Talk:The Accountant (2016 film)

Format

The plot section does not really seem to be in the proper format, it only covers the first 5 minutes of the film and spends way too much on such a otherwise small part of the film. 2610:130:112:800:2D52:B916:2EA4:C27A (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, opposition cited WP:Recentism for the current "primary topic"-looking page. While support comments were elaborated, it seems clear that there is no consensus at this time (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

---

• The Accountant (2016 film) → The Accountant
• The Accountant → The Accountant (disambiguation)

– The 2016 film is already more notable than either of the other two topics. In fact, it has been since a year and a half ago, when it was still in pre-production.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – "more notable" is not a thing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – per WP:NCF In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the 2001 film won an academy award. Randy Kryn 17:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This film gets over 95 percent of the pageviews for "The Accountant". Even as the 2016 film ages, it will almost certainly continue to dominate the other topics. While the 2001 film did win an Oscar, it gets less than 1/150 of the views of the 2016 film. It helps our readers to send them directly to the article most of them want to read when we have clear evidence such as this. Dohn joe (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  If moved then the 2001 film should be hatnoted on the page as a separate item. Randy Kryn 12:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is suggestion is grotesque recentism -- MrStoofer (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Only currently more notable because it's being promoted, if it becomes highly successful either in terms of box office results or multiple awards then there may be a case to consider a year from now but right now it's far too early to make a that decision. Ina nswer to the supporter above, please re-read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially the point that "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance". Hackerjack (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Dohn joe is persuasive. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The 2001 film was a short film not a feature length film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarykitty (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Run-on sentence

In the second to last paragraph of the lead: "The hitman confronts Christian and reveals himself to be Braxton, who estranged himself from Christian and blames him for their father's death due to Christian not contacting Braxton for his approval on going to their birth mother's funeral because of Braxton's hatred towards her for leaving them.", might be a little long. Try reading the rest of the sentence after the comma in one breath. Make it a deep one. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a run-on sentence, which entails more than one main verb or clause running on without suitable punctuation or conjunction(s), and can be very short, eg: "The hitman confronts Christian reveals himself to be Braxton estranged himself."

It's just long-winded, although impressively sound in its syntax. Whoever wrote it should consider taking up urban downhill mountain biking. JohndanR (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on a true story

It is said to be "based on a true story". Can someone cite a source ?GeoffAvogadro (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Autism controversy from a non autistic person

Some clinician says it's offensive. The autism community doesn't. That part needs to go. Pjmcguirk85 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - the criticism should be based on particular concerns about unrealistic, inaccurate or insensitive portrayals of autistic persons. The presence of guns in a violent action movie with an autistic protagonist seems to be a personal, aesthetic reaction rather then anything based on harms the portrayal could do to autistic persons. 2604:3D08:B278:4500:505B:4066:3897:6CE3 (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)