![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The pronoun bs made this extremely hard to understand. Who wrote this wiki plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.247.31 ( talk) 07:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (this is an upcoming major film release.. i dont think it qualifies for speedy) -- Spanneraol ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I feel like this should be linked to Shaggy God story. Thoughts? 98.102.79.214 ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The man does NOT claim at any point in the story to be god. This is pure intrepretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E851:DD60:455A:52D0:C66D:995E ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a good idea to include the film review from The Economist as their columns are written under pseudonyms. (The books and arts section is written under the pseudonym Propsero.) Also I'm not convinced the comment taken from the review offers any great insight. There are so many other critics that could easily be used it seems as if it would be better to avoid using The Economist. -- 109.76.196.129 ( talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A really remarkable number of audience reviews were negative on RottenTomatoes. 42% average, but a large number labeled it the worst movie they've ever seen. Seems like we should note that; it's not just that not everyone liked it. MikeR613 ( talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
' The Economist opined: "Mother! should open up new territory for creative cinema, especially if it proves to be a box-office hit." [1]
Thinking about it further what really bothers me about this comment is how vague it is, using both the words "should" and "if". I'm not happy with including this speculation as part of the critical response. If it later turns out that the film turns out to be a box office hit (and it isn't looking like it so far) that commentary might be worth mentioning as part of the box office section but I don't feel it a comment particularly worth including at this time. -- 109.79.168.17 ( talk) 16:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Should this article (and this Talk page) not use Template:lowercase title? I tried to add it but it didn't work. Does the page need to be moved to mother!? — Hugh 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: She starts seeing things around the house that unsettle her, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.
Into: She starts seeing things around the house, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.
(Because the heart of the house is not unsettling to her, it's comforting...until it starts to die.) 65.153.180.10 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph: "The film received generally positive reviews..." Shouldn't this read as "negative reviews" since even later in the article it reads as having "poor reviews"? 12.237.19.79 ( talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under CRITICAL RESPONSE the following quote feels eroneous. Filmink is a minor Australian-based film website.
Travis Johnson of Filmink gave the film 19 out of 20, calling it a "dense, delirious, playful and serious work of capital A art, and easily the most ambitious film to come out of a major studio since Kubrick died". [1] Motherman ( talk) 15:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, as you know, we don't seperate critical reception section into two different sections. But, one user insists to do that. There is no need to divide, so I suggest it should stay as "critical response/reception". Plus, I think the summary of the film in the lead section looks so redundantly written, and there is not much a formal combination between sentences. (The mysterious couple arrives and disrupts their tranquil existence, then they have a memorial about the death?!) Sebastian James ( talk) 14:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As another user noticed, the summarised plot at the beginning of the article contains spoilers, but its edition got reverted. Why should we keep it? -- 200.4.25.142 ( talk) 12:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know whether to include this under the last section or to start a new section since it's a slightly different focus. The lead for this article states too much of the plot information, and while, a couple editors have argued back and forth about whether or not to delete it based upon WP:Spoilers merits, the main problem is that it just covers too much. There is no reason that multiple plot beats should be covered in this section. WP:Spoilers I feel have also, in this discussion been misinterpreted, The primary goal of the policy is so that editors can freely talk about elements of the plot when necessary. Per the guideline itself ". When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."
My other main problem with the section is that, in researching the issue I found that our plot description in the lead appears, in part includes word for word of the original synopsis released by Paramount, given without any sort of attribution. I suggest we delete it and create our own. -- Deathawk ( talk) 03:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is getting rather frustrating. Per WP:SPOILERS, no spoilers should be removed. It is not a valid reason to remove such content because you don't like it and think it spoils the summary. Please stop removing this content and take your concerns here instead. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 05:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."Who's to say it's inappropariate? It's a summary of the summary, which obviously belongs in the lead. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 12:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A basic plot summary will generally spoil the plot if it summarizes the plot. If you don't want know what happens in a story (film, novel, historical account, religious text, opera, TV series, etc.), it's very bad idea to read an encyclopedia article about it. That should be common sense.
