# Talk:The Interview

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Interview (2014 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
Lead
The film stars Rogen and James Franco as journalists instructed to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (played by Randall Park) after booking an interview with him.
This basically misstates the entire plot.  First of all, the interview was setup to bring much needed prestige and professionalism to the Skylark Tonight show, particularly to its producer and its host.  The "instruction to assassinate" Kim is secondary to that goal.  Basically, the producer wants to be taken seriously, the host less so, but at the end of the day, he wants the same thing as the producer.  So that's first and foremost.  The CIA got involved secondarily, because of the access the journalists were able to procure due to Kim being a fan of the show.  And as the film progresses, we see that these men are just not the killing type, which in fact, is a very realistic plot point.  In other words, most people are not natural born assassins.  Third, as the film progresses, we discover that killing Kim not only fails, but only occurs as a means of self-defense and saving the world from nuclear war. Therefore, the lead summary should play down the assassination angle, and play up the fact that the interview was procured for legitimate reasons first, with the CIA's directive second, and finally, the "third way" taken by the characters, to fulfill all of the above goals.  As I said to the nominator, this a complex topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done I did a little paraphrase. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Too many details about the controversy and the release in the lead, and not enough summarized points about the topic, such as the production and reception (particularly the acclaim received by Randall Park and Diana Bang for their superb acting. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done Not much about controversy in the Lead, it's a part of the article and it's necessary to mention it in the Lead. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
In June 2014, the North Korean government threatened merciless action against the United States if the film's distributor, Columbia Pictures, went ahead with the release.
I get the joke, but we need to draw a line between parody, irony, and encyclopedic prose.  While it is certainly funny to mock NK by using the word "merciless" here, regardless of their silly position, we shouldn't use it here. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Should we use another word or rephrase the whole sentence? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Remove the word. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Plot
David "Dave" Skylark (James Franco), host of the talk show Skylark Tonight, interviews celebrities about personal topics and gossip. After Dave and his crew celebrate their 1,000th episode, they discover that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is a fan of Skylark Tonight, prompting the show's producer Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogen) to arrange an interview.
This really needs to be rewritten.   For example, there is no need to say "interviews celebrities about personal topics and gossip" when that is best summarized in two words: tabloid journalism.  Second, this intro neglects to mention that Rapoport wants the interview because he wants to be taken seriously as a professional. That's an important point that informs the plot, and later influences Skylark to follow through with the interview and do his job by asking the hard questions.  Furthermore, the events leading up the interview, particularly Skylark's friendship with Kim, are in some respects a form of investigatory journalism that informs his interview.  While it seemed like Skylark was playing softball with Kim, he made the choice to play hardball and become a professional when he began to think critically about the subject he was investigating.  In a way, this shows the transition from tabloid to professional journalism for both the producer and the host, who tackle a serious topic with serious implications for the very first time. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
After a night of drugs, sex and partying, the next day CIA Agent Lacey (Lizzy Caplan) proposes...
The night of partying has nothing to do with the plot.  I mean, I guess you can say their defenses were down and such, but it's totally inconsequential to the story.  The fact is, the CIA got wind of the interview opportunity and asked them to "take Kim out".  That's all that matters here. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
they reluctantly agree.
Not exactly, and this misses out on the whole honeypot/honeydick theme throughout the film.  Skylark agreed to do it because the agent was wearing glasses and wearing a revealing top. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Now what should I write here? I'm not good with the "plot" of films. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
After a dinner mourning the death of Kim's bodyguard, Dave discovers Kim's malicious character and that the nearby grocery store is merely a façade.
Which fails to tie-in with the original scene showing fully stocked stores loaded with food after their arrival in North Korea, which is where it should be explained first, not glossed over. This is important for several reasons.  The plot carefully encodes and explores many of the stories the west hears about NK.  In this case, that their people are starving.  But failing to detail these historical touchstones, the latter statement "Dave discovers Kim's malicious character and that the nearby grocery store is merely a façade" becomes uttlerly devoid of meaning. As I write below, many sources cover this background material and explain it in the context of the plot.  For example, Barbara Demick's article in the New Yorker (linked below), discusses this very scene: "First-time visitors to North Korea are always surprised that such a poor country can provide comfortable accommodations and abundant food when it wants to make a good impression. The fictional journalists of “The Interview” are impressed, too...Skylark is initially convinced by a display of fresh fruits and vegetables in a supermarket that food is in abundant supply, but, later in the film, he has a moment of reckoning when he picks up one of the grapefruit and discovers it is a fake. Here the movie is effectively playing with the contrast between illusion and reality in the country. Visitors to Pyongyang in the famine years of the nineteen-nineties used to describe supermarkets that displayed plastic produce. (These days, Pyongyang has several expensive foreign-currency shops.) And the capital is often described as a large Potemkin village, an elaborate stage set designed to fool outsiders into believing that North Korea is as rich and powerful as its propaganda claims."[4]  It is almost as if the editors who wrote this article did not bother to do any research or review the plot for accuracy.  In fact, it appears that not a single plot point was discussed in its historical and thematic context outside of quoting specific people. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me the sentence into what it should be rephrased. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done By another user. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Cast
If the sections "Main cast" and "Cameos" are actually needed, then they should appear in columnar format to save space.  I'm not sure why there are citations in the main cast list, but this material should already be sourced elsewhere in the article. See WP:FILMCAST for details. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Jay-Z and Beyoncé were reportedly paid $10,000 each to cameo, but do not appear in the film.
