# Talk:Edge of Tomorrow

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Edge of Tomorrow. 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/20150105134437/http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta15.php to http://goldentrailer.com/awards.gta15.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/blunt-reveals-new-toughness-edge-tomorrow
Corrected formatting/usage for http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/618-were-losing-all-our-strong-female-characters-to-tr/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://collider.com/mission-impossible-5-6-edge-of-tomorrow-2-christopher-mcquarrie-interview/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/674713-edge-of-tomorrow-sequel-enlists-screenwriters
Corrected formatting/usage for http://collider.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-prequel-doug-liman/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 06:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Edge of Tomorrow. 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/20141016004246/http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/christopher-mcquarrie-interview-telling-stories.php to http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/christopher-mcquarrie-interview-telling-stories.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801065611/http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/edge-of-tomorrow-ending-alternate.php to http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/edge-of-tomorrow-ending-alternate.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825132022/http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2014-03/04/edge-of-tomorrow-film-preview to http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2014-03/04/edge-of-tomorrow-film-preview
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523225236/http://twitchfilm.com/2014/05/review-edge-of-tomorrow.html to http://twitchfilm.com/2014/05/review-edge-of-tomorrow.html
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) 09:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Deathawk and I have been discussing writing the opening of "Production" sections, as you can see on my talk page here. I do tend to include introductions to "Production" sections more often than may be seen elsewhere, and I'd like to explain why. The lead section is simply a concise overview of the article body (and so is the film infobox). In other words, the lead section is a mini-article that summarizes the most important information from the article body. So my approach prioritizes production-related facts to the top of that section, especially more useful to do so when this film is more known for Tom Cruise and the time-loop premise than the director himself or the companies involved. I think it is more useful, than not, to establish these key facts within a section before proceeding with how the facts were finalized. Deathawk thinks the information is too repetitive and obvious to readers who likely read the lead section first. (I argue that shouldn't always be assumed, nor the production details readily retained in memory in the course of reading the article.) There are not really any policies or guidelines here; it is more about writing styles and what to assume of readers. Deathawk removed the introduction, and I've restored it for now here as the status quo, and I ask other editors to weigh in. Is the introduction too much? Too little? Better worded to fit? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

My argument would be that with the Erik's introduction sentences, we now reiterate the same information three times 1) Once in the intro, (2 Once at the start of the production section and 3) One further down the production section. The info that I deleted and Erik restored is a better fit for the lead, which is to summarize the article, rather than the production section which expands on the lead. therefore we do not need two"intros". I think Erik's position, and I could be wrong on this, is that the info in the lead should be reiterated, it already does so in the body of the section. While I do see merit in certain cases for opening up with such a statement, the cases would be few and far between, and I do not see this as being an exception.  --Deathawk (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that content should be deleted because it is solely repeated in the lead. The whole concept of the lead is to summarise the content in the main body. That said, I think it is reasonable to assume that visitors to the article will read the lead even if they don't read every other section. If the lead repeats content in the introduction to the production section, which then repeats the content again that seems like overkill. As a rule of thumb I would say that content should appear once in the main body of the article, and the key points will then be repeated in the lead. If you take Gone with the Wind (film)#Production for example, nothing is repeated in the production section, but certain aspects of the production section are repeated in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This seems really unnecessary to me. What is the need for having another summary of the information? The lead should cover that fine. I'm pretty sure we would all be aware if there was a Wikipedia guideline suggesting that we summarise every section within an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Erik probably feels that there should be some sort of lead in or introduction to the section, because it is a bit jarring to jump straight into the development. I tend to agree with that approach, but I think the repetition should be minimised. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What does “The battle suit for Blunt's character had red slash marks sprayed on to reflect a Joan of Arc quality”, actually mean? I’ve tried to get my head round it, and looked up the article on Joan of Arc to see if she is traditionally depicted in red, or wearing red, or with red marks, and came up with nothing. Why does spraying suits with red slash marks reflect Joan of Arc, or any of her qualities…? It sounds like it may have been taken from a studio publicity article or an interview, but I think without further explanation it is a confusing thing to include, approaching a non-sequitur, and warrants something to support it. Jock123 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you access this link? I'm trying to access it to get the direct language but can't: https://web.archive.org/web/20180621042135/https://www.mpaa.org/2014/06/building-edge-of-tomorrows-exosuit/ Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I found an updated URL: https://www.mpaa.org/2014/06/building-edge-of-tomorrows-armored-exosuits/ The exact quote is Liman has said that Blunt's character has a Joan of Arc quality about her, so they sprayed red slash marks on the chest of her ExoSuit, which is a nod to Sakurazaka’s novel, "as if to say she had been to hell and back and lived to tell about it," he said. The current paraphrasing in the article is pretty poor. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I probably wrote that phrasing back then. Feel free to reword it based on the source. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Now then, I'll just take my foot out of my mouth... :) I'll see what I can do. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I accept that it does not make sense in retrospect. Could simply quote the passage directly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)