![]() | 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 |
and may fail WP:N L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not a comdey horror flim it is a horror flim Sademo21 ( talk) 16:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is this phrase forbidden? The film has scored a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only one negative review thus far. (This is unheard of, nowadays.) It holds an average rating of 8.3/10 on the site, as well as an 83 on Metacritic.
This is practically the definition of critical acclaim. It certainly sounds like near-universal acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondCHedges ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Koavf added the tag in April. It looks fine to me. - SummerPhD v2.0 01:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Get Out (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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://m.cinemascore.com/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move. ( non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
– The disambiguation page currently has only five entries that even have a page, two of which are redirects. The other two – the Capercaillie album and the board game – pale in comparison to the film by pageviews. Googling "Get Out" with this modified search string to eliminate personal bias puts this Wikipedia article as the second result, behind IMDb. This makes the film the primary topic, and the title ought to be succinct. Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 15:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Should this movie be classifeid as a Horror-Comedy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinKassemJ120 ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is how to use a talk page but I honestly think this is a horror film. There's not much comedy except one character. If anything I think horror thriller is way better than horror comedy.
For what it's worth, we have guidelines on what to write for the genre in the opening sentence. WP:FILMLEAD says, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified... Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." So we should definitely root the genre in sources, but we need to avoid mashing up different labels into something that has not been used before. We should consider going with the most common label from sources; reviews would be a good start for this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Just how many sources would it take then for a reclassification, since you know, us, lowly wiki readers know so little about film genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.51.129 ( talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, instead of cherry-picking reviews sharing the point that there aren't enough comedic elements in this film to go as far as including the word "comedy" in is genre-classification, I am going to take TT's own claim; "... Reliable sources appear to use the term "horror comedy" way more than "satirical horror" or "horror thriller..."( TriiipleThreat [oh nice username btw, it invokes and inspires sooo much dialogue] doesn't mention of course, just how many sources he/she is basing this claim on, or care to naming/referencing them, without doing that, it's just a POV. Oh but that's OK because, maybe, TT is of the sort that sticks to the old adage: do what I say, not what I do kinda type) and take him/her at his/her own words and conduct a full count of the yeas (comedic) and nays (non-comedic) of the roughly 450 reviews available.
Yeas (Comedic) 9 Nays (Non-Comedic) 23 Daleylife ( talk) 05:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Just putting my two cents in here... I would certainly NOT call this a comedy. Yes, it has the "best friend" character that adds some comic relief, but this film should not have the term "comedy" attached to it. For the record, IMDB calls it a Horror, Mystery.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/movies/get-out-lil-rel-howery-tsa-rod.html?_r=0 [Yea] http://ew.com/movies/2017/02/21/get-out-jordan-peele-exclusive-clip/ [Yea] http://people.com/movies/get-out-movie-review-jordan-peele/ [Yea] http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/get-out-2017 [Nay] https://addictedtohorrormovies.com/2017/02/25/drop-everything-and-see-get-out/ [Nay] /info/en/?search=2017_in_film [Nay] http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/get-out [Nay] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/movies/get-out-review-jordan-peele.html [Nay] https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/02/23/review-jordan-peele-get-out-movie/98249818/ [Nay] http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2017/03/get-movie-review-yes-white-people.html [Nay] http://www.yearsofterror.eu/2017/04/get-out-2017/ [Nay] http://150film.blogspot.ca/2017/04/get-out.html [Nay] https://www.500daysoffilm.com/2017/03/07/get-out/ [Nay] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052448/?ref_=nv_sr_1 [Nay] http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Disc_Announcements/jordan-peeles-get-out-bluray-preorders-live/38298 [Nay] http://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/8188/get-out [Nay] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/get_out [Yea] http://aselenatorsview.blogspot.ca/2017/03/get-out-2017.html [Nay] http://asliveroffilm.blogspot.ca/2017/04/film-no-23-2017-get-out-april-5th.html [Yea] http://www.afksinemada.com/2017/04/get-out.html [Nay] http://afrofilmviewer.blogspot.ca/2017/03/review-get-out.html [Nay] http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Get-Out-Hypnotiserende-gross-618572b.html [Yea] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77120 [Yea] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77326 [Nay] http://aisleseat.com/get-out.htm [Nay] http://alibi.com/film/52943/Get-Out.html [Nay] https://www.alicebishop.net/2017/03/17/get-out/ [Nay] http://www.wdroid.com/2017/02/get-out-horror-movie-review-hollywood.html [Nay] https://allthingsmoviesuk.com/2017/03/17/jordanpeelehorror/ [Nay] http://alwaysgoodmovies.com/reviews/2017/4/3/get-out-2017 [Yea] https://amiratthemovies.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/review-get-out-2017/ [Nay] https://ohthatfilmblog.com/2017/03/21/get-out-2017/ [Yea]
That is all for this evening. Nays are in the lead 23-9 or at 72% Nay. 32 out 450 reviews assessed/7% 24.53.51.129 ( talk) 01:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The information about the connection to John Malkovich is probably not worth mentioning in the article. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section, and the current wording - especially describing it as a "confirmed theory" - is misleading.
