![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Do other editors think it is appropriate to include the headlines about Kyle Shaw in the article? Some time ago, I included information about Luke Helder, who was reported to plan a Fight Club-style attack, but I later removed it in retrospect. Including the information about Shaw seems to run afoul of recentism and BLP concerns. One concern is that he is under 18 years old, so WP:BLPNAME says that privacy is more prevalent here. Perhaps another way we can approach this is to leave the person's name out of the article altogether. What do others think? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The information about this incident has been removed by an editor, but others have appeared fine with it, particularly through the FAC process. He falsely calls the incident "a cultural impact" where there is no such thing. The start of fight clubs after the film came out, the polls approving of the film, and now this incident make up the overall cultural impact. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Toronto Sun ("Cruisin' for a bruisin'")
Empire ("Menace II Society")
Film Comment
Interview ("Fighting Talk")
Some thematic possibilities to add. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The "See also" section was removed, but I'd like to justify its inclusion. In addition to supporting editors at the film article's FAC page not having an issue with it, the similar works were culled from Allmovie's database. It is not a film critic's review where they identify other films they thought were similar. A list of similar works offers readers opportunity to navigate to other film articles that would not have been visited otherwise. If there is a better way to list similar works, we can discuss one, but this kind of movie database website is solid in its credentials and better than IMDb, which would likely be user-determined. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I first removed the "see also" because it was all taken from one source and there is no criteria for what films relate to this film. Also those films add nothing to this film, I would think see also Chuck Palahnuik, see also David Fincher, see also Nihilism, otherwise I have no idea how Trainspotting or Crash are a see also for this film. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I share the views expressed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Allmovie is considered a reliable source for facts, but a list of similar films - no doubt compiled by one individual - heavily relies on POV, doesn't it? I could understand including the "See also" section if it provided the reader with some insight into how the films listed were similar to Fight Club in plot or theme, but to just provide a list of films allegedly similar to it and then leaving it to the reader to determine why doesn't seem to be adding much to the article. I'm assuming someone who has seen some or all of the films readily will grasp the connection, but how about those like myself who are not familiar with them? Is it sufficient to say these films are similar because someone at Allmovie says so and leave it at that? I don't think so.
The lead of this article includes the statement, "The director and the cast compared the film to the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and the 1967 film The Graduate. They said its theme was the conflict between a generation of young people and the value system of advertising." This is the type of explanation that's missing from a simple list of "similar" films. I think if there was a brief comment after each title citing the link between it and Fight Club, then the "See also" section would have more value. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Erik, I have to disagree with the use of the similar films list on Allmovie. If you look down at the related works list, you will see the 1966 film Seconds. I can not find the connective tissue between them which would make them related in any way. I could list a few things that are far more similar than the films listed on Allmovie. The films A Beautiful Mind, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Sybil, and Thelma & Louise are more similar that some on the Allmovie list. There are the television series Dollhouse and My Own Worst Enemy. Even the Matrix films all come to mind. I have seen so many of those lists on Allmovie have things really wrong. Sorry. LA ( T) @ 09:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The plot for Fight Club is much, MUCH, more detailed that this sad attempt. Fix it. 203.59.213.54 ( talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane
I noticed that it says a 'nameless' protagonist but on the back (blurb) of the DVD box it says his name is Jack. Is there any mention of this in the article? This is from the UK version if it makes a difference. JTBX ( talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
ban ip adress 83.223.9.175! -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad to see that some of the philosophical and cultural antecedents of this film have been covered, but why is there no mention of Zen in here?
A would-be Zen monk (traditionally at least) on trying to gain entry to a monastery was turned away with insults, and even beatings, until eventually he would be allowed in. Likewise the Zen monastery traditionally made their monks work hard, and do certain tasks etc (this apparently originated to stop tax dodgers and lazy drop outs using the monasteries as "holiday camps"). All of this can be found in most basic overviews of Japanese Zen, and anyone who knows Fight Club probably can see what I'm thinking of - particularly Bob Paulson's entry into the house on Paper Street. Likewise the Fight Clubbers end up in drab uniforms, which are as redolent of the monastic life as Fascism. Project Mayhem is thus not just about Chinese re-education camps.
There are also some other parallels I can think of, but unlike Zen, I can't prove them. They're probably more indirect, as in the case of Muscular Christianity and come via American adaptations. The Tyler Durden figure is similar to Gilmartin in Confessions of a Justified Sinner for example.
