This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How come the portrayal of "Birdman" is not credited on the page? Actor Benjamin Kanes physically portrayed Birdman on set and has some heavy scenes with Michael Keaton. I believe he should at least be added to the wikipedia page as "Young Birdman (uncredited)" at the bottom. Doesn't seem right to not credit the guy at least on here for the hard work he put in. 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 ( talk) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe Riggan's superpowers are just in his head. Here's the evidence as I recall it:
However, I respect that this is all subject to interpretation, and I appreciate constructions like "we see Riggan apparently using telekinesis" or "we are shown Riggan using telekinesis" try to keep interpretation out of it. The problem with those constructions is they involve or imply an audience - "we are shown", "we see", "Riggan is shown (to the audience)" etc - and to my mind this is not a proper description of the plot; the audience is being shown things is not part of the plot. Is there a better way to do this? Popcornduff ( talk) 20:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be; after all that is its full title. The Academy Awards are calling it by its full title as are many other ceremonies. Should it be changed? Skm989898 11:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
An user revert my edit, saying that what I wrote was not important; actually, I think is important to fully understand the movie ending or at least to try to explain it, because before in the movie Birdman talk about "screeching", saying to Riggan: "And the next time you screech...it'll explode into millions of eardrums". So, when i wrote "She looks down at the street, then, hearing a bird of prey screeching, up at the sky, and smiles", my purpose was to point out that "sounding hint" and support who think daughter sees her father flying in the sky, for real or in a symbolic way doesn't matter. Sorry about my english, thanks. -- 95.236.18.49 ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this page has no section on post-production or special effects. Here's a good article to use to start this section. - Richiekim ( talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing said about "Birdman," the cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoon superhero (besides a "See Also" link -- Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio). Cartoon Network made a big deal about Birdman in the late 1990s, as they did "Space Ghost" and other dated, generic heroes of that same television era. If there's a connection between Keaton's character and the original Birdman it would be nice to know. Also, if there's a trademark dispute or out-of-court settlement regarding the character(s), we should know about it. If not, this otherwise fine film is insulting to those of us who actually care about the superhero genre -- especially "forgotten" ones from the past. 74.192.165.180 ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The full name of the movie's director is Alejandro González Iñárritu. González is his father's last name and the family name. Iñárritu is his mother's name. González is not his middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.189.185 ( talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"After Sam visits Riggan, he dismisses Birdman and sees birds then climbs onto the window ledge."
Sam "dismisses" Birdman? What does that mean?
Sam sees birds? What? Pigeons on the windowsill?
Sam climbs out onto the window ledge? Doesn't seem likely, especially since he comes back in in the next sentence.
Does Sam flip off Riggan AKA Birdman? Does Riggan/Birdman see things? Does he hallucinate birds?
Context indicates that Riggan probably is the one who climbs onto the window ledge and it sounds like he turns into Birdman and flies away.
Not havng seen the movie I can't even begin to guess how to straighten this would-be sentence out. P0M ( talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw User:Neuroxic reverted my copy edit of the Production section, saying I had "butchered" it. I beg to differ - I only removed stuff that didn't need to be there. The standing version is overwritten.
Case in point - there is no advantage to using this paragraph:
When this paragraph covers all the relevant points in fewer words:
(If you think some of the details I removed here are necessary, they can be easily re-added without bloating it.)
There are other weird points in the standing text. Three examples grabbed at random:
Yes, I saw the peer review of this section before I edited it, but a positive peer review doesn't mean an article can't still be improved. The research and organisation of the information is fantastic, but the copy can be better. Popcornduff ( talk) 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Birdman (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BOM":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of the obvious connection that Keaton played Batman 25 years ago wearing a mask that is almost identical to the one birdman wears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.252.205 ( talk) 12:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Much comment has been made of the illusion that the film was made in a single shot. Yet no one has remarked that Alfred Hitchcock did this more than 65 years ago. And let's not forget the opening of Touch of Evil. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the details. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Popcornduff: Finally finding myself with some free time, I looked at your edits.
Let me just say, thank you very much. My first reply went too far, focusing on details you cut out instead of phrases you tidied.
Looking back on my original edits, I'm embarrassed to have written content with phrases such as "starts throwing and breaking everything" when, as you put it, the single word "destroys" describes the situation.
Similarly with "work on the script was done" being replaced with "the script was written", and essentially the same for the majority of edits you made. Like Riggan himself, I can be a prick when it comes to other people and something I'm involved in. I've learnt my lesson. Apologies!
This said, I think I understand why I used the b-word when I first undid your edits. Using the paragraph in the article about the writing process as an example, examine the following forms of information:
AND
With Iñárritu in Los Angeles, Giacobone and Bo in Buenos Aires, and Dinelaris in New York, the script was written mainly through emails and Skype calls. Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were "cracking each other up." Incorporating the one-shot feature into the script made the writing process more involved than usual.
The only difference between these are the dot points, and in my view, I don't distinguish a paragraph and list of dot points by the dot points alone. This is why I originally included (now adjusted) phrases such as "This wasn't necessarily bad however" in the paragraph, to try and give the reader, amongst other things, a smoother experience. Countless times I look at an article and I feel all I'm reading is a list of facts without the dot points, instead of paragraphs, and I think the fear that what I had written was going to become a list of dot points made be give such a vitriolic reply.
Anyway, I hope my latest version of the section is fine with you. If it isn't please let me know! I agree with the majority of phrasing changes you made, but conjecture that the largest point of contention you may have with my latest edit is the amount of detail on the film's ending.