Here's what the sources used in the article actually tell us:
Hello, my name is HarrisonSteam, named after Harrison Wells and Steampunk.
I'd like to discuss the place of Being John Malkovich in this article. After being reverted three times I was asked to talk about it here. The thing is, I don't see why my edits are being reverted. The stuff I put about the sequel being mentioned on Reddit is true! I've seen Reddit being used as a source in the past, so I don't see how this isn't relevant. This information is straight from the mouth (well, hands) of this film's director, Jordan Peele. The stuff about Malkovich was mentioned there as well, albeit in an interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBvcngHRTFg
Is this information allowed on the page, or should I create a separate section? I would welcome some feedback.
HarrisonSteam ( talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam ( talk) 12:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Perhaps, Empire suggests, you should cast John Malkovich in a role. "Yeah", Peele says, "we'll do the full trilogy".
I'd like to gauge other editors' thoughts. The accolades section of the article currently takes up about one third of the screen size, which may be too much. Should List of accolades received by Get Out be created? -- Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 00:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The plot synopsis is insufficient. To suggest that the plot is nothing more than a man noticing some unusual behavior among the staff of an estate is both reductive and inaccurate.
Yes, a one-sentence plot synopsis is not meant to include "spoilers" but we can do much better than the existing one. Unfortunately my efforts to edit it have been reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnesotasteve ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll see if I can come up with something that is slightly better at summarizing the main premise and theme, as I think this falls a little short. Agree that wordier doesn't mean better. Minnesotasteve —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It is important to the story, partly because it occurs before the title cards and sets up the menace of the film. Black people are getting abducted. Plus that is actually Andre Hayworth being abducted. It is the proper start of the film. Also I think the summary should mention Rod at the time he's introduced in the film during the second scene. Chris not listening to his "brother", instead trusting his white girlfriend is a major theme in the film. Rod reminds Chris at the end he warned him(right at the very start of the film, lol) not to go into the house.
I think the rest of this longer summary this other user wrote recently needs to be recut down. He's put way too much in the summary. Colliric ( talk) 08:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bachwiz18: shouldn't be point out that Oscar voters had reservations about voting for the film for Best Picture?-- The lorax ( talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Get Out (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this shit was a comedy not a horror film . get your facts right. 67.83.195.11 ( talk) 04:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Popcornduff: Hi. I usually appreciate the work you do and we have successfully worked on articles together before. This time, for once, I do not agree with your revert on the edits I made on the article.
You state that I allegedly unnecessarily extended the plot. In fact, I even removed the beginning scene with the deer since it has little affiliation with the film in general. On top of this, the plot is relatively brief compared to plot summaries in most English WP articles.
Anyhow, I must admit that some details such as Logans bleeding nose or the fact that he is someone from the NY neighborhood might indeed be excessive, so I do not insist on them being readded.
However, other elements I added are essential for the plot, especially the fact that Walther tells Chris they met during the night, clearly revealing that Chris was not dreaming about the hypnosis. Also, do not forget that the movie critically assesses racism in the US (as the deer scene in the beginning already shows). It is crucial to accentuate why the guests of the family treat Chris the way they do and why it is that they specifically chose to be transfered into a black person. Something we only get to know by the end of the film.
In my opinion, the complete revert was thus too radical of a measure. You are a known user and I have no doubt you are ready to reassess you opinion when the facts warrant a change. Greets, -- Abzo ( talk) 07:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
and Walter excuses himself for startling him during their nightly encounter.Not important to the plot.
a young man from their New York neighborhoodnot important where he's from.
