth: no, I am not - nor is any other editor here - confusing "starring roles" with "stars". That is a strawman rather than the point I and other editors here are making, which is that the poster is clearly a poor guide as to which are the "leading roles" in this film.
To return to Old Jacobite's point - about changing the rule - I don't think it's a question of changing a rule which, AFAIK, generally serves its purpose well. But to be slave to a rule even in an instance is clearly against common sense (i.e. we're not allowed to recognize the actors of the leading roles simply because they are child actors not listed on a poster) is surely unreasonable. Once again, I appeal to the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - viz: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is not an appeal to break the rule, but to recognize in this instance that it is inappropriate. Alfietucker (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The plot summary should be written in such a manner that the relative importance of the various characters can be determined (that is partly what it is there for), but when it comes to billing order we should follow the credit order of the actual film, otherwise we would be compromising factual accuracy. If someone gets top-billing despite only having a minor part, then it would be misleading of our article to imply otherwise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment The poster billing block has always been a good rule of thumb for us to apply, but sometimes incongruities occur when the poster billing block differs from the credits as they appear in the film. Does anyone know the specific credit order in the film itself? Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be a very rare exception for the film credits to differ from the billing block. By default, the billing block can be relied on, especially for a film with a well-known cast like this one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Credit sequence here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
AlfieTucker's point is a good one in terms of the lead roles and that should be reflected in the first section of the article, where the restriction normally is to name the film's non-supporting actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That video makes me think that they should be the last two listed in the infobox. I know the general rule is to stick to the billing block (which is also reverted a lot, so that's frustrating), but the infobox film template says itself: "If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus." While the first part doesn't really apply, we can add those two by consensus, and my personal opinion is that we should. It just makes sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Corvoe's reaction after having watched the video is exactly the same as mine. I suggest they are both listed last too.With this in mind, I have just made the revision thus: As narrator he is already listed AND hyperlinked, so removed Bob Balaban from "starring", if we are now intending to add the child actors ... Hope others agree.— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard  | —  17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
A fair enough solution - it does seem to make sense to at least list Gilman and Hayward, given their leading roles in the film. Alfietucker (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have made the revision/s— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard  | —  08:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to say thank you Gareth and everyone else for bearing with me and seeing the point. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The compromise was to include the two younger actors in the lede and follow the guidelines on the infobox. I have made the correction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This is what was agreed: "As narrator he is already listed AND hyperlinked, so removed Bob Balaban from "starring", if we are now intending to add the child actors ... Hope others agree." I have made the revision. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken. I offered the compromise that we include the younger actors in the lede and leave them off the infobox per the guidelines. I think you are the only one who didn't catch that that was the compromise on offer. The two younger actors are not on the poster or in the credits so the guidelines would call for them to be excluded from the infobox. My proposal preserves that but makes them the only named actors in the lede. I think that cuts the difference, otherwise we should return to the status quo before my compromise was offered where the two younger actors are in neither the lede nor the infobox and some editors think that is wrongheaded. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ring Cinema's proposed compromise. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ring Cinema, while I'm not opposed to that edit, I actually thought the compromise was what Gareth suggested. The template does say "other additions by consensus", and the consensus appeared to be that Gilman and Hayward should be added to the infobox. I'm not opposed to either variation. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Corvoe. I could not be bothered to argue the point with Ring Cinema— although I knew that you and I are not alone in this interpretation of the conclusion *reached* above. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It does seem rather odd - or at least pedantic re definition of "starring" - to leave off the two actors from the info box who have *the* leading roles. I notice, btw, that the two child actors in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Adrian Hall and Heather Ripley, get their billing in the infobox, though, as far as I can tell, they don't appear on the poster and are arguably *less* central to that story than are the two child protagonists in Moonrise Kingdom. Alfietucker (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not an odd compromise at all. The original dispute was basically about should we include those in both places or neither. The two young actors are not "starring" according to the credits, but they have large roles. So, should they be in both places or neither? Both sides have their point. That is why I proposed the compromise. And you can see from the record that everyone understood that was the compromise I offered. On my edit summary I said something like, "I hope this satisfies everyone". So this way preserves adherence to the guidelines but mentions the young actors in another context where there is more flexibility. It is a compromise, so that is why neither side is completely satisfied. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please rewrite, this plot summary does not capture the creativity and ingenuity of the film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.237.174 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 

On Wikipedia, plot summaries exist to provide background for the real-world context of works of fiction. The summaries are also largely based on primary sources (the films themselves), and per WP:PSTS, we need to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The creativity and ingenuity of the film would be best reflected in what critics have to say about it. Considering that the "Critical response" section is rather small, I think it is better to expand that with more commentary in that regard. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the plot summary is overall sufficient, but could stand to lose some details and gain others. Kdiepholz (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, maybe something should be added about both Suzy and Sam's home lives? Not sure if this should be in plot, separate, or just not included at all. Kdiepholz (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Gareth, The Rob Campbell [1] that appears in Moonrise Kingdom is not the prominent actor Rob Campbell described in the page to which he was linked [2]. IMDB credits the child actor of Moonrise Kingdom as Rob H. Campbell. Furthermore, given that Rob H. Campbell has no other credited roles, I would argue that he fails to meet the notability criterion for having a Wikipedia page of his own. The link to the wrong Rob Campbell must be removed. Everydayidiot (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Noted and changed. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I thank you Everydayidiot for your clarification here—I have to admit to being influenced into thinking your revision was not good by your own username and your lack of any explanation in the edit summary box.Icarus of old entered an understandable contribution for which I have already given thanks.Cheers to you both! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moonrise Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224185421/http://ace-filmeditors.org/ace-eddie-awards/nominees-recipients/ to http://ace-filmeditors.org/ace-eddie-awards/nominees-recipients/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary to point out that the island of New Penzance is fictitious.  The film is a fiction, as is everything within it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite I presume you mean in the Plot section. While it is concise for the Plot to be WP:INUNIVERSE (and thus I would agree with you but would like to clarify for other users), for the rest of the article we are obligated to check fiction. (Also, it's obviously the case that not everything in a movie is fiction; New England is a real place). Ribbet32 (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I meant in the plot.  But, I disagree with your other point.  Yes, there is a real place called New England, but it's use in the film is fictional.  It's a secondary matter.  My point was that the plot section needn't point out that the island is fictional. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moonrise Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 07:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Grabbing this for review, will get some thoughts here shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Just some small things I'd like addressed to improve the article from where it is (which is already very good):

The last three paragraphs of the development section could probably just be one.
Willing to meet you half-way in joining two paras, but the third dealing with the financial doesn't fit with writing.
Okay, that's fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Similarly, the two paragraphs on child actors in the casting section can be combined.
OK Ribbet32 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Keitel is not sourced as being in the film.
He is now. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There are a few big quotes in the pre-production that could be paraphrased better.
adamstom97 Attempted to address this Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The soundtrack section mentions Britten once before properly introducing him with wikilink.
"English composer"?
I meant that you introduce Britten in the second paragraph of the section, but already mention him in the first. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
OK Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Are there any responses to the controversies from the filmmakers? Or even direct responses from other commentators that offer good rebukes/alternative opinions?