Honestly, I laughed out loud (and I still burst into chuckles to this day) when I found out about the film's original ending, (btw, in that moment the film also instantly became even more awesome in my books) and I certainly feel that others who didn't know about it would have a similar reaction. And if this isn't a way to engage a reader then I don't know what is. Also, the meaning behind the film's ending was heavily discussed, which I think increases it's importance.
Neuroxic ( talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at your talk page. I think the reason I really identified with Riggan is because I'm a prick. You know what you're doing with regards to editing, don't be discouraged by my previous comments: ignore them. It was just a case of someone making a bunch of assumptions and not taking the proper amount of time to consider feedback. Neuroxic ( talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"I turn sentences around. That's my life. I write a sentence and then I turn it around. I look at it and then I turn it around again. Then I have lunch. Then I come back in and write another sentence. Then I have tea and turn the new sentence around. Then I read the two sentences over and turn them both around. Then I lie down on my sofa and think. Then I get up and throw them out and start from the beginning."
Hi Metalsand. As noted on the page history, I reverted your edit.
It's a tough one though. Your point is good, in that the actual pieces are not mentioned anywhere on the page. The page did include them previously: before I wrote the music section, the page was essentially just a list of them. Clearly, this was in violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but more than that, the old version of the music section was ignoring the largest part of the score, Sánchez's drumming.
The reason I reverted your edit was because the name of a piece looks out of place. When I was wrote the section, I continuously debated with myself whether I should include the names of the pieces or not. In the end, I came to the conclusion that if I was to name one piece, I would have to name them all, and there were simply too many classical music pieces to do this for. There certainly isn't information on the web as to why each was chosen - indeed, as G. Iñárritu said, the particular choice of them wasn't important. (But personally I'm sceptial on this point. For example, surely the fact that music featuring pizzicato was used in the scene where Sam and Mike make out to directly coinside with the imagery of ropes in the background, but I digress.)
This isn't to say that the list of the pieces shouldn't be found on Wikipedia at all, I just feel it isn't suitable to list them here.
The place to put them would be a separate article of the soundtrack of the film. Many FA articles on films have them, see for instance Prometheus and Sense and Sensibility. (The classical music pieces would be included, by default, under the Track listing section.)
Of course, it will take more than a few hours to flesh out the page (I'd estimate ~ 15h including research for the production and reception sections, but you could easily make a minimial page in ~5 h.), but if you really feel our article needs it, I say go and make Birdman (soundtrack)
Neuroxic ( talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Good job on the article, particularly the critical reception section, however, the plot is poorly written. Could someone step up and rewrite it? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts ( talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've spent the past few days observing this article and can't really find anything wrong with it without nitpicking (only major one being seeing visual effects is only one sentence, may as well merge it with another section).
Final verdict: pass. Rusted AutoParts 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There's the obvious connection between the main character and the actor cast for the role that many reviews mention. Both once have played a superhero in films and have ever since tried to get away from it, with little success (to a point that many say their career has died). Hence, it would certainly add to the article if more of Keaton's own opinions regarding his role and that of all people he has been cast in it could be sourced and added, maybe even what he thinks on whether the role is a good or accurate reflection of his own career, how he perceives it and how he feels about it (i. e., does he feel about it in a similar way as does the character). Only a short blurb on behalf of the director that Keaton was a late choice but once he was considered was the obvious choice, and that Keaton asked him whether he was "making fun of him", just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
Also, now that a single-shot film has won the Academy Award for Best Picture, I think it's about time for a Wikipedia list (maybe also a WP category) of feature films that are or appear to be made in a single shot. So far, all we have is single shot cinematography, which is but a re-direct to long take, where single-shot films are only mentioned in passing. -- 80.187.106.216 ( talk) 17:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments on an old revision:
Additional text:
Following the Academy Award win for the film, the director and writers presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release.[12] The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting Johnny Depp as filming yet another installment of the Pirates of the Carribean franchise. Iñárritu grew to strongly dislike the original ending, calling it "so embarrassing", and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after a new ending came to him in a dream.[13][14] Iñárritu was reluctant to describe the original ending but it was leaked by Dinelaris. He said the original ending was set in the theatre instead of the hospital, and involved Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room.[15]
As stated by co-author Dinelaris, the old ending was to "... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that.”[16] The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film.[13][17][18]
My comments:
"Following the Academy Award win for the film," - the film won multiple Academy Awards, not one. Are you referring to a specific one?
"...presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release." - some repetition: if an ending was replaced, then by definition the new one will be included in the film. Also "...ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed" is incorrect; the ending didn't change from the film's premier in Venice to release in the US.
"The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting..." - this is too long. A shorter statement like "The original ending intended to parody Riggan's Birdman films by depicting..." would be better, but what follows is incorrect anyway. In the original ending Depp wasn't actually filming A Pirates of the Carribean film, but rather finding himself at the same position in life that Riggan was.
"As stated by co-author Dinelaris" - anyone whose read through the section this far knows Dinelaris is a co-author. The phrase "As stated by Dinelaris" is fine.
"... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that." - this is quite long. Are you sure it's essential to include this quote, and not simply explain it in words?
"The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film." - this seems to suggest that the main reason they changed the ending was to leave it highly ambiguous, but this was not true. The writers came up with another ending, and realized the original they had was silly.
Just remember, writing is hard work! When I was writing the post-production section I spent on average two days writing each paragraph, research time included. Writing's something you get better at it with time though, so don't let my comments dissuade you from contributing.