The suggestions being put forth are various approaches to one goal: removing a spoiler because it is a spoiler. "Remove it from the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler. "Prove that it must be in the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler. "Do Featured Articles always have spoilers in the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler, unless a heterogeneous selection of articles describing wildly different plots all include a particular element.
Yes, the summary should not go out of its way to spoil the ending. At the same time, it shouldn't go out of its way to avoid spoiling the ending (or other plot points), as being requested here. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone spoils the whole movie in the first section of the article. Please rectify this. It spoils the film for all who have seen it and destroys Aronofsky's mission. 76.78.72.166 ( talk) 23:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the description of the film's plot from the first section of this page. Place it below in the synopsis but please anywhere but the top of the page. This synopsis is a complete and utter spoiler of the film and it is a true disgrace to Darren Aronofsky's film and the film community that a film built so much upon mystery should be ruined for those who might not want to know what happens. So please, I beg of you. Alter this immediately. 76.78.72.166 ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Didn't you already ask this question yesterday? And didn't the answerer ask you to join the discussion above? There is a thread on this topic. Discuss there. Crboyer ( talk) 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up already but it was as part of a larger discussion but are leads seem to use text very similar to the text used in Paramount's official synopsis without any sort of attribution. -- Deathawk ( talk) 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Should their names (or titles, I guess you can say) be capitalized in the plot section? -- Matt723star ( talk) 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a psychological horror film. Why is the word "psychological" being removed? — Film Fan 14:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the article for that film did claim it received critical acclaim. The basis for that? I don't know, it wasn't sourced. Likely, it was synthesis: someone read some reviews, lumped those reviews together in their mind and decided it was "acclaim".
If you don't feel that is synthesis, you will need to provide a reliable source that directly states it... and explain away "the film received an average score of 79 out of 100, based on 42 critics, indicating 'generally favorable reviews'". In all likelihood, we would be able to find sources categorizing the reviews as acclaim, mostly positive, lukewarm and a dozen other things. In the end, we'd have either a mish-mash of conflicting opinions to confuse the issue or one opinion someone selected to present a false certainty. I've removed the unsourced claim from the other article and I'm removing it here as well. - SummerPhD v2.0 16:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's never customary for there to be three sentences in the introduction summarizing two thirds of the movie. Never ever.
Examples from other similar articles:
Pi: "The story about a mathematician and the obsession with mathematical regularity contrasts two seemingly irreconcilable entities: the imperfect, irrational humanity and the rigor and regularity of mathematics, specifically number theory."
The Thing: "It tells the story of a group of American researchers in Antarctica who encounter the eponymous "Thing", a parasitic extraterrestrial life form that assimilates and then imitates other organisms. The group is overcome by paranoia and conflict as they learn that they can no longer trust each other and that any one of them can be the Thing."
Call Me By Your Name: "Set in northern Italy in 1983, Call Me by Your Name chronicles a romantic relationship between 17-year-old Elio Perlman (Timothée Chalamet) and his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant, Oliver (Armie Hammer)."
I find your handling of this issue rather sociopathic.
