Talk:The Company Men

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema / Massachusetts / Boston

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston.

Release[edit]

According to boxofficemojo the movie was released on January 21, 2011 not, January 21, 2010. I edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.8 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for fixing it! I guess it's like people dating their checks, they haven't mentally updated to the new year. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from Rotten Tomatoes, the critics reviewed this film last month, basically. It is not like they reviewed it when it came out at Sundance. It is going to be treated as a 2011 film with its release this month, so it would qualify for awards this year. Its screening in 2010 is a relative blip compared to the attention it is getting in the same time frame as its non-festival release. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But its being considered for the 2010 Academy Awards.[1][2] I'm not sure why we would consider a film being considered for such major awards one year to be a film of the next year. BOVINEBOY2008 14:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the previous citation did not mention it, so I did not think it was valid. According to THR, "To make the cut, feature films must open in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County by midnight, December 31, and begin a minimum run of seven consecutive days." My cursory look at the release dates at IMDb did not show when this minimum run happened. Do we know how it became eligible? Was the Sundance premiere the so-called run? That doesn't seem right to me. Anyway, I don't mind piecing together release information, so perhaps we can get a better picture of what's going on here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this film was scheduled for a limited release in December, so it would have appeared to the Academy that it would be eligible. Since the release was postponed, I wonder if the eligibility still holds. Interesting! I'll try to add content in regard to this. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not? This seems to indicate that it had the minimum run December 10 through at least 17. That would explain the December reviews. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sells it for me. I was going to look for a source here but you beat me to it. BOVINEBOY2008 14:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to detail the circumstances of its release. Now it's just a matter of how to deal with the lead sentence and the categorization. Is "2010s" okay? Should the film be in both the 2010 films and 2011 films categories? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer just to leave the year out of the lede sentence, although I do think films should belong to only one film category. Also, do you think the sentence about its eligibility is in the right space? I realize I put it there, but it isn't really pertaining to critic reception, more that it was aired in LA county in the year 2010, etc... BOVINEBOY2008 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "2010s" would work well because it is a rare instance of a film being relevant in very different ways in either year. For example, if this film is critically acclaimed, then it is going to be on critics' top films of 2011 (with the New Yorker critic being the early bird). I'm used to being able to provide the release year(s) pretty upfront, so assuming that this article and lead section gets fleshed out, the years will be more and more toward the end of the lead section. It's one of these weird things where there's not much middle ground, like the year categories. As for the sentence about eligibility, we could put it in the "Release" section, reporting the payoff of the film having screened in December. Do we know if it became eligible for anything else besides Best Picture, like in terms of acting? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About eligibility, it looks like the screenplay is eligible.[3] I can't find anything about shortlists or eligibility lists for acting awards, although I'm guessing it may be the same list of the best picture list. I think the "2010s" could be confusing, especially in the future, because it could be interpreted as "it was released somewhere in the decade, but we don't really know". BOVINEBOY2008 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Probably would see editors "fix" the decade into one year or the other. We'll see if people try to change 2010 to 2011 on account of its actual release today. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]