12345666666666666666666666666666666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.248.185 ( talk) 06:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The intro says "the film is scheduled to be released on 1 November 2013.[4]" and the infobox states this: 8 August 2013 (United Kingdom), 1 November 2013 (United States) and on IMDB it says its coming out In September in the UK and in the US on the 8th of November, is there any concrete source to say which British and American dates are correct?
Doomsday28 (
talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S I found this article
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/31/richard-curtis-about-time-retirement that states it set to release in the UK in August, but a better source will be needed to confirm the UK release date.
Doomsday28 (
talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
BBFC says About Time is released September 4 also the Odeon website says Sept 4. The bbfc is already linked in the article for the runtime. -- 109.77.84.170 ( talk) 15:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's all very well adding cited content about critics comments to flaws in the plot, that does not allow for original research determining where and what these flaws are. Besides anything else, it also allows editors to get things wrong; To my recollection Tim never travels forward in time, he only ever travels back, then returns to the present. As with all time travel fiction, you could write an entire thesis on the plot contradictions and anomalies caused by time travel, but neither the film, nor any of the cited sources examine this in any depth. So Wikipedia shouldn't either. And even if sources could be found that did, I'm not sure it's suitable content to enter a discussion about them. It's enough to mention that they are there, without the detail. You don't see Back To The Future picking over its flaws. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a big improvement, but there is still problems about your "rules", which are of your own construction.
You repeat what the first cite (flickfilosopher) says, that "At first it seems that once Tim travels back in time, he has to stay there and live through all those hours and days again in order to get back to where he jumped from…" (My emphasis on "seems".) So this cite doesn't support your "rule" 2. The criticism here should be that the film is not clear about what is occurring, and confuses some of its audience, not that it is breaking a "rule" merely constructed from what seemed to be occurring to you.
And neither cite says anything about the sister time travelling. Not such a big deal with this, but if you are going to mention a breaking of this "rule" it should be cited.
It's perfectly ok for you to cite these sources' criticism as attributed opinion (although they're not exactly mainstream reviewers). e.g. "Flickfilosopher complained that at first it seemed ... " But currently you are using them to support originally researched "rules" that are just interpretations of dialogue and events that the cites admit they are confused about.
I'm not questioning that there aren't any plot holes, just that you are not permitted to construct your own evidence of them, based on your own interpretation of the plot and dialogue. Your sources need to do that for you. Otherwise I could equally modify your "rules" according to my interpretation, that clarify and explain away much of the criticism. Take number 2, for example;
Except I can't do that, because it will equally invalid original research, exactly the same as your "rule".
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Escape Orbit for trying to help fix up this section. I'd have taken a hatchet to it and slimmed it down into maybe one long paragraph as an extra part of Reception/Critical response noting the considerable amount of criticism received for the plot/writing. When less generous editors come along I expect the section will be removed outright or merged into Reception but maybe some of
the work Tomintoul has tried to do can be saved.
No one expect much depth from a Richard Curtis rom-com though anyway. --
93.107.207.225 (
talk) 15:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The section on logic problems and plot holes is almost like saying 1+1=3 because person 'x' said it was. It really is redundant if reviewers thought there were plot holes or logic problems with the rules because there is nothing to suggest their interpretation is correct. Perhaps it is best to explain where this all goes wrong. One must remember that Tim's father is having a colloquial conversation and not stating the premise of his thesis, to interpret the rules literally in such a circumstance is foolish. For example, with rule 1, for time travel to even work, all people must be able to travel backward to previous times (otherwise nobody would exist in the past), only the males of the family are consciously aware of it. Futhermore, the rule should best be interpreted as 'only the males can control said time travel', at a colloquially level this is perhaps the most accurate interpretation. For rule 2, it's even followed with a line where proper interpretation (for the purposes of the film) should have you know that it meant to a time not yet experienced e.g. if the latest date experienced was in 2009, Tim couldn't jump to 2013. Finally, with rule 3, it is clear that Tim went back and undid the change of taking his sister back, most likely by simply going back to said time without her and then immediately jumping to the latest date again. At no point was it stated that he must live through all backward jumps again, so it is clearly a poor assumption made by the reviewers. This is actually a sign of poor inductive reasoning on their behalf rather than an indication of a plothole or logic problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.239.238 ( talk) 12:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This section has been a "work in progress" for over three weeks now, and cites for these "rules" are still not forth-coming. Furthermore, the cites supporting the analysis are little better than blogs. Can we now face up to the fact that this is all original research and remove it? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I know you have strong views on this, as have I, but we have not reached consensus. The section has been blithely deleted/poorly modified by some, then re-instated by others. I will give it more attention this week. (BTW, another article I have been looking at has been awaiting citations for two years and has still survived the AFD process, so I don't think three weeks is much to complain about!) Tomintoul ( talk) 20:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now referenced almost every line. This is probably now the most referenced section on Wiki. There is no original research. I have removed the labels. Tomintoul ( talk) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think what is most confusing here is that on the page, the subsection "Plot holes" could look like it is a section of its own, rather than a subsection of the Reception section. After all, there is no indentation to indicate it's a subsection, only a slightly smaller heading. When I realized that it was a subsection of Reception it seemed valid. The critics have incorrectly interpreted Tim's father's rules as the absolute truth rather than allowing for his character to have incorrect beliefs about how time travel works and/or be lying while explaining it. This page is correct in reporting that the critics have had this misunderstanding, so no correction is necessary, though perhaps some clarification is possible to prevent further misunderstandings. Is it possible to put a disclaimer at the beginning or end of the subsection that says something like "Note: This section reports on the perceived plot holes of some critics, and does not make claims as to the validity of their points, only that they did make those points". SubJunk ( talk) 04:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only person to notice that this is only a FICTIONAL film, and as yet time travel back the way, isn't a thing. Given that the people involved aren't temporal physicists, and might not actually KNOW? Does it really spoil the film, per se? 2.101.151.107 ( talk) 18:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
The film makes a big point about establishing the rules of time travel – then breaks them. Any fictional work that doesn't comply with its own internal logic is always very disappointing. Tomintoul ( talk) 07:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is this section present at all? I haven't seen a "plot holes" section on any other movie wikipedia entry. This seems like a better fit for a youtube video essay, where I regularly enjoy this content, CinemaSins is great, but based on the Wiki rules seems greatly out of place. The whole thing seems like it should be deleted. Ansarya ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This matter has been discussed at length and some sort of consensus was reached (see section below). There is little point in re-opening the debate and the section should stay. Tomintoul ( talk) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The American release date for the film is November 1st, 2013, but is unable to be added to the Release section. Why is this? The other release date was for another country. Movie releases do get released different in different countries, and as the second release date is for an American release, it should be added to that section. I'd also like to point out that it's being distributed by an American company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The plot need to be cleaned up. Also I feel as thought it should be a Premise only, as the film has not been released in the United States. Also, the US release date should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is to rework the "Reception" section as proposed by ZarhanFastfire. The consensus is that there is no need for a separate "Plot holes" subsection with the list of four rules.
Several years ago one editor pursued an agenda of attacking the film using original research and was opposed. The editor then found individual sources for individual points but continued to allow their personal POV to stand in the form of a separate section which enumerated the rules of the film, which the sources cited did not do. They appear to be fixated on this. I have made an attempt to balance the section by not treating the topic of plot holes any differently from other topics praised or decried by different critics of the film, as we normally do in film articles. There is no need for a separate section on a single topic like this. It is UNDUE and POV and SYNTH to do that and to enumerate a list of rules when these are and should be referred to ONCE in the plot itself. This is not a fan site where the film can be nitpicked to death by one person. This is an encylopedia article where we report what was said and no more in the appropriate places. The rules may be described in the plot but they do not need to be rehashed by the editor in reception under a separate banner. Finally, the language used by the editor in reporting / quoting the sources is undue, making it sound like these are not reviewer's opinions but stated facts.
This RfC asks one question: is the reception section fine as it is, or should it be reworked in some manner based on the above? For those interested in what it could look like should these suggestions be followed, I redid it once myself and it was reverted this morning. I reverted back but probably should have made this comment and RfC first. It has since been reverted again, and I was "ordered" not to revert again on my talk page, unsigned. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References for Porthpean House being used in the film can be found here [1] here [2] and here [3]. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no genre in the introduction and there’s no note stating why this is so. This is a romantic comedy, not a fantasy or a sci-fi movie, so is there any opposition to it being called “romantic comedy”? AlienChex ( talk) 02:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
12345666666666666666666666666666666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.248.185 ( talk) 06:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The intro says "the film is scheduled to be released on 1 November 2013.[4]" and the infobox states this: 8 August 2013 (United Kingdom), 1 November 2013 (United States) and on IMDB it says its coming out In September in the UK and in the US on the 8th of November, is there any concrete source to say which British and American dates are correct?