108.41.59.248 ( talk) 02:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Since no one gives two cents about discussing the issue, and I am curious myself to know what happened, about the synopsis being removed, and then restored, x number of times that seems to be spanning for over a month. It's time we decide to hash it out. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Pinging involved users: @ FreeEncyclopediaMusic:, @ Koavf:, @ TheSnowyMountains:, @ SubSeven:. Not including Ponyo as I believe they were reverting a sock. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This bad imitation of Rosemary's Baby 2018 has a new trend as seen in "The Witch"..newborns mutilated and gore of their bloody bodys. In this movie the baby is even eaten. First it was torture porn..then killing the family dog was in most horror movies- too many to list- and now this last taboo is Hollywooded to make somebody money. A warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.254.61 ( talk) 21:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use more generic terms? While all characters are named in the credits, if I remember correctly there's actually no names used during the film until the very end where Benicio de Toro reveals himself as "I Am Who I Am". I get writing a nameless synopsis is hard, but I feel it would be a more neutral recap if names were omitted. -- 181.115.61.10 ( talk) 05:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The pronoun bs made this extremely hard to understand. Who wrote this wiki plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.247.31 ( talk) 07:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (this is an upcoming major film release.. i dont think it qualifies for speedy) -- Spanneraol ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I feel like this should be linked to Shaggy God story. Thoughts? 98.102.79.214 ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The man does NOT claim at any point in the story to be god. This is pure intrepretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E851:DD60:455A:52D0:C66D:995E ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a good idea to include the film review from The Economist as their columns are written under pseudonyms. (The books and arts section is written under the pseudonym Propsero.) Also I'm not convinced the comment taken from the review offers any great insight. There are so many other critics that could easily be used it seems as if it would be better to avoid using The Economist. -- 109.76.196.129 ( talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A really remarkable number of audience reviews were negative on RottenTomatoes. 42% average, but a large number labeled it the worst movie they've ever seen. Seems like we should note that; it's not just that not everyone liked it. MikeR613 ( talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
' The Economist opined: "Mother! should open up new territory for creative cinema, especially if it proves to be a box-office hit." [1]
Thinking about it further what really bothers me about this comment is how vague it is, using both the words "should" and "if". I'm not happy with including this speculation as part of the critical response. If it later turns out that the film turns out to be a box office hit (and it isn't looking like it so far) that commentary might be worth mentioning as part of the box office section but I don't feel it a comment particularly worth including at this time. -- 109.79.168.17 ( talk) 16:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Should this article (and this Talk page) not use Template:lowercase title? I tried to add it but it didn't work. Does the page need to be moved to mother!? — Hugh 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: She starts seeing things around the house that unsettle her, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.
Into: She starts seeing things around the house, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.
(Because the heart of the house is not unsettling to her, it's comforting...until it starts to die.) 65.153.180.10 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph: "The film received generally positive reviews..." Shouldn't this read as "negative reviews" since even later in the article it reads as having "poor reviews"? 12.237.19.79 ( talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under CRITICAL RESPONSE the following quote feels eroneous. Filmink is a minor Australian-based film website.
Travis Johnson of Filmink gave the film 19 out of 20, calling it a "dense, delirious, playful and serious work of capital A art, and easily the most ambitious film to come out of a major studio since Kubrick died". [1] Motherman ( talk) 15:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, as you know, we don't seperate critical reception section into two different sections. But, one user insists to do that. There is no need to divide, so I suggest it should stay as "critical response/reception". Plus, I think the summary of the film in the lead section looks so redundantly written, and there is not much a formal combination between sentences. (The mysterious couple arrives and disrupts their tranquil existence, then they have a memorial about the death?!) Sebastian James ( talk) 14:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As another user noticed, the summarised plot at the beginning of the article contains spoilers, but its edition got reverted. Why should we keep it? -- 200.4.25.142 ( talk) 12:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know whether to include this under the last section or to start a new section since it's a slightly different focus. The lead for this article states too much of the plot information, and while, a couple editors have argued back and forth about whether or not to delete it based upon WP:Spoilers merits, the main problem is that it just covers too much. There is no reason that multiple plot beats should be covered in this section. WP:Spoilers I feel have also, in this discussion been misinterpreted, The primary goal of the policy is so that editors can freely talk about elements of the plot when necessary. Per the guideline itself ". When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."
My other main problem with the section is that, in researching the issue I found that our plot description in the lead appears, in part includes word for word of the original synopsis released by Paramount, given without any sort of attribution. I suggest we delete it and create our own. -- Deathawk ( talk) 03:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is getting rather frustrating. Per WP:SPOILERS, no spoilers should be removed. It is not a valid reason to remove such content because you don't like it and think it spoils the summary. Please stop removing this content and take your concerns here instead. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 05:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."Who's to say it's inappropariate? It's a summary of the summary, which obviously belongs in the lead. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 12:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A basic plot summary will generally spoil the plot if it summarizes the plot. If you don't want know what happens in a story (film, novel, historical account, religious text, opera, TV series, etc.), it's very bad idea to read an encyclopedia article about it. That should be common sense.