MusicAngels (
talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Neuroxic (
talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not appropriate at all. Click to see some really poor behavior. Drmies ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Really bad pronoun use here on this page. Some of the writing is really really bad. I don't like cutting things but now I see here that others are noticing how godawful this is. Can someone help cut out all the subjective stuff and perhaps change "he" and "they" to proper nouns? This is really bad. 67.135.188.9 ( talk) 15:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Look -- the quality of my edits have nothing to do with whether I have identified or not! Look at the quality of my edits please. There is such bad writing here -- unclear pronouns, the reader doesn't know what the paragraph is claiming, the reader doesn't know the source of a subjective claim of Keaton's knowledge, et cetera. Who I am has nothing to do with the quality of the critique I'm offering here. 67.135.188.9 ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You can't erase history! What happens on a talk page needs to stay on the talk page. 128.90.39.238 ( talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The current version of the article has been delisted at the last GA review due to issues with the writing and issues with WP:OR which have been listed in the review. There are also several sections and oversights which appear to be missing in the current delisted article which should be addressed by editors prior to renomination of the page for peer review.
(1) A separate section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending is strongly indicated based on the sheer number of articles written in the press covering themes related to the highly ambiguous ending of the film. The previous author of this article has apparently negative feelings about this important issue. First the author suggested integrating the material into the Writing section, then the author seemed to want to delete it for personal reasons. Which one is it? The material as covered in the press is both interesting and informative to read. It should be included in the article if the article is to be renominated for peer review.
(2) The discussion in the press of the Resolution of the ambiguous ending has gone into dozens of articles in the press and is not covered at all in the current delisted version of the article. There are at least 10-12 different theories which have been discussed in press articles and press reviews of the film, including comments from the director and the writers, which are not covered at all in the current article. To name just two or three of these theories, there is the debate as to whether Riggan dies at the end or survives; another theory suggests that he turns into Birdman; yet another theory suggests that the final scene is set in a dreamscape and has no tangible reality outside of imagination. The author of the delisted version of this article has not included a section covering any of these theories. The author of the delisted article has apparently selected only one of the plot lines for personal reasons and incorporated only this one plot line into the Plot summary contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is WP:OR and the article was delisted because of this. The ambiguities in the plot were intentionally written into the plot by the director and the writers of the film as they have maintained over and over again.
(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.
(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.
(5) The current ending of the Plot makes a WP:OR assertion that there is some relationship with the birds outside of the hospital room. This is not the ending of the film and it is really a push to present this as important enough to claim as the conclusion. The conclusion involves Samantha looking out the window at the horizon. No embellishement is needed here. The original research in the delisted version should be removed.
(6) The prologue to the film is completely missing. There is a very clear and prominent prologue to the film which has been completely ignored by the previous author of this section. It starts with a quotation of Carver which sets the mood of the film, and then cuts to a dramatic shot apparently in the upper atmosphere of an atmospheric disturbance. Some reviewers have commented prominently about this prologue, though the current Plot section ignores it fully.
(7) Virtually everyone associated with the film from the director, to the writers, to the main cast, and to the supporting cast, seem to have given interviews on Talk shows and multiple video link interviews on the internet stating that the film is about the downward spiral of the emotional and mental health of Riggan leading to his end. Neither the emotional decline nor the mental health decline of Riggan is covered in this Wikipedia article with the degree of coverage which has been given to this topic in the press and in Talk show interviews. The material should be covered in the current article with more importance, with more promienence.
(8) A complete rewrite of the plot section should be undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the GAR review which delisted this article in its current form. Several sections appear to be missing such as a section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending, as well as a section covering extensive discussion in the press and criticism of the Interpretations of the ambiguous ending.
Addressing these issues should help to start preparing the article for renomination to GA peer review status. MusicAngels ( talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Neuroxic: You appear to not be following the Wikipedia process for Talk page discussion and refraining from editing the article page until you have established consensus for your position on the Talk page. You appear to be serially reverting text which is in agreement with the delisting editor who identified issues with your writing and issues with your research WP:OR. If you have miscounted, then note that you have been informed that you have serially reverted text three times at this point, and that you do not appear to be making any constructive refinements to the text. You ought to be following BRD guidelines the same as all other editors at Wikipedia and not be making serial reverts. MusicAngels ( talk) 15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The article still reads "Following the Academy Award win for the film". Since Birdman won multiple awards, this is incorrect, as I outlined in my comments above. I say again, please read them. If you don't agree with a suggested change please discuss it with me. Neuroxic ( talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
After adding the section break in Plot it again occurred to me that the prologue to the film is still entirely missing. My first thought was to include the full Carver quote and make very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance shot before Riggan's levitation scene, both of which were important to the director. My second thought was that maybe a short summary of the Carver quote would be enough with a very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance. If you have strong feelings for the one option or the other then you might try to place your version of the prologue to the film in the Plot section. I do not think that it should be ignored in the Plot section which currently excludes it since it was important to the director. MusicAngels ( talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.
(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.
@ MusicAngels: just some more comments on general tidying. Just be aware that for your plot summary, at 785 words it exceeds the 400-700 word limit, but since in terms of structure, Birdman take linearity to the extreme, it's unconventional, so I don't have a problem with it. (In fact, I think it's far more engaging than what was there previously.) Just wanted to let you know that someone may flag it.