Doomsday28 (
talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S I found this article
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/31/richard-curtis-about-time-retirement that states it set to release in the UK in August, but a better source will be needed to confirm the UK release date.
Doomsday28 (
talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
BBFC says About Time is released September 4 also the Odeon website says Sept 4. The bbfc is already linked in the article for the runtime. -- 109.77.84.170 ( talk) 15:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's all very well adding cited content about critics comments to flaws in the plot, that does not allow for original research determining where and what these flaws are. Besides anything else, it also allows editors to get things wrong; To my recollection Tim never travels forward in time, he only ever travels back, then returns to the present. As with all time travel fiction, you could write an entire thesis on the plot contradictions and anomalies caused by time travel, but neither the film, nor any of the cited sources examine this in any depth. So Wikipedia shouldn't either. And even if sources could be found that did, I'm not sure it's suitable content to enter a discussion about them. It's enough to mention that they are there, without the detail. You don't see Back To The Future picking over its flaws. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a big improvement, but there is still problems about your "rules", which are of your own construction.
You repeat what the first cite (flickfilosopher) says, that "At first it seems that once Tim travels back in time, he has to stay there and live through all those hours and days again in order to get back to where he jumped from…" (My emphasis on "seems".) So this cite doesn't support your "rule" 2. The criticism here should be that the film is not clear about what is occurring, and confuses some of its audience, not that it is breaking a "rule" merely constructed from what seemed to be occurring to you.
And neither cite says anything about the sister time travelling. Not such a big deal with this, but if you are going to mention a breaking of this "rule" it should be cited.
It's perfectly ok for you to cite these sources' criticism as attributed opinion (although they're not exactly mainstream reviewers). e.g. "Flickfilosopher complained that at first it seemed ... " But currently you are using them to support originally researched "rules" that are just interpretations of dialogue and events that the cites admit they are confused about.
I'm not questioning that there aren't any plot holes, just that you are not permitted to construct your own evidence of them, based on your own interpretation of the plot and dialogue. Your sources need to do that for you. Otherwise I could equally modify your "rules" according to my interpretation, that clarify and explain away much of the criticism. Take number 2, for example;
Except I can't do that, because it will equally invalid original research, exactly the same as your "rule".
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Escape Orbit for trying to help fix up this section. I'd have taken a hatchet to it and slimmed it down into maybe one long paragraph as an extra part of Reception/Critical response noting the considerable amount of criticism received for the plot/writing. When less generous editors come along I expect the section will be removed outright or merged into Reception but maybe some of
the work Tomintoul has tried to do can be saved.
No one expect much depth from a Richard Curtis rom-com though anyway. --
93.107.207.225 (
talk) 15:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The section on logic problems and plot holes is almost like saying 1+1=3 because person 'x' said it was. It really is redundant if reviewers thought there were plot holes or logic problems with the rules because there is nothing to suggest their interpretation is correct. Perhaps it is best to explain where this all goes wrong. One must remember that Tim's father is having a colloquial conversation and not stating the premise of his thesis, to interpret the rules literally in such a circumstance is foolish. For example, with rule 1, for time travel to even work, all people must be able to travel backward to previous times (otherwise nobody would exist in the past), only the males of the family are consciously aware of it. Futhermore, the rule should best be interpreted as 'only the males can control said time travel', at a colloquially level this is perhaps the most accurate interpretation. For rule 2, it's even followed with a line where proper interpretation (for the purposes of the film) should have you know that it meant to a time not yet experienced e.g. if the latest date experienced was in 2009, Tim couldn't jump to 2013. Finally, with rule 3, it is clear that Tim went back and undid the change of taking his sister back, most likely by simply going back to said time without her and then immediately jumping to the latest date again. At no point was it stated that he must live through all backward jumps again, so it is clearly a poor assumption made by the reviewers. This is actually a sign of poor inductive reasoning on their behalf rather than an indication of a plothole or logic problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.239.238 ( talk) 12:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This section has been a "work in progress" for over three weeks now, and cites for these "rules" are still not forth-coming. Furthermore, the cites supporting the analysis are little better than blogs. Can we now face up to the fact that this is all original research and remove it? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I know you have strong views on this, as have I, but we have not reached consensus. The section has been blithely deleted/poorly modified by some, then re-instated by others. I will give it more attention this week. (BTW, another article I have been looking at has been awaiting citations for two years and has still survived the AFD process, so I don't think three weeks is much to complain about!) Tomintoul ( talk) 20:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now referenced almost every line. This is probably now the most referenced section on Wiki. There is no original research. I have removed the labels. Tomintoul ( talk) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think what is most confusing here is that on the page, the subsection "Plot holes" could look like it is a section of its own, rather than a subsection of the Reception section. After all, there is no indentation to indicate it's a subsection, only a slightly smaller heading. When I realized that it was a subsection of Reception it seemed valid. The critics have incorrectly interpreted Tim's father's rules as the absolute truth rather than allowing for his character to have incorrect beliefs about how time travel works and/or be lying while explaining it. This page is correct in reporting that the critics have had this misunderstanding, so no correction is necessary, though perhaps some clarification is possible to prevent further misunderstandings. Is it possible to put a disclaimer at the beginning or end of the subsection that says something like "Note: This section reports on the perceived plot holes of some critics, and does not make claims as to the validity of their points, only that they did make those points". SubJunk ( talk) 04:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only person to notice that this is only a FICTIONAL film, and as yet time travel back the way, isn't a thing. Given that the people involved aren't temporal physicists, and might not actually KNOW? Does it really spoil the film, per se? 2.101.151.107 ( talk) 18:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
The film makes a big point about establishing the rules of time travel – then breaks them. Any fictional work that doesn't comply with its own internal logic is always very disappointing. Tomintoul ( talk) 07:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is this section present at all? I haven't seen a "plot holes" section on any other movie wikipedia entry. This seems like a better fit for a youtube video essay, where I regularly enjoy this content, CinemaSins is great, but based on the Wiki rules seems greatly out of place. The whole thing seems like it should be deleted. Ansarya ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This matter has been discussed at length and some sort of consensus was reached (see section below). There is little point in re-opening the debate and the section should stay. Tomintoul ( talk) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The American release date for the film is November 1st, 2013, but is unable to be added to the Release section. Why is this? The other release date was for another country. Movie releases do get released different in different countries, and as the second release date is for an American release, it should be added to that section. I'd also like to point out that it's being distributed by an American company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The plot need to be cleaned up. Also I feel as thought it should be a Premise only, as the film has not been released in the United States. Also, the US release date should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is to rework the "Reception" section as proposed by ZarhanFastfire. The consensus is that there is no need for a separate "Plot holes" subsection with the list of four rules.
Several years ago one editor pursued an agenda of attacking the film using original research and was opposed. The editor then found individual sources for individual points but continued to allow their personal POV to stand in the form of a separate section which enumerated the rules of the film, which the sources cited did not do. They appear to be fixated on this. I have made an attempt to balance the section by not treating the topic of plot holes any differently from other topics praised or decried by different critics of the film, as we normally do in film articles. There is no need for a separate section on a single topic like this. It is UNDUE and POV and SYNTH to do that and to enumerate a list of rules when these are and should be referred to ONCE in the plot itself. This is not a fan site where the film can be nitpicked to death by one person. This is an encylopedia article where we report what was said and no more in the appropriate places. The rules may be described in the plot but they do not need to be rehashed by the editor in reception under a separate banner. Finally, the language used by the editor in reporting / quoting the sources is undue, making it sound like these are not reviewer's opinions but stated facts.
This RfC asks one question: is the reception section fine as it is, or should it be reworked in some manner based on the above? For those interested in what it could look like should these suggestions be followed, I redid it once myself and it was reverted this morning. I reverted back but probably should have made this comment and RfC first. It has since been reverted again, and I was "ordered" not to revert again on my talk page, unsigned. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References for Porthpean House being used in the film can be found here [1] here [2] and here [3]. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no genre in the introduction and there’s no note stating why this is so. This is a romantic comedy, not a fantasy or a sci-fi movie, so is there any opposition to it being called “romantic comedy”? AlienChex ( talk) 02:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)