Other than this, good article. I'm usually not very impressed by pop culture articles on Wikipedia, even featured ones, so well done! -- MacRusgail ( talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is featured on the front page of wikipedia today, and above the movie poster, it says "Fight Club(Leiws Hing is gay)". I somehow believe this to be vandalism. 212.10.53.102 ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually "Leiws Hing is gay" was part of the original film title, hence it got left on. LOL... -- MacRusgail ( talk) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to change the plot outline to make it more accurate and have been reverted twice so I thought I would talk it over here. My basic problem is that this sentence "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place but only if the narrator will hit him." is just incorrect. Tyler never states that the narrator hitting him is a prerequisite to him staying at his house. Here is the dialogue from the film
- Can I stay at your place? - Yeah. - Thanks - I want you to do me a favour. - Yeah, sure. - I want you to hit me as hard as you can. - What? - I want you to hit me as hard as you can. ... - You just want me to hit you? - Come on. Do me this one favour. - Why? - I don't know. Never been in a fight. You? - No. But that's a good thing. - You can't know yourself if you haven't! - I don't wanna die without any scars. - Come on. Hit me, before I lose my nerve. - Oh, God. This is crazy. - So go crazy! Let it rip.
I had changed the text to read "After a conversation regarding consumerism, Tyler accepts the narrator's request to stay at his place. Before they leave for Tyler's house, Tyler asks the narrator to hit him so that he can experience being punched and this leads to a fistfight between the two. After the fight, the narrator moves into Tyler's dilapidated house." I think my change is accurate and the current description is incorrect. Other opinions? Remember ( talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't. The current version passed through GA and FA, and as such the consensus is for it. You r addition is clumsy and is not in keeping with a summary. Less is more. You need consensus for change, don't make a change then keep reverting, see here. The FA version stays until there is consensus to bloat the plot summary up. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I am trying to build consensus, that is why I am having a discussion here, but no one seems to be discussing my point. Second, I don't want to expand the plot needlessly and I agree that we shouldn't be mired in details but we should be factually accurate. I believe the current version of this article (which I think is great by the way) contains a factually incorrect statement (i.e., that Tyler says that the Narrator must hit him in order to stay at his house). So in an effort to build clear consensus: does everyone think that this statement "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place but only if the narrator will hit him." is correct. Please state if you think this is correct or incorrect below (or you just don't care).
For those interested in this issue, I discussed this issue with main user that had been reverting my edits, User:Darrenhusted, on his talk page, and his stance was that the current text (i.e., that Tyler tells the narrator that he has to hit him in order to stay at his house) was correct and written in an appropriate way. It then became obvious that we had a fundamental disagreement on the facts at hand and that we could not reach a consensus on a revised text. So I decided to stop the edit war over this issue because it wasn't going anywhere. If you want to see the actual dicussion see here User talk:Darrenhusted#Fight club issue. I had posted the whole discussion here, but User:Darrenhusted objected to that discussion being posted here [1]. Therefore, out of a respect for his desires, I have summarized our discussion here. Remember ( talk) 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times has a good article [2] that could be used to expand the cultural impact section. ComingSoon.net [3] also has more details about the Blu-Ray. 167.176.6.7 ( talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Curious, this article has no cast section. Was this a conscious decision? Indeed, there are only a few main characters, and their roles are mostly discussed under "casting", but it seems like an odd exclusion all the same. AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 08:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
May anyone please identify the movie genre of the film? Stratogustav ( talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
For some reason the Guardian is quoted in the first part of the article. Why is this? It has no relevance no great american political change happend. I see Guardian quoted all the time on Wikipedia by leftists users who don't want to use the perfectly good telegraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.24.187 ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Worth mentioning that Fight club is in the TOP20 (Rank 16 as of Feb. 19, 2010) of IMDB? 71.227.116.103 ( talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when I watched this film, my first thought in categorizing this film, would been under a new film genre, called "Macho-nihilst". Naturally, I googled such a term in regards to Fight club, and found a film review done by Total Film, which gave this particular line: ...macho-posturing and nihilism.... If you have any thoughts on this, or would like to expand on this subject, fell free to comment. CatJar ( talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So