No responses that I know of, but I think it's balanced enough "Delicate and Inoffensive", "Not quite child exploitation"; "Isle of Dogs remedies". Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest the notes actually be formatted as normal references, with use of the quote field, and be combined sort of like this (I believe this works, and stops these few examples from being so much more emphasised over the rest of the references):
<ref>
 * {{cite ... }}
 * {{cite ... }}
 * {{cite ... }}
 </ref>

adamstom97 those Cite templates are used throughout the article. The only exception is with Template:Sfn refs which are necessary to link to the page number, avoiding material redundant in the bibliography. See WP:IBID and WP:CITESHORT. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I know, I'm saying the notes should each be a single reference in the normal reference section, combining the cite templates in the style I indicated above. As they are now, you are putting way too much emphasis on them over the rest of the references when they are not any more significant than those. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't know what you're getting at here, but the references are formatted in accordances with WP:GA? #2 and MOS:FNNR. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, my problem is that you are emphasising these above all the other references, but I don't see anything special about them. They should just be normal references like all the others. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Notes section? That's not for "special" references. Notes sections are common across Wikipedia (George McGovern, Art pop, Carrie (2002 film)) not to give "special emphasis" to references but to add additional explanation- WP:EXPLNOTE. "Why were the kids' performances were praised? Who compared it to Lord of the Flies? Isn't that weasel words"? Those are the questions that come up. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what Notes are, that's the problem. Your Notes section does not have notes in it, it has references for critical analysis. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Notes on critical analysis (with references) aren't notes? Putting them at the bottom of the article gives them emphasis over everything in the article? Sorry, it's just hard to understand where you're coming from Ribbet32 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
They aren't notes on critical analysis, they are references. There is nothing about these "Notes" that actually note anything. All you are doing is making a statement, providing several references to support it, and then putting those references in a "Notes" section. For example, the first "note" is Jon Frosch: "Sam pierces Suzy's ears with fish hooks, adorning her with hand-crafted insect earrings as a fine stream of blood trickles down her neck (a mutual deflowering by proxy)." Nothing there notes anything, all you are doing is highlighting a quote which you are using to source a statement in the article. The cite template has a quote parametre specifically for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
That's just about everything I have, I think. I particularly like the use of bibliography (I am used to dealing mostly with internet sources), and the well done Theme and Style sections. Give this stuff a go, and let me know when you are done or if you have any questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Now that my concerns have been addressed, this article has passed . - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that the fictional Island of New Penzance has a strong resemblance to Fishers Island, New York. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  01:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The section on the soundtrack fails to mention Françoise Hardy's and Le temps de l'amour.  I feel this single song captures the whole essence of the film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:601:5F00:AD7E:24B3:2B92:EE89 (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC) 

@2601:249:601:5F00:AD7E:24B3:2B92:EE89 You are right, she does capture the essence of the film, and yes she is in fact there in the soundtrack segment, in the introduction as well as no. 13 in the soundtrack ShunraTheGr8 (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the Cast list. I have come across this on several articles now where the cast list is removed for no obvious reason and no discussion. However considering the nature of Wikipedia cast lists are an essential part of the articles for films, in some form or other. Having to go back in the article history to find the cast is no acceptable. The above discussion on "Starring" has no bearing on whether the Cast list should appear or not, so I have taken the liberty to go ahead and put it back.    Frogfisher (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Redundant, there's already a list in the casting section. This is in accordance with WP:CASTLIST. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if there is a consensus on the hiding of the cast list in the Production section. Frogfisher reinstated it and I reinstated before you reverted. Let's make a consensus before placing cast list in the Production section. For me it's totally unnecessary and needlessly confusing. There should be it's own cast list section. I truly have never seen the hiding of the cast list like this before. I have reverted it to a simple Cast List until a consensus can be made. The One I Left (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not "hidden," it's publicly viewable, and you are edit warring in contradiction of WP:CASTLIST - "A basic cast list in a 'Cast' section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A 'Cast' section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, ensuring that these lists do not include any forced line breaks per accessibility concerns; or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the Casting subsection of a Production section." Feature articles like Jaws (film) do this; Moonrise Kingdom is a good article, though that may be jeopardized by you edit warring and defacing the article. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we should gain consensus before throwing the cast list under the Production Section. It's already led to confusion. I'm not sure how adding a cast list "defacing", I could easily call what you want defacing. I would say having a separate section for Cast List is easy to look at. The way you are suggesting is hard to find and not readily available. Also the cast list was incomplete. Lucas Hedges wasn't even mentioned, I had to add it. The One I Left (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia's own manual of style is "defacing"? It is not hard to look for the cast in the casting section of all places. I believe you are editing above your level of understanding. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)