Section needs to be deleted. Critical interpretations of films do not belong on the film page, especially ones that are so long, cite one source, and are written from first person perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.63.205.182 ( talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
National Review is the only magazine given a political label ("the conservative magazine National Review"), which is an indicator of a biased article. If one is going be given a political label, then the others should as well to be consistent, such as "the liberal magazine Rolling Stone." Rickm7x ( talk) 01:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I've got no real passion for this theory one way or another. However, we had a situation at Being John Malkovich where it was covered in as many words as the reception of that movie and it was not covered here at all. It was attempted to be removed there in February which was reverted by Masem. My thinking is that this theory is either notable and should be covered in roughly an equivalent manner in both articles, which is what I attempted to do here, or it should not be covered in either article. Personally, without having dived too deeply into the conversation, I'm in favor of option B. Will post something at the BJM talk page to see if a single conversation could be had. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I have also pinged the talk page of the Film WikiProject and Popcornduff who reverted the addition here. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This article was moved by
Scott Sullivan 1997 to
Get Out (2017 film) with the edit summary Matches Us (2019 film)
. I have moved it back per
WP:DAB as we don't need to disambiguate in this case. Noting here in case others wish to weigh in or Scott would like to start a more formal RM to change the name. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A little over a year ago a user by the name Zelchenko made an edit using a source he himself obviously authored and published on wordpress, yet it still stands unabated. Seems pretty obvious that that isn't a reliable source, so does anyone want to explain why it has been up so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F610:CE10:84E3:A5D8:750F:94A6 ( talk) 06:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I just read the movie article and watch the movie again and I don't see this actor anywhere. he is supposed to be one of the NCAA players that shows up in her Bing search but none of the looks anything like him, furthermore I just made a small google search and it only points out to a dubious reddit article. I wanted to edit the article but i think I would prefer a second opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osw719 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
also says he shows up in a photo on Rose's Bing search, but that is also of dubious reliability. IMO, Key should be removed from the cast listing unless or until a more credible source can be found. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone please tell me this qualifies as a science fiction horror film, and if so, I should add it to Category:2010s science fiction horror films and to this list?-- Thylacine24 ( talk) 18:30, 20 June 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 |
and may fail WP:N L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not a comdey horror flim it is a horror flim Sademo21 ( talk) 16:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is this phrase forbidden? The film has scored a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only one negative review thus far. (This is unheard of, nowadays.) It holds an average rating of 8.3/10 on the site, as well as an 83 on Metacritic.
This is practically the definition of critical acclaim. It certainly sounds like near-universal acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondCHedges ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Koavf added the tag in April. It looks fine to me. - SummerPhD v2.0 01:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Get Out (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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://m.cinemascore.com/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move. ( non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
– The disambiguation page currently has only five entries that even have a page, two of which are redirects. The other two – the Capercaillie album and the board game – pale in comparison to the film by pageviews. Googling "Get Out" with this modified search string to eliminate personal bias puts this Wikipedia article as the second result, behind IMDb. This makes the film the primary topic, and the title ought to be succinct. Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 15:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Should this movie be classifeid as a Horror-Comedy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinKassemJ120 ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is how to use a talk page but I honestly think this is a horror film. There's not much comedy except one character. If anything I think horror thriller is way better than horror comedy.
For what it's worth, we have guidelines on what to write for the genre in the opening sentence. WP:FILMLEAD says, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified... Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." So we should definitely root the genre in sources, but we need to avoid mashing up different labels into something that has not been used before. We should consider going with the most common label from sources; reviews would be a good start for this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Just how many sources would it take then for a reclassification, since you know, us, lowly wiki readers know so little about film genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.51.129 ( talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, instead of cherry-picking reviews sharing the point that there aren't enough comedic elements in this film to go as far as including the word "comedy" in is genre-classification, I am going to take TT's own claim; "... Reliable sources appear to use the term "horror comedy" way more than "satirical horror" or "horror thriller..."( TriiipleThreat [oh nice username btw, it invokes and inspires sooo much dialogue] doesn't mention of course, just how many sources he/she is basing this claim on, or care to naming/referencing them, without doing that, it's just a POV. Oh but that's OK because, maybe, TT is of the sort that sticks to the old adage: do what I say, not what I do kinda type) and take him/her at his/her own words and conduct a full count of the yeas (comedic) and nays (non-comedic) of the roughly 450 reviews available.