you propose coining a brand new genre for one film? One film is not a genre. And how does it help the reader throwing a vaguely defined neologism in the lead sentence? The main cast is 66% "macho", and 33% not-"macho", and whether it is true nihilism or simply anarchy is certainly up for debate, and hence no help to the opening words of an article which is already an FA. Darrenhusted ( talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor added a passage about the viral video Jane Austen's Fight Club to the article. The citation was originally a link to the YouTube video, but I replaced it with a citation from Entertainment Weekly and revised the passage. I'm mostly okay with including mention of this video since we tend to sample other singular items in the "Cultural impact" section. I don't think we should get too much in detail about the video, though, like the director's identity and the cast members' identities. I'm opening this discussion in case anyone wants to debate the merits of this passage. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As terrible as it is, should Fight Club (video game) not be mentioned somewhere in the article? – Zntrip 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I stumbled on a bit of obscure trivia that might be worth including here. This article (as of Jan 4) begins by saying Edward Norton's character is unnamed. While it is true the name is never directly mentioned in the movie, a couple versions are used by Norton and in the marketing and production materials:
Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/trivia?tr0755994
Furthermore, it appears that the Norton's character's real name could be Michael DeSoto. A prop ID badge worn by Norton and bearing the name Michael DeSoto was auctioned off by Christie's in 2001. Their web site states:
They go on to say:
Source: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=3839475
I can't speak to the quality of the IMDB source, but I think the Christie's auction is pretty compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.0.201 ( talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He can't be called "Jack" in the original script, because the scenes were filmed with the Reader's Digest based dialogue, as in "I am Joe's Gall Bladder." I know this because I watched a rough cut of the film in June 1999. References to "Joe" and "Jane" were changed to "Jack" and "Jill" and "Reader's Digest" changed to "The Annotated Reader" because of unwillingness on the magazine's part to be represented in the film. Additionally, the video store where movies are erases was originally quite visibly BLOCKBUSTER; the shot was changed for theatrical release to keep the store's large sign out of the frame. You can hear this partially discussed in the DVD commentary. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.141.101 ( talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
partial implementation. Fight Club moved to Fight Club (novel) per the discussion and Fight Club (disambiguation) moved to Fight Club. While the discussion suggested waiting 30 days to reconsider if there is a primary topic, I'd suggest waiting at least 90 days. In doing the moves, it appears that these pages have been moved around a bit and I think that waiting to allow more time to get this right is a wise direction to take. Also, it will take a while for the links to the dab page to be disambiguated. I have no idea where some of them should be pointing so I'll leave that in the hands of the dab project. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Fight_Club_(film) → Fight_Club — The film is pretty clearly the primary topic. It gets roughly half again as many views as the novel, despite the novel currently having the unadorned article title; it seems quite likely that most of its views are due to people searching for information about the film. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"The director copied the homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel..." He did? I've seen this movie at least fifteen times and I have no idea what this sentence is about. Gingermint ( talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Really pushing it. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of homosexuals. 87.113.82.185 ( talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
99% of people do not think 'homoerotic' when watching fight club, it is merely a film intellectuals ramblings. Sure include it in the article in the relevant section but to have it also in the intro is seriously misunderstanding the purpose of having a synopsis of a film. It is a largely hidden and debatable theory, not part of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.185 ( talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I detest this film, and was surprised that Roger Ebert's negative review is only mentioned in the briefest of scraps, followed up by an excerpt of his regarding the film taken from an entirely separate review of his. Ebert's stature in the world of film criticism is, ahem, fairly considerable. The opening sentence of his review of this movie is his own personal declaration that it is "frankly and cheerfully fascist" and "a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up." (the full review is contained here: Fight Club :: rogerebert.com.) I find these statements to be quite bold, as well as noteworthy, especially coming from a well-known and highly-acclaimed public figure such as Ebert, and feel that they, as well as other negative views of the film, ought not be given short shrift.
But my own personal opinion of Fight Club as a deplorable, ugly, and cruel assault on, among other things, the filmic senses, ends here.