Also, it'd be good to apply the cite template to your references in the analysis section, just because the reference formatting in these currently seems odd compared to the rest. Neuroxic ( talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
For the soundtrack section, seriously consider creating a separate page for the soundtrack, like Ruby did with Sense and Sensibility. There's been discussion about this before, I'd suggest reading my more detailed discussion there. Neuroxic ( talk) 10:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Birdman (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just wanted to say is someone put up that Birdman is satirical drama although technically it's a black comedy-drama. just wanted to put that out there. 108.7.233.48 ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Viriditas ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Birdman as Satire film |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There's lots of problems with the use and interpretation of sources in the above. Try to look at the most reliable, in-depth film sources on the subject. There's a lot, but few of those above qualify. Here's a few: Viriditas ( talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Birdman as comedy drama, satire, black comedy, and fantasy |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
To clarify, my revert of the image & caption was because it emphasizes a supporting actor and the reception to their performance (WP:UNDUE). Meanwhile, I'd added div col to decrease white space. Lapadite ( talk) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Iñárritu's own experiences influenced many of Birdman's themes. "What this film talks about, I have been through," Iñárritu recalled. "I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."
That is the quote I am going with. (P.s. It is now re-sequenced as the first footnote in that paragraph and the old #10 footnote is now re-sequenced. I should be on-line for another hour or so tonight if that's of use.) MusicAngels ( talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)What was the writing process like for the final scene? Did it have a different ending? "No, it had a different ending but in the middle of shooting, I knew it was a piece of shit. I felt it and the film began to breathe by itself, and the characters began to grow. I went in and wrote it with Alexander [Dinelaris] and Nico [Giacobone], and I am so happy that I changed it. Now I feel very good about the ending. It feels very fair."
INTERJECTION Sorry to interject here MusicAngels, but I agree with Viriditas. The paragraphs you cut contained information not in the current version, and extra information on a topic is fine: just move it to a different, more focused article on the subject, as per the summary style-guidelines. For instance, examine the Development section in Rhain's article on the Last of Us. Notice how there's only five paragraphs here, but if you look at the more focused article the section links to, there around thirty paragraphs, an amount far to big for the main page. At one stage I was concerned that the production section I was working on may be too detailed, (but then again, Sense and Sensibility's production section is as generous) so was going to create a new article called "Production of Birdman"; this way the main article can have a section titled "Production", with no subsections, but instead a paragraph summarizing each of the sections in the "Production of..." article. (i.e. one for the writing, rehearsal, filming, music, etc). My suggestion anyway. End of interjection. Neuroxic ( talk) 04:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The film used an original drum score (as well as the classical music). The credit in the film reads "Drum score by Antonio Sánchez". That is how it should be listed. The newly added opening sentence of the Music and soundtrack section The film's original music segments consist entirely of solo jazz percussion performances and original music composition by Antonio Sánchez was a bit misleading to the reader. My new version is intended to make clear the score he composed and performed was entirely done as a solo drum performance. (This was already clear later in the section. The opening should not confuse the issue). Also removed his Academy Award disqualification from the article lead section, where it was newly added. It was quite unnecessary there. It is in the Music and soundtrack section, where it is appropriate. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems a spin doctor is at work here (why is the page locked!?) as the new yorker review was not as glowing as the wiki seems to cheer, with a more fitting summary quote i had wished to insert:
“Birdman” trades on facile, casual dichotomies of theatre versus cinema and art versus commerce. It’s a white elephant of a movie that conceals a mouse of timid wisdom, a mighty and churning machine of virtuosity that delivers a work of utterly familiar and unoriginal drama. Of such things, too, can Oscar buzz be made."
Yes this. The film is a waste of time
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.86.3 ( talk) 04:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)
Muscat Hoe (
talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority. 11 Arlington ( talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Should there be something added for the 2 notable negative reviews? I'm thinking especially of Scott Tobias' review for The Dissolve, where he called Iñaritú a "pretentious fraud". CVance1 ( talk) 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The statement that Rotten Tomatoes gives a rating of 93% appears to be incorrect and also confusing, given that another statement gives an average rating from them of 8.5/10. The 93% is actually the TOMATOMETER ( the percent of critics who have given a positive review), which is clearly not a rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.126.255 ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
An editor who was formerly active on this page has now been blocked indefinitely, and those of us who decided it was safest to stop editing so as not to get into fights can now edit safely again. Unfortunately, as User:Viriditas has been reporting in recent days, it seems that the blocked editor wrote some things that simply weren't correct - statements with source footnotes, but with content that wasn't supported by the footnotes. That means, basically, that a lot of edits will have to be checked and confirmed. User:Neuroxic, you used to be a lot more active on this page. Any chance you'll come back? || AvianObserver ( talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Everyone who used to contribute to this page seems to have abandoned it, and who can blame them? Six weeks of editing by one editor (now blocked indefinitely) has pretty much wrecked the page beyond repair. Here's one idea for starting again:
Could someone in authority (maybe User:Viriditas) simply restore the page to the last version before that blocked editor started to work on it: [18]. That was on August 15th.
This would mean going back and adding all the worthwhile things that other editors added after August 15th, but at least we could be confident that nothing truly awful remained on the page. And maybe someone would be willing to work on it again, for example User:Neuroxic.