Yeas (Comedic) 9 Nays (Non-Comedic) 23 Daleylife ( talk) 05:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Just putting my two cents in here... I would certainly NOT call this a comedy. Yes, it has the "best friend" character that adds some comic relief, but this film should not have the term "comedy" attached to it. For the record, IMDB calls it a Horror, Mystery.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/movies/get-out-lil-rel-howery-tsa-rod.html?_r=0 [Yea] http://ew.com/movies/2017/02/21/get-out-jordan-peele-exclusive-clip/ [Yea] http://people.com/movies/get-out-movie-review-jordan-peele/ [Yea] http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/get-out-2017 [Nay] https://addictedtohorrormovies.com/2017/02/25/drop-everything-and-see-get-out/ [Nay] /info/en/?search=2017_in_film [Nay] http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/get-out [Nay] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/movies/get-out-review-jordan-peele.html [Nay] https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/02/23/review-jordan-peele-get-out-movie/98249818/ [Nay] http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2017/03/get-movie-review-yes-white-people.html [Nay] http://www.yearsofterror.eu/2017/04/get-out-2017/ [Nay] http://150film.blogspot.ca/2017/04/get-out.html [Nay] https://www.500daysoffilm.com/2017/03/07/get-out/ [Nay] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052448/?ref_=nv_sr_1 [Nay] http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Disc_Announcements/jordan-peeles-get-out-bluray-preorders-live/38298 [Nay] http://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/8188/get-out [Nay] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/get_out [Yea] http://aselenatorsview.blogspot.ca/2017/03/get-out-2017.html [Nay] http://asliveroffilm.blogspot.ca/2017/04/film-no-23-2017-get-out-april-5th.html [Yea] http://www.afksinemada.com/2017/04/get-out.html [Nay] http://afrofilmviewer.blogspot.ca/2017/03/review-get-out.html [Nay] http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Get-Out-Hypnotiserende-gross-618572b.html [Yea] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77120 [Yea] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77326 [Nay] http://aisleseat.com/get-out.htm [Nay] http://alibi.com/film/52943/Get-Out.html [Nay] https://www.alicebishop.net/2017/03/17/get-out/ [Nay] http://www.wdroid.com/2017/02/get-out-horror-movie-review-hollywood.html [Nay] https://allthingsmoviesuk.com/2017/03/17/jordanpeelehorror/ [Nay] http://alwaysgoodmovies.com/reviews/2017/4/3/get-out-2017 [Yea] https://amiratthemovies.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/review-get-out-2017/ [Nay] https://ohthatfilmblog.com/2017/03/21/get-out-2017/ [Yea]
That is all for this evening. Nays are in the lead 23-9 or at 72% Nay. 32 out 450 reviews assessed/7% 24.53.51.129 ( talk) 01:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The information about the connection to John Malkovich is probably not worth mentioning in the article. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section, and the current wording - especially describing it as a "confirmed theory" - is misleading.
Here's what the sources used in the article actually tell us:
Hello, my name is HarrisonSteam, named after Harrison Wells and Steampunk.
I'd like to discuss the place of Being John Malkovich in this article. After being reverted three times I was asked to talk about it here. The thing is, I don't see why my edits are being reverted. The stuff I put about the sequel being mentioned on Reddit is true! I've seen Reddit being used as a source in the past, so I don't see how this isn't relevant. This information is straight from the mouth (well, hands) of this film's director, Jordan Peele. The stuff about Malkovich was mentioned there as well, albeit in an interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBvcngHRTFg
Is this information allowed on the page, or should I create a separate section? I would welcome some feedback.
HarrisonSteam ( talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam ( talk) 12:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Perhaps, Empire suggests, you should cast John Malkovich in a role. "Yeah", Peele says, "we'll do the full trilogy".
I'd like to gauge other editors' thoughts. The accolades section of the article currently takes up about one third of the screen size, which may be too much. Should List of accolades received by Get Out be created? -- Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 00:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The plot synopsis is insufficient. To suggest that the plot is nothing more than a man noticing some unusual behavior among the staff of an estate is both reductive and inaccurate.