Because for a "featured article" on Wikipedia, I find that the entire section of "critical reception" devoted to this film severely underwritten. Indeed, I, personally, found those who do support this film, find it entertaining, and advocate its message are not provided their requisite space either. This is especially vital when considering the undeniable impact the movie has left on modern societal culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenKong77 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I made an edit to include references to its rankings on popular film sites such as IMDB and FilmCrave. Why were these removed? There is no note on the discussion page and nothing in the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I meant to include my signature Heartiscontentious ( talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Because IMDb is user edited. This for example ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1083271/) says Megan Fox is "rumoured" to be in a film called Luna while this interview with Megan Fox ( http://collider.com/megan-fox-friends-with-kids-dictator-transformers-3-interview/114856/) says that is a lie. I myself have added trivia to IMDb and thus it is not trustworthy to a fault and that makes it pretty much entirely untrustworthy. Even so, this has little to do with user ratings. For instance here at A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, the user ratings for the page offer up FIFTY reviews and a near perfect score. This despite the fact the article is barely more than a cast list and a brief synopsis. It's being skewed by people who like the film rather than the article. Again, I Have voted for things on IMDb that I sometimes haven't even seen just because I think it looks good. That is not a trustworthy system. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't there be a list of actors who appeared in this film along with their roles? i saw it on here briefly but now it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.217.41 ( talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian ( talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Fight Club (film) → Fight Club – WP:COMMONNAME. It seems like there are several articles related to media where the far more likely topic has a disambiguation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
In the visual effects section there is an image from the opening sequence of the film referencing the neural pathway stylizing, but to me at least it isn't very clear, most of it is black. WOuld there be any interest in my supplying a few-second long clip of that sequence instead for better illustration? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there not one word in the article about Existentialist themes? Is it only me that saw strong existential themes in the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe the epilogue of the novel has various other examples of "copycats" that are not mentioned. I recommend their placement in the cultural impact section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.145.180 ( talk) 07:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read the article but still have no idea what a "fight club" is. Kelly222 ( talk) 11:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of special features available on the DVD and Blu-ray because it seems promotional, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral POV. The special features are the kind of details one would find at a shopping website. WikiProject Film also has guidelines at MOS:FILM#Home media: "The section may contain a summary of the extras included with the release, though excessive detail is to be avoided." This summary is already provided at the beginning of this article's "Home media" section: "Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging and was one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media. The film was released in two DVD editions. The single-disc edition included a commentary track, while the two-disc special edition included the commentary track, behind-the-scenes clips, deleted scenes, trailers, fake public service announcements, the promotional music video "This is Your Life", Internet spots, still galleries, cast biographies, storyboards, and publicity materials." I ask other editors to comment in case there is an attempt to restore this detail. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Do other editors think it is appropriate to include the headlines about Kyle Shaw in the article? Some time ago, I included information about Luke Helder, who was reported to plan a Fight Club-style attack, but I later removed it in retrospect. Including the information about Shaw seems to run afoul of recentism and BLP concerns. One concern is that he is under 18 years old, so WP:BLPNAME says that privacy is more prevalent here. Perhaps another way we can approach this is to leave the person's name out of the article altogether. What do others think? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The information about this incident has been removed by an editor, but others have appeared fine with it, particularly through the FAC process. He falsely calls the incident "a cultural impact" where there is no such thing. The start of fight clubs after the film came out, the polls approving of the film, and now this incident make up the overall cultural impact. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Toronto Sun ("Cruisin' for a bruisin'")
Empire ("Menace II Society")
Film Comment
Interview ("Fighting Talk")
Some thematic possibilities to add. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The "See also" section was removed, but I'd like to justify its inclusion. In addition to supporting editors at the film article's FAC page not having an issue with it, the similar works were culled from Allmovie's database. It is not a film critic's review where they identify other films they thought were similar. A list of similar works offers readers opportunity to navigate to other film articles that would not have been visited otherwise. If there is a better way to list similar works, we can discuss one, but this kind of movie database website is solid in its credentials and better than IMDb, which would likely be user-determined. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I first removed the "see also" because it was all taken from one source and there is no criteria for what films relate to this film. Also those films add nothing to this film, I would think see also Chuck Palahnuik, see also David Fincher, see also Nihilism, otherwise I have no idea how Trainspotting or Crash are a see also for this film. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I share the views expressed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Allmovie is considered a reliable source for facts, but a list of similar films - no doubt compiled by one individual - heavily relies on POV, doesn't it? I could understand including the "See also" section if it provided the reader with some insight into how the films listed were similar to Fight Club in plot or theme, but to just provide a list of films allegedly similar to it and then leaving it to the reader to determine why doesn't seem to be adding much to the article. I'm assuming someone who has seen some or all of the films readily will grasp the connection, but how about those like myself who are not familiar with them? Is it sufficient to say these films are similar because someone at Allmovie says so and leave it at that? I don't think so.