Does anyone have any thoughts about this? || AvianObserver ( talk) 01:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I would question Birdman being described as a superhero film in the lead section – it isn't one in any conventional sense. Although we occasionally see Riggan Thomson demonstrating superpowers and Birdman himself appears, these are generally interpreted as being in Thomson's imagination rather than anything in the film's "reality". Unless there are reliable sources describing it as a "superhero film" per se, I'd prefer to see this changed. Jellyman ( talk) 14:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Birdman (film). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The article links a couple of times to Birdman and the Galaxy Trio, a Hanna-Barbera cartoon featuring a character called Birdman. Is the Birdman of this film supposed to be based on that character? If not, these links should probably be removed. 2603:8090:2400:79:E8F4:ABE9:82B4:44F7 ( talk) 03:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How come the portrayal of "Birdman" is not credited on the page? Actor Benjamin Kanes physically portrayed Birdman on set and has some heavy scenes with Michael Keaton. I believe he should at least be added to the wikipedia page as "Young Birdman (uncredited)" at the bottom. Doesn't seem right to not credit the guy at least on here for the hard work he put in. 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 ( talk) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe Riggan's superpowers are just in his head. Here's the evidence as I recall it:
However, I respect that this is all subject to interpretation, and I appreciate constructions like "we see Riggan apparently using telekinesis" or "we are shown Riggan using telekinesis" try to keep interpretation out of it. The problem with those constructions is they involve or imply an audience - "we are shown", "we see", "Riggan is shown (to the audience)" etc - and to my mind this is not a proper description of the plot; the audience is being shown things is not part of the plot. Is there a better way to do this? Popcornduff ( talk) 20:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be; after all that is its full title. The Academy Awards are calling it by its full title as are many other ceremonies. Should it be changed? Skm989898 11:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
An user revert my edit, saying that what I wrote was not important; actually, I think is important to fully understand the movie ending or at least to try to explain it, because before in the movie Birdman talk about "screeching", saying to Riggan: "And the next time you screech...it'll explode into millions of eardrums". So, when i wrote "She looks down at the street, then, hearing a bird of prey screeching, up at the sky, and smiles", my purpose was to point out that "sounding hint" and support who think daughter sees her father flying in the sky, for real or in a symbolic way doesn't matter. Sorry about my english, thanks. -- 95.236.18.49 ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this page has no section on post-production or special effects. Here's a good article to use to start this section. - Richiekim ( talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing said about "Birdman," the cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoon superhero (besides a "See Also" link -- Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio). Cartoon Network made a big deal about Birdman in the late 1990s, as they did "Space Ghost" and other dated, generic heroes of that same television era. If there's a connection between Keaton's character and the original Birdman it would be nice to know. Also, if there's a trademark dispute or out-of-court settlement regarding the character(s), we should know about it. If not, this otherwise fine film is insulting to those of us who actually care about the superhero genre -- especially "forgotten" ones from the past. 74.192.165.180 ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The full name of the movie's director is Alejandro González Iñárritu. González is his father's last name and the family name. Iñárritu is his mother's name. González is not his middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.189.185 ( talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"After Sam visits Riggan, he dismisses Birdman and sees birds then climbs onto the window ledge."
Sam "dismisses" Birdman? What does that mean?
Sam sees birds? What? Pigeons on the windowsill?
Sam climbs out onto the window ledge? Doesn't seem likely, especially since he comes back in in the next sentence.
Does Sam flip off Riggan AKA Birdman? Does Riggan/Birdman see things? Does he hallucinate birds?
Context indicates that Riggan probably is the one who climbs onto the window ledge and it sounds like he turns into Birdman and flies away.
Not havng seen the movie I can't even begin to guess how to straighten this would-be sentence out. P0M ( talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw User:Neuroxic reverted my copy edit of the Production section, saying I had "butchered" it. I beg to differ - I only removed stuff that didn't need to be there. The standing version is overwritten.
Case in point - there is no advantage to using this paragraph:
When this paragraph covers all the relevant points in fewer words:
(If you think some of the details I removed here are necessary, they can be easily re-added without bloating it.)
There are other weird points in the standing text. Three examples grabbed at random:
Yes, I saw the peer review of this section before I edited it, but a positive peer review doesn't mean an article can't still be improved. The research and organisation of the information is fantastic, but the copy can be better. Popcornduff ( talk) 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Birdman (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BOM":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of the obvious connection that Keaton played Batman 25 years ago wearing a mask that is almost identical to the one birdman wears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.252.205 ( talk) 12:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Much comment has been made of the illusion that the film was made in a single shot. Yet no one has remarked that Alfred Hitchcock did this more than 65 years ago. And let's not forget the opening of Touch of Evil. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the details. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Popcornduff: Finally finding myself with some free time, I looked at your edits.
Let me just say, thank you very much. My first reply went too far, focusing on details you cut out instead of phrases you tidied.
Looking back on my original edits, I'm embarrassed to have written content with phrases such as "starts throwing and breaking everything" when, as you put it, the single word "destroys" describes the situation.
Similarly with "work on the script was done" being replaced with "the script was written", and essentially the same for the majority of edits you made. Like Riggan himself, I can be a prick when it comes to other people and something I'm involved in. I've learnt my lesson. Apologies!
This said, I think I understand why I used the b-word when I first undid your edits. Using the paragraph in the article about the writing process as an example, examine the following forms of information:
AND
With Iñárritu in Los Angeles, Giacobone and Bo in Buenos Aires, and Dinelaris in New York, the script was written mainly through emails and Skype calls. Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were "cracking each other up." Incorporating the one-shot feature into the script made the writing process more involved than usual.
The only difference between these are the dot points, and in my view, I don't distinguish a paragraph and list of dot points by the dot points alone. This is why I originally included (now adjusted) phrases such as "This wasn't necessarily bad however" in the paragraph, to try and give the reader, amongst other things, a smoother experience. Countless times I look at an article and I feel all I'm reading is a list of facts without the dot points, instead of paragraphs, and I think the fear that what I had written was going to become a list of dot points made be give such a vitriolic reply.
Anyway, I hope my latest version of the section is fine with you. If it isn't please let me know! I agree with the majority of phrasing changes you made, but conjecture that the largest point of contention you may have with my latest edit is the amount of detail on the film's ending.