This is incomplete.  In addition, according to the cited source, other actors were also paid and involved, such as Brad Pitt, Neil Patrick Harris, Zooey Deschanel, Michael Vick, and Kevin Federline.  Why is this only focusing on Jay-Z and Beyoncé?  Further, this information came to light due to a leaked budget, which the article fails to note. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
See also
I deleted duplicate links and off-topic links that really have nothing to do with this article.[5] Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As a result of recent edits restoring the see also,[6] I have failed in the area of MOS, focus, and neutrality.  Considering how the rest of the review shapes up, I may still put it on hold for the nominator to fix, however the review is still in progress. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done It's already fixed. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing and broad criteria
It looks like very few of the best sources have been used to write this article. Barbara Demick's "A North Korea Watcher Watches 'The Interview'" provides key, historical background information. Even one of the key interviews with Franco and Rogan ("[James Franco and Seth Rogen Talk About ‘The Interview’") is nowhere to be found.  GA's don't have to be comprehensive, but contributors should make a basic attempt to cover the bases.  This article looks like a hodge-podge with little unifying narrative or theme tying the subject together. Also, few if any sources have been added after March 2015, even though there have been key stories since that time (such as the subsequent WikiLeaks tranche released in June that adds additional information to this article).  Except for one sentence about a music controversy, there is nothing about the score nor the soundtrack. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Controversy sections
Controversy sections should be avoided for good reason.  Talk about the "North Korean reaction", the "Sony Pictures Entertainment hack", "Hackers' threats", and the "Alleged use of unlicensed music" in their respective sections, or merge them into more appropriate sections.  " "Alleged use of unlicensed music" is a one-sentence section!  We do not have one-sentence sections in GA-class articles.  What we have are "Music" sections that talk about the score, soundtrack, and any related issues. In any case, upon closer reading, we find that the topics of the "North Korean reaction", the "Sony Pictures Entertainment hack", and "Hackers' threats", when properly paraphrased and summarized, all are within the scope of the "Release", and in fact, we already see the majority of this topic covered there.  For example, the "Cancellation of wide theatrical release" subsection is essentially a response to the "Sony Pictures Entertainment hack", whereas the essential narrative of the "North Korean reaction" section is really a "Pre-release reaction".  I think all of this could be placed in the release section, and once it is properly paraphrased,with a lot of the unnecessary excessive quoting removed, it would fit perfectly.  Of course, that's not the only solution, but simply one of many.  Furthermore, there is a lot of fluff in the release section that should be trimmed.  The "Response" section is simply an extended quote farm to the "Cancellation" section, and all of this can appear in one subsection properly paraphrased.  After all, the point of this is that "Sony received criticism for canceling the wide release".  We don't need four paragraphs to make that case; two should suffice.  The extended length of many of these sections and quotes reads like WP:RECENTISM which was never properly fixed and summarized in preparation for GAN. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
North Korean reaction
First two paragraphs should be paraphrased; way too much quoting going on here and not enough writing.  Write about the topic using the context provided by the secondary sources.  Do not write about the topic using the context from the primary quotes. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Revised release
WP:PROSELINE, WP:RECENTISM.  Summarize and condese, and write an encyclopedia entry. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 04:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Box office and online rentals
Sony expects The Interview to break even through video on demand sales and saving millions of dollars on marketing.[93] The National Association of Theater Owners contends that Sony will lose at least $30 million due to poor box office performance.
WP:RECENTISM, out of date, tense issues need correction. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Critical response
Randall Park and Diana Bang's performances have been praised by many critics, and this should also appear in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


### Additional notes
Why is she referred to as Sook-yin Park in the article when she clearly introduces herself as "Sook-young Park" (박숙영) in the movie? —  Andreyyshore  T  C  13:41, 22 Oct 2015 (UTC)