The lead of this article includes the statement, "The director and the cast compared the film to the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and the 1967 film The Graduate. They said its theme was the conflict between a generation of young people and the value system of advertising." This is the type of explanation that's missing from a simple list of "similar" films. I think if there was a brief comment after each title citing the link between it and Fight Club, then the "See also" section would have more value. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Erik, I have to disagree with the use of the similar films list on Allmovie. If you look down at the related works list, you will see the 1966 film Seconds. I can not find the connective tissue between them which would make them related in any way. I could list a few things that are far more similar than the films listed on Allmovie. The films A Beautiful Mind, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Sybil, and Thelma & Louise are more similar that some on the Allmovie list. There are the television series Dollhouse and My Own Worst Enemy. Even the Matrix films all come to mind. I have seen so many of those lists on Allmovie have things really wrong. Sorry. LA ( T) @ 09:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The plot for Fight Club is much, MUCH, more detailed that this sad attempt. Fix it. 203.59.213.54 ( talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane
I noticed that it says a 'nameless' protagonist but on the back (blurb) of the DVD box it says his name is Jack. Is there any mention of this in the article? This is from the UK version if it makes a difference. JTBX ( talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
ban ip adress 83.223.9.175! -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad to see that some of the philosophical and cultural antecedents of this film have been covered, but why is there no mention of Zen in here?
A would-be Zen monk (traditionally at least) on trying to gain entry to a monastery was turned away with insults, and even beatings, until eventually he would be allowed in. Likewise the Zen monastery traditionally made their monks work hard, and do certain tasks etc (this apparently originated to stop tax dodgers and lazy drop outs using the monasteries as "holiday camps"). All of this can be found in most basic overviews of Japanese Zen, and anyone who knows Fight Club probably can see what I'm thinking of - particularly Bob Paulson's entry into the house on Paper Street. Likewise the Fight Clubbers end up in drab uniforms, which are as redolent of the monastic life as Fascism. Project Mayhem is thus not just about Chinese re-education camps.
There are also some other parallels I can think of, but unlike Zen, I can't prove them. They're probably more indirect, as in the case of Muscular Christianity and come via American adaptations. The Tyler Durden figure is similar to Gilmartin in Confessions of a Justified Sinner for example.
Other than this, good article. I'm usually not very impressed by pop culture articles on Wikipedia, even featured ones, so well done! -- MacRusgail ( talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is featured on the front page of wikipedia today, and above the movie poster, it says "Fight Club(Leiws Hing is gay)". I somehow believe this to be vandalism. 212.10.53.102 ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually "Leiws Hing is gay" was part of the original film title, hence it got left on. LOL... -- MacRusgail ( talk) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to change the plot outline to make it more accurate and have been reverted twice so I thought I would talk it over here. My basic problem is that this sentence "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place but only if the narrator will hit him." is just incorrect. Tyler never states that the narrator hitting him is a prerequisite to him staying at his house. Here is the dialogue from the film
- Can I stay at your place? - Yeah. - Thanks - I want you to do me a favour. - Yeah, sure. - I want you to hit me as hard as you can. - What? - I want you to hit me as hard as you can. ... - You just want me to hit you? - Come on. Do me this one favour. - Why? - I don't know. Never been in a fight. You? - No. But that's a good thing. - You can't know yourself if you haven't! - I don't wanna die without any scars. - Come on. Hit me, before I lose my nerve. - Oh, God. This is crazy. - So go crazy! Let it rip.
I had changed the text to read "After a conversation regarding consumerism, Tyler accepts the narrator's request to stay at his place. Before they leave for Tyler's house, Tyler asks the narrator to hit him so that he can experience being punched and this leads to a fistfight between the two. After the fight, the narrator moves into Tyler's dilapidated house." I think my change is accurate and the current description is incorrect. Other opinions? Remember ( talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't. The current version passed through GA and FA, and as such the consensus is for it. You r addition is clumsy and is not in keeping with a summary. Less is more. You need consensus for change, don't make a change then keep reverting, see here. The FA version stays until there is consensus to bloat the plot summary up. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I am trying to build consensus, that is why I am having a discussion here, but no one seems to be discussing my point. Second, I don't want to expand the plot needlessly and I agree that we shouldn't be mired in details but we should be factually accurate. I believe the current version of this article (which I think is great by the way) contains a factually incorrect statement (i.e., that Tyler says that the Narrator must hit him in order to stay at his house). So in an effort to build clear consensus: does everyone think that this statement "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place but only if the narrator will hit him." is correct. Please state if you think this is correct or incorrect below (or you just don't care).