Honestly, I laughed out loud (and I still burst into chuckles to this day) when I found out about the film's original ending, (btw, in that moment the film also instantly became even more awesome in my books) and I certainly feel that others who didn't know about it would have a similar reaction. And if this isn't a way to engage a reader then I don't know what is. Also, the meaning behind the film's ending was heavily discussed, which I think increases it's importance.
Neuroxic ( talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at your talk page. I think the reason I really identified with Riggan is because I'm a prick. You know what you're doing with regards to editing, don't be discouraged by my previous comments: ignore them. It was just a case of someone making a bunch of assumptions and not taking the proper amount of time to consider feedback. Neuroxic ( talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"I turn sentences around. That's my life. I write a sentence and then I turn it around. I look at it and then I turn it around again. Then I have lunch. Then I come back in and write another sentence. Then I have tea and turn the new sentence around. Then I read the two sentences over and turn them both around. Then I lie down on my sofa and think. Then I get up and throw them out and start from the beginning."
Hi Metalsand. As noted on the page history, I reverted your edit.
It's a tough one though. Your point is good, in that the actual pieces are not mentioned anywhere on the page. The page did include them previously: before I wrote the music section, the page was essentially just a list of them. Clearly, this was in violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but more than that, the old version of the music section was ignoring the largest part of the score, Sánchez's drumming.
The reason I reverted your edit was because the name of a piece looks out of place. When I was wrote the section, I continuously debated with myself whether I should include the names of the pieces or not. In the end, I came to the conclusion that if I was to name one piece, I would have to name them all, and there were simply too many classical music pieces to do this for. There certainly isn't information on the web as to why each was chosen - indeed, as G. Iñárritu said, the particular choice of them wasn't important. (But personally I'm sceptial on this point. For example, surely the fact that music featuring pizzicato was used in the scene where Sam and Mike make out to directly coinside with the imagery of ropes in the background, but I digress.)
This isn't to say that the list of the pieces shouldn't be found on Wikipedia at all, I just feel it isn't suitable to list them here.
The place to put them would be a separate article of the soundtrack of the film. Many FA articles on films have them, see for instance Prometheus and Sense and Sensibility. (The classical music pieces would be included, by default, under the Track listing section.)
Of course, it will take more than a few hours to flesh out the page (I'd estimate ~ 15h including research for the production and reception sections, but you could easily make a minimial page in ~5 h.), but if you really feel our article needs it, I say go and make Birdman (soundtrack)
Neuroxic ( talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Good job on the article, particularly the critical reception section, however, the plot is poorly written. Could someone step up and rewrite it? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts ( talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've spent the past few days observing this article and can't really find anything wrong with it without nitpicking (only major one being seeing visual effects is only one sentence, may as well merge it with another section).
Final verdict: pass. Rusted AutoParts 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There's the obvious connection between the main character and the actor cast for the role that many reviews mention. Both once have played a superhero in films and have ever since tried to get away from it, with little success (to a point that many say their career has died). Hence, it would certainly add to the article if more of Keaton's own opinions regarding his role and that of all people he has been cast in it could be sourced and added, maybe even what he thinks on whether the role is a good or accurate reflection of his own career, how he perceives it and how he feels about it (i. e., does he feel about it in a similar way as does the character). Only a short blurb on behalf of the director that Keaton was a late choice but once he was considered was the obvious choice, and that Keaton asked him whether he was "making fun of him", just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
Also, now that a single-shot film has won the Academy Award for Best Picture, I think it's about time for a Wikipedia list (maybe also a WP category) of feature films that are or appear to be made in a single shot. So far, all we have is single shot cinematography, which is but a re-direct to long take, where single-shot films are only mentioned in passing. -- 80.187.106.216 ( talk) 17:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments on an old revision:
Additional text:
Following the Academy Award win for the film, the director and writers presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release.[12] The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting Johnny Depp as filming yet another installment of the Pirates of the Carribean franchise. Iñárritu grew to strongly dislike the original ending, calling it "so embarrassing", and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after a new ending came to him in a dream.[13][14] Iñárritu was reluctant to describe the original ending but it was leaked by Dinelaris. He said the original ending was set in the theatre instead of the hospital, and involved Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room.[15]
As stated by co-author Dinelaris, the old ending was to "... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that.”[16] The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film.[13][17][18]
My comments:
"Following the Academy Award win for the film," - the film won multiple Academy Awards, not one. Are you referring to a specific one?
"...presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release." - some repetition: if an ending was replaced, then by definition the new one will be included in the film. Also "...ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed" is incorrect; the ending didn't change from the film's premier in Venice to release in the US.
"The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting..." - this is too long. A shorter statement like "The original ending intended to parody Riggan's Birdman films by depicting..." would be better, but what follows is incorrect anyway. In the original ending Depp wasn't actually filming A Pirates of the Carribean film, but rather finding himself at the same position in life that Riggan was.
"As stated by co-author Dinelaris" - anyone whose read through the section this far knows Dinelaris is a co-author. The phrase "As stated by Dinelaris" is fine.
"... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that." - this is quite long. Are you sure it's essential to include this quote, and not simply explain it in words?
"The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film." - this seems to suggest that the main reason they changed the ending was to leave it highly ambiguous, but this was not true. The writers came up with another ending, and realized the original they had was silly.
Just remember, writing is hard work! When I was writing the post-production section I spent on average two days writing each paragraph, research time included. Writing's something you get better at it with time though, so don't let my comments dissuade you from contributing.