The suggestions being put forth are various approaches to one goal: removing a spoiler because it is a spoiler. "Remove it from the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler. "Prove that it must be in the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler. "Do Featured Articles always have spoilers in the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler, unless a heterogeneous selection of articles describing wildly different plots all include a particular element.
Yes, the summary should not go out of its way to spoil the ending. At the same time, it shouldn't go out of its way to avoid spoiling the ending (or other plot points), as being requested here. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone spoils the whole movie in the first section of the article. Please rectify this. It spoils the film for all who have seen it and destroys Aronofsky's mission. 76.78.72.166 ( talk) 23:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the description of the film's plot from the first section of this page. Place it below in the synopsis but please anywhere but the top of the page. This synopsis is a complete and utter spoiler of the film and it is a true disgrace to Darren Aronofsky's film and the film community that a film built so much upon mystery should be ruined for those who might not want to know what happens. So please, I beg of you. Alter this immediately. 76.78.72.166 ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Didn't you already ask this question yesterday? And didn't the answerer ask you to join the discussion above? There is a thread on this topic. Discuss there. Crboyer ( talk) 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up already but it was as part of a larger discussion but are leads seem to use text very similar to the text used in Paramount's official synopsis without any sort of attribution. -- Deathawk ( talk) 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Should their names (or titles, I guess you can say) be capitalized in the plot section? -- Matt723star ( talk) 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a psychological horror film. Why is the word "psychological" being removed? — Film Fan 14:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the article for that film did claim it received critical acclaim. The basis for that? I don't know, it wasn't sourced. Likely, it was synthesis: someone read some reviews, lumped those reviews together in their mind and decided it was "acclaim".
If you don't feel that is synthesis, you will need to provide a reliable source that directly states it... and explain away "the film received an average score of 79 out of 100, based on 42 critics, indicating 'generally favorable reviews'". In all likelihood, we would be able to find sources categorizing the reviews as acclaim, mostly positive, lukewarm and a dozen other things. In the end, we'd have either a mish-mash of conflicting opinions to confuse the issue or one opinion someone selected to present a false certainty. I've removed the unsourced claim from the other article and I'm removing it here as well. - SummerPhD v2.0 16:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's never customary for there to be three sentences in the introduction summarizing two thirds of the movie. Never ever.
Examples from other similar articles:
Pi: "The story about a mathematician and the obsession with mathematical regularity contrasts two seemingly irreconcilable entities: the imperfect, irrational humanity and the rigor and regularity of mathematics, specifically number theory."
The Thing: "It tells the story of a group of American researchers in Antarctica who encounter the eponymous "Thing", a parasitic extraterrestrial life form that assimilates and then imitates other organisms. The group is overcome by paranoia and conflict as they learn that they can no longer trust each other and that any one of them can be the Thing."
Call Me By Your Name: "Set in northern Italy in 1983, Call Me by Your Name chronicles a romantic relationship between 17-year-old Elio Perlman (Timothée Chalamet) and his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant, Oliver (Armie Hammer)."
I find your handling of this issue rather sociopathic.
108.41.59.248 ( talk) 02:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Since no one gives two cents about discussing the issue, and I am curious myself to know what happened, about the synopsis being removed, and then restored, x number of times that seems to be spanning for over a month. It's time we decide to hash it out. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Pinging involved users: @ FreeEncyclopediaMusic:, @ Koavf:, @ TheSnowyMountains:, @ SubSeven:. Not including Ponyo as I believe they were reverting a sock. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This bad imitation of Rosemary's Baby 2018 has a new trend as seen in "The Witch"..newborns mutilated and gore of their bloody bodys. In this movie the baby is even eaten. First it was torture porn..then killing the family dog was in most horror movies- too many to list- and now this last taboo is Hollywooded to make somebody money. A warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.254.61 ( talk) 21:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use more generic terms? While all characters are named in the credits, if I remember correctly there's actually no names used during the film until the very end where Benicio de Toro reveals himself as "I Am Who I Am". I get writing a nameless synopsis is hard, but I feel it would be a more neutral recap if names were omitted. -- 181.115.61.10 ( talk) 05:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)