For those interested in this issue, I discussed this issue with main user that had been reverting my edits, User:Darrenhusted, on his talk page, and his stance was that the current text (i.e., that Tyler tells the narrator that he has to hit him in order to stay at his house) was correct and written in an appropriate way. It then became obvious that we had a fundamental disagreement on the facts at hand and that we could not reach a consensus on a revised text. So I decided to stop the edit war over this issue because it wasn't going anywhere. If you want to see the actual dicussion see here User talk:Darrenhusted#Fight club issue. I had posted the whole discussion here, but User:Darrenhusted objected to that discussion being posted here [1]. Therefore, out of a respect for his desires, I have summarized our discussion here. Remember ( talk) 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times has a good article [2] that could be used to expand the cultural impact section. ComingSoon.net [3] also has more details about the Blu-Ray. 167.176.6.7 ( talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Curious, this article has no cast section. Was this a conscious decision? Indeed, there are only a few main characters, and their roles are mostly discussed under "casting", but it seems like an odd exclusion all the same. AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 08:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
May anyone please identify the movie genre of the film? Stratogustav ( talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
For some reason the Guardian is quoted in the first part of the article. Why is this? It has no relevance no great american political change happend. I see Guardian quoted all the time on Wikipedia by leftists users who don't want to use the perfectly good telegraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.24.187 ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Worth mentioning that Fight club is in the TOP20 (Rank 16 as of Feb. 19, 2010) of IMDB? 71.227.116.103 ( talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when I watched this film, my first thought in categorizing this film, would been under a new film genre, called "Macho-nihilst". Naturally, I googled such a term in regards to Fight club, and found a film review done by Total Film, which gave this particular line: ...macho-posturing and nihilism.... If you have any thoughts on this, or would like to expand on this subject, fell free to comment. CatJar ( talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So you propose coining a brand new genre for one film? One film is not a genre. And how does it help the reader throwing a vaguely defined neologism in the lead sentence? The main cast is 66% "macho", and 33% not-"macho", and whether it is true nihilism or simply anarchy is certainly up for debate, and hence no help to the opening words of an article which is already an FA. Darrenhusted ( talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor added a passage about the viral video Jane Austen's Fight Club to the article. The citation was originally a link to the YouTube video, but I replaced it with a citation from Entertainment Weekly and revised the passage. I'm mostly okay with including mention of this video since we tend to sample other singular items in the "Cultural impact" section. I don't think we should get too much in detail about the video, though, like the director's identity and the cast members' identities. I'm opening this discussion in case anyone wants to debate the merits of this passage. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As terrible as it is, should Fight Club (video game) not be mentioned somewhere in the article? – Zntrip 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I stumbled on a bit of obscure trivia that might be worth including here. This article (as of Jan 4) begins by saying Edward Norton's character is unnamed. While it is true the name is never directly mentioned in the movie, a couple versions are used by Norton and in the marketing and production materials:
Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/trivia?tr0755994
Furthermore, it appears that the Norton's character's real name could be Michael DeSoto. A prop ID badge worn by Norton and bearing the name Michael DeSoto was auctioned off by Christie's in 2001. Their web site states:
They go on to say:
Source: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=3839475
I can't speak to the quality of the IMDB source, but I think the Christie's auction is pretty compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.0.201 ( talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He can't be called "Jack" in the original script, because the scenes were filmed with the Reader's Digest based dialogue, as in "I am Joe's Gall Bladder." I know this because I watched a rough cut of the film in June 1999. References to "Joe" and "Jane" were changed to "Jack" and "Jill" and "Reader's Digest" changed to "The Annotated Reader" because of unwillingness on the magazine's part to be represented in the film. Additionally, the video store where movies are erases was originally quite visibly BLOCKBUSTER; the shot was changed for theatrical release to keep the store's large sign out of the frame. You can hear this partially discussed in the DVD commentary. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.141.101 ( talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
partial implementation. Fight Club moved to Fight Club (novel) per the discussion and Fight Club (disambiguation) moved to Fight Club. While the discussion suggested waiting 30 days to reconsider if there is a primary topic, I'd suggest waiting at least 90 days. In doing the moves, it appears that these pages have been moved around a bit and I think that waiting to allow more time to get this right is a wise direction to take. Also, it will take a while for the links to the dab page to be disambiguated. I have no idea where some of them should be pointing so I'll leave that in the hands of the dab project. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Fight_Club_(film) → Fight_Club — The film is pretty clearly the primary topic. It gets roughly half again as many views as the novel, despite the novel currently having the unadorned article title; it seems quite likely that most of its views are due to people searching for information about the film. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"The director copied the homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel..." He did? I've seen this movie at least fifteen times and I have no idea what this sentence is about. Gingermint ( talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Really pushing it. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of homosexuals. 87.113.82.185 ( talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