Yes, a one-sentence plot synopsis is not meant to include "spoilers" but we can do much better than the existing one. Unfortunately my efforts to edit it have been reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnesotasteve ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll see if I can come up with something that is slightly better at summarizing the main premise and theme, as I think this falls a little short. Agree that wordier doesn't mean better. Minnesotasteve —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It is important to the story, partly because it occurs before the title cards and sets up the menace of the film. Black people are getting abducted. Plus that is actually Andre Hayworth being abducted. It is the proper start of the film. Also I think the summary should mention Rod at the time he's introduced in the film during the second scene. Chris not listening to his "brother", instead trusting his white girlfriend is a major theme in the film. Rod reminds Chris at the end he warned him(right at the very start of the film, lol) not to go into the house.
I think the rest of this longer summary this other user wrote recently needs to be recut down. He's put way too much in the summary. Colliric ( talk) 08:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bachwiz18: shouldn't be point out that Oscar voters had reservations about voting for the film for Best Picture?-- The lorax ( talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Get Out (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this shit was a comedy not a horror film . get your facts right. 67.83.195.11 ( talk) 04:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Popcornduff: Hi. I usually appreciate the work you do and we have successfully worked on articles together before. This time, for once, I do not agree with your revert on the edits I made on the article.
You state that I allegedly unnecessarily extended the plot. In fact, I even removed the beginning scene with the deer since it has little affiliation with the film in general. On top of this, the plot is relatively brief compared to plot summaries in most English WP articles.
Anyhow, I must admit that some details such as Logans bleeding nose or the fact that he is someone from the NY neighborhood might indeed be excessive, so I do not insist on them being readded.
However, other elements I added are essential for the plot, especially the fact that Walther tells Chris they met during the night, clearly revealing that Chris was not dreaming about the hypnosis. Also, do not forget that the movie critically assesses racism in the US (as the deer scene in the beginning already shows). It is crucial to accentuate why the guests of the family treat Chris the way they do and why it is that they specifically chose to be transfered into a black person. Something we only get to know by the end of the film.
In my opinion, the complete revert was thus too radical of a measure. You are a known user and I have no doubt you are ready to reassess you opinion when the facts warrant a change. Greets, -- Abzo ( talk) 07:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
and Walter excuses himself for startling him during their nightly encounter.Not important to the plot.
a young man from their New York neighborhoodnot important where he's from.
Section needs to be deleted. Critical interpretations of films do not belong on the film page, especially ones that are so long, cite one source, and are written from first person perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.63.205.182 ( talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
National Review is the only magazine given a political label ("the conservative magazine National Review"), which is an indicator of a biased article. If one is going be given a political label, then the others should as well to be consistent, such as "the liberal magazine Rolling Stone." Rickm7x ( talk) 01:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I've got no real passion for this theory one way or another. However, we had a situation at Being John Malkovich where it was covered in as many words as the reception of that movie and it was not covered here at all. It was attempted to be removed there in February which was reverted by Masem. My thinking is that this theory is either notable and should be covered in roughly an equivalent manner in both articles, which is what I attempted to do here, or it should not be covered in either article. Personally, without having dived too deeply into the conversation, I'm in favor of option B. Will post something at the BJM talk page to see if a single conversation could be had. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I have also pinged the talk page of the Film WikiProject and Popcornduff who reverted the addition here. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This article was moved by
Scott Sullivan 1997 to
Get Out (2017 film) with the edit summary Matches Us (2019 film)
. I have moved it back per
WP:DAB as we don't need to disambiguate in this case. Noting here in case others wish to weigh in or Scott would like to start a more formal RM to change the name. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A little over a year ago a user by the name Zelchenko made an edit using a source he himself obviously authored and published on wordpress, yet it still stands unabated. Seems pretty obvious that that isn't a reliable source, so does anyone want to explain why it has been up so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F610:CE10:84E3:A5D8:750F:94A6 ( talk) 06:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I just read the movie article and watch the movie again and I don't see this actor anywhere. he is supposed to be one of the NCAA players that shows up in her Bing search but none of the looks anything like him, furthermore I just made a small google search and it only points out to a dubious reddit article. I wanted to edit the article but i think I would prefer a second opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osw719 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
also says he shows up in a photo on Rose's Bing search, but that is also of dubious reliability. IMO, Key should be removed from the cast listing unless or until a more credible source can be found. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone please tell me this qualifies as a science fiction horror film, and if so, I should add it to Category:2010s science fiction horror films and to this list?-- Thylacine24 ( talk) 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)