MusicAngels (
talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Neuroxic (
talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not appropriate at all. Click to see some really poor behavior. Drmies ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Really bad pronoun use here on this page. Some of the writing is really really bad. I don't like cutting things but now I see here that others are noticing how godawful this is. Can someone help cut out all the subjective stuff and perhaps change "he" and "they" to proper nouns? This is really bad. 67.135.188.9 ( talk) 15:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Look -- the quality of my edits have nothing to do with whether I have identified or not! Look at the quality of my edits please. There is such bad writing here -- unclear pronouns, the reader doesn't know what the paragraph is claiming, the reader doesn't know the source of a subjective claim of Keaton's knowledge, et cetera. Who I am has nothing to do with the quality of the critique I'm offering here. 67.135.188.9 ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You can't erase history! What happens on a talk page needs to stay on the talk page. 128.90.39.238 ( talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The current version of the article has been delisted at the last GA review due to issues with the writing and issues with WP:OR which have been listed in the review. There are also several sections and oversights which appear to be missing in the current delisted article which should be addressed by editors prior to renomination of the page for peer review.
(1) A separate section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending is strongly indicated based on the sheer number of articles written in the press covering themes related to the highly ambiguous ending of the film. The previous author of this article has apparently negative feelings about this important issue. First the author suggested integrating the material into the Writing section, then the author seemed to want to delete it for personal reasons. Which one is it? The material as covered in the press is both interesting and informative to read. It should be included in the article if the article is to be renominated for peer review.
(2) The discussion in the press of the Resolution of the ambiguous ending has gone into dozens of articles in the press and is not covered at all in the current delisted version of the article. There are at least 10-12 different theories which have been discussed in press articles and press reviews of the film, including comments from the director and the writers, which are not covered at all in the current article. To name just two or three of these theories, there is the debate as to whether Riggan dies at the end or survives; another theory suggests that he turns into Birdman; yet another theory suggests that the final scene is set in a dreamscape and has no tangible reality outside of imagination. The author of the delisted version of this article has not included a section covering any of these theories. The author of the delisted article has apparently selected only one of the plot lines for personal reasons and incorporated only this one plot line into the Plot summary contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is WP:OR and the article was delisted because of this. The ambiguities in the plot were intentionally written into the plot by the director and the writers of the film as they have maintained over and over again.
(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.
(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.
(5) The current ending of the Plot makes a WP:OR assertion that there is some relationship with the birds outside of the hospital room. This is not the ending of the film and it is really a push to present this as important enough to claim as the conclusion. The conclusion involves Samantha looking out the window at the horizon. No embellishement is needed here. The original research in the delisted version should be removed.
(6) The prologue to the film is completely missing. There is a very clear and prominent prologue to the film which has been completely ignored by the previous author of this section. It starts with a quotation of Carver which sets the mood of the film, and then cuts to a dramatic shot apparently in the upper atmosphere of an atmospheric disturbance. Some reviewers have commented prominently about this prologue, though the current Plot section ignores it fully.
(7) Virtually everyone associated with the film from the director, to the writers, to the main cast, and to the supporting cast, seem to have given interviews on Talk shows and multiple video link interviews on the internet stating that the film is about the downward spiral of the emotional and mental health of Riggan leading to his end. Neither the emotional decline nor the mental health decline of Riggan is covered in this Wikipedia article with the degree of coverage which has been given to this topic in the press and in Talk show interviews. The material should be covered in the current article with more importance, with more promienence.
(8) A complete rewrite of the plot section should be undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the GAR review which delisted this article in its current form. Several sections appear to be missing such as a section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending, as well as a section covering extensive discussion in the press and criticism of the Interpretations of the ambiguous ending.
Addressing these issues should help to start preparing the article for renomination to GA peer review status. MusicAngels ( talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Neuroxic: You appear to not be following the Wikipedia process for Talk page discussion and refraining from editing the article page until you have established consensus for your position on the Talk page. You appear to be serially reverting text which is in agreement with the delisting editor who identified issues with your writing and issues with your research WP:OR. If you have miscounted, then note that you have been informed that you have serially reverted text three times at this point, and that you do not appear to be making any constructive refinements to the text. You ought to be following BRD guidelines the same as all other editors at Wikipedia and not be making serial reverts. MusicAngels ( talk) 15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The article still reads "Following the Academy Award win for the film". Since Birdman won multiple awards, this is incorrect, as I outlined in my comments above. I say again, please read them. If you don't agree with a suggested change please discuss it with me. Neuroxic ( talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
After adding the section break in Plot it again occurred to me that the prologue to the film is still entirely missing. My first thought was to include the full Carver quote and make very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance shot before Riggan's levitation scene, both of which were important to the director. My second thought was that maybe a short summary of the Carver quote would be enough with a very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance. If you have strong feelings for the one option or the other then you might try to place your version of the prologue to the film in the Plot section. I do not think that it should be ignored in the Plot section which currently excludes it since it was important to the director. MusicAngels ( talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.
(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.
@ MusicAngels: just some more comments on general tidying. Just be aware that for your plot summary, at 785 words it exceeds the 400-700 word limit, but since in terms of structure, Birdman take linearity to the extreme, it's unconventional, so I don't have a problem with it. (In fact, I think it's far more engaging than what was there previously.) Just wanted to let you know that someone may flag it.