99% of people do not think 'homoerotic' when watching fight club, it is merely a film intellectuals ramblings. Sure include it in the article in the relevant section but to have it also in the intro is seriously misunderstanding the purpose of having a synopsis of a film. It is a largely hidden and debatable theory, not part of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.185 ( talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I detest this film, and was surprised that Roger Ebert's negative review is only mentioned in the briefest of scraps, followed up by an excerpt of his regarding the film taken from an entirely separate review of his. Ebert's stature in the world of film criticism is, ahem, fairly considerable. The opening sentence of his review of this movie is his own personal declaration that it is "frankly and cheerfully fascist" and "a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up." (the full review is contained here: Fight Club :: rogerebert.com.) I find these statements to be quite bold, as well as noteworthy, especially coming from a well-known and highly-acclaimed public figure such as Ebert, and feel that they, as well as other negative views of the film, ought not be given short shrift.
But my own personal opinion of Fight Club as a deplorable, ugly, and cruel assault on, among other things, the filmic senses, ends here.
Because for a "featured article" on Wikipedia, I find that the entire section of "critical reception" devoted to this film severely underwritten. Indeed, I, personally, found those who do support this film, find it entertaining, and advocate its message are not provided their requisite space either. This is especially vital when considering the undeniable impact the movie has left on modern societal culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenKong77 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I made an edit to include references to its rankings on popular film sites such as IMDB and FilmCrave. Why were these removed? There is no note on the discussion page and nothing in the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I meant to include my signature Heartiscontentious ( talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Because IMDb is user edited. This for example ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1083271/) says Megan Fox is "rumoured" to be in a film called Luna while this interview with Megan Fox ( http://collider.com/megan-fox-friends-with-kids-dictator-transformers-3-interview/114856/) says that is a lie. I myself have added trivia to IMDb and thus it is not trustworthy to a fault and that makes it pretty much entirely untrustworthy. Even so, this has little to do with user ratings. For instance here at A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, the user ratings for the page offer up FIFTY reviews and a near perfect score. This despite the fact the article is barely more than a cast list and a brief synopsis. It's being skewed by people who like the film rather than the article. Again, I Have voted for things on IMDb that I sometimes haven't even seen just because I think it looks good. That is not a trustworthy system. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't there be a list of actors who appeared in this film along with their roles? i saw it on here briefly but now it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.217.41 ( talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian ( talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Fight Club (film) → Fight Club – WP:COMMONNAME. It seems like there are several articles related to media where the far more likely topic has a disambiguation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
In the visual effects section there is an image from the opening sequence of the film referencing the neural pathway stylizing, but to me at least it isn't very clear, most of it is black. WOuld there be any interest in my supplying a few-second long clip of that sequence instead for better illustration? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there not one word in the article about Existentialist themes? Is it only me that saw strong existential themes in the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe the epilogue of the novel has various other examples of "copycats" that are not mentioned. I recommend their placement in the cultural impact section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.145.180 ( talk) 07:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read the article but still have no idea what a "fight club" is. Kelly222 ( talk) 11:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of special features available on the DVD and Blu-ray because it seems promotional, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral POV. The special features are the kind of details one would find at a shopping website. WikiProject Film also has guidelines at MOS:FILM#Home media: "The section may contain a summary of the extras included with the release, though excessive detail is to be avoided." This summary is already provided at the beginning of this article's "Home media" section: "Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging and was one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media. The film was released in two DVD editions. The single-disc edition included a commentary track, while the two-disc special edition included the commentary track, behind-the-scenes clips, deleted scenes, trailers, fake public service announcements, the promotional music video "This is Your Life", Internet spots, still galleries, cast biographies, storyboards, and publicity materials." I ask other editors to comment in case there is an attempt to restore this detail. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)