Also, it'd be good to apply the cite template to your references in the analysis section, just because the reference formatting in these currently seems odd compared to the rest. Neuroxic ( talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
For the soundtrack section, seriously consider creating a separate page for the soundtrack, like Ruby did with Sense and Sensibility. There's been discussion about this before, I'd suggest reading my more detailed discussion there. Neuroxic ( talk) 10:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Birdman (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just wanted to say is someone put up that Birdman is satirical drama although technically it's a black comedy-drama. just wanted to put that out there. 108.7.233.48 ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Viriditas ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Birdman as Satire film |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There's lots of problems with the use and interpretation of sources in the above. Try to look at the most reliable, in-depth film sources on the subject. There's a lot, but few of those above qualify. Here's a few: Viriditas ( talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Birdman as comedy drama, satire, black comedy, and fantasy |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
To clarify, my revert of the image & caption was because it emphasizes a supporting actor and the reception to their performance (WP:UNDUE). Meanwhile, I'd added div col to decrease white space. Lapadite ( talk) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Iñárritu's own experiences influenced many of Birdman's themes. "What this film talks about, I have been through," Iñárritu recalled. "I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."
That is the quote I am going with. (P.s. It is now re-sequenced as the first footnote in that paragraph and the old #10 footnote is now re-sequenced. I should be on-line for another hour or so tonight if that's of use.) MusicAngels ( talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)What was the writing process like for the final scene? Did it have a different ending? "No, it had a different ending but in the middle of shooting, I knew it was a piece of shit. I felt it and the film began to breathe by itself, and the characters began to grow. I went in and wrote it with Alexander [Dinelaris] and Nico [Giacobone], and I am so happy that I changed it. Now I feel very good about the ending. It feels very fair."
INTERJECTION Sorry to interject here MusicAngels, but I agree with Viriditas. The paragraphs you cut contained information not in the current version, and extra information on a topic is fine: just move it to a different, more focused article on the subject, as per the summary style-guidelines. For instance, examine the Development section in Rhain's article on the Last of Us. Notice how there's only five paragraphs here, but if you look at the more focused article the section links to, there around thirty paragraphs, an amount far to big for the main page. At one stage I was concerned that the production section I was working on may be too detailed, (but then again, Sense and Sensibility's production section is as generous) so was going to create a new article called "Production of Birdman"; this way the main article can have a section titled "Production", with no subsections, but instead a paragraph summarizing each of the sections in the "Production of..." article. (i.e. one for the writing, rehearsal, filming, music, etc). My suggestion anyway. End of interjection. Neuroxic ( talk) 04:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The film used an original drum score (as well as the classical music). The credit in the film reads "Drum score by Antonio Sánchez". That is how it should be listed. The newly added opening sentence of the Music and soundtrack section The film's original music segments consist entirely of solo jazz percussion performances and original music composition by Antonio Sánchez was a bit misleading to the reader. My new version is intended to make clear the score he composed and performed was entirely done as a solo drum performance. (This was already clear later in the section. The opening should not confuse the issue). Also removed his Academy Award disqualification from the article lead section, where it was newly added. It was quite unnecessary there. It is in the Music and soundtrack section, where it is appropriate. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems a spin doctor is at work here (why is the page locked!?) as the new yorker review was not as glowing as the wiki seems to cheer, with a more fitting summary quote i had wished to insert:
“Birdman” trades on facile, casual dichotomies of theatre versus cinema and art versus commerce. It’s a white elephant of a movie that conceals a mouse of timid wisdom, a mighty and churning machine of virtuosity that delivers a work of utterly familiar and unoriginal drama. Of such things, too, can Oscar buzz be made."
Yes this. The film is a waste of time
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.86.3 ( talk) 04:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)
Muscat Hoe (
talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority. 11 Arlington ( talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Should there be something added for the 2 notable negative reviews? I'm thinking especially of Scott Tobias' review for The Dissolve, where he called Iñaritú a "pretentious fraud". CVance1 ( talk) 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The statement that Rotten Tomatoes gives a rating of 93% appears to be incorrect and also confusing, given that another statement gives an average rating from them of 8.5/10. The 93% is actually the TOMATOMETER ( the percent of critics who have given a positive review), which is clearly not a rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.126.255 ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
An editor who was formerly active on this page has now been blocked indefinitely, and those of us who decided it was safest to stop editing so as not to get into fights can now edit safely again. Unfortunately, as User:Viriditas has been reporting in recent days, it seems that the blocked editor wrote some things that simply weren't correct - statements with source footnotes, but with content that wasn't supported by the footnotes. That means, basically, that a lot of edits will have to be checked and confirmed. User:Neuroxic, you used to be a lot more active on this page. Any chance you'll come back? || AvianObserver ( talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Everyone who used to contribute to this page seems to have abandoned it, and who can blame them? Six weeks of editing by one editor (now blocked indefinitely) has pretty much wrecked the page beyond repair. Here's one idea for starting again:
Could someone in authority (maybe User:Viriditas) simply restore the page to the last version before that blocked editor started to work on it: [18]. That was on August 15th.
This would mean going back and adding all the worthwhile things that other editors added after August 15th, but at least we could be confident that nothing truly awful remained on the page. And maybe someone would be willing to work on it again, for example User:Neuroxic.
Does anyone have any thoughts about this? || AvianObserver ( talk) 01:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I would question Birdman being described as a superhero film in the lead section – it isn't one in any conventional sense. Although we occasionally see Riggan Thomson demonstrating superpowers and Birdman himself appears, these are generally interpreted as being in Thomson's imagination rather than anything in the film's "reality". Unless there are reliable sources describing it as a "superhero film" per se, I'd prefer to see this changed. Jellyman ( talk) 14:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Birdman (film). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The article links a couple of times to Birdman and the Galaxy Trio, a Hanna-Barbera cartoon featuring a character called Birdman. Is the Birdman of this film supposed to be based on that character? If not, these links should probably be removed. 2603:8090:2400:79:E8F4:ABE9:82B4:44F7 ( talk) 03:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)