This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suspiria (2018 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Suspiria (2018 film) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 27, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 13 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Darkknight2149: let's talk about this instead of edit-warring, shall we? Guadagnino quite clearly calls the film an "homage" to the original:
Can we agree to quote him on that, instead of trying to argue that it's a reboot? No one associated with the production has used that term, that I can find. Besides, the link you want is Reboot (fiction), not plain reboot, which is about restarting computers. — Hugh ( talk) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This film is not a “reboot”.It is a “remake”. or at most a “reimagining”.I wonder if the user arguing for “reboot”has even read the Wikipedia articles defining “reboot” and “remake”.By Wikipedia’s own definition of “reboot”, this film is not a reboot. At most it is a “reimagining” (see wikipedia article defining “remake”). As to Guadanino saying it’s not a remake that is irrelevent. There are definitions for “reboot”, “remake”, and “reimagining” and Guadanino saying the film is not a remake doesn’t make it so. I can serve you turkey and call it chicken, but that doesn’t make what you’re eating chicken. 2604:2000:6A58:A500:7549:1233:C694:6E0C ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Suspiria is also not a “Franchise”. Marvel garbage and Batman movies, and James Bond are “Franchises”. This is not. To say it is is a distortion to try to justify a poor argument. 2604:2000:6A58:A500:7549:1233:C694:6E0C ( talk) 17:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Who the hell do you think you are? You think you're the King. You’re the one man community. Nobody has accepted anything but you. You are the one that only sees it your way.This isn’t about my personal feelings. It has to do with how those terms have been defined. However, since it doesn’t match what you want it to be, it’s “poorly worded”. It’s crap. You’re like Trump. Good God. You obviously have no life. Enjoy your comic book fantasy worlds, manchild. 2604:2000:6A58:A500:19FB:D404:2523:3095 ( talk) 02:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Sequels that ignore continuity of other prior sequels are reboots, as are attempts to revive franchises by "re-starting" them; but the definition in our reboot article doesn't appear to allow for "reboots" of individual standalone films. I have seen the word used in marketing materials as a euphemism for "remake", since remakes, especially in the horror genre, have developed a bad reputation over the last 20 years or so, but Wikipedia should not be written to accord with marketing bullshit. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not a reboot. They are not trying to "reboot" a franchise. There is a director doing their take on the source material. The sources use the words homage and remake and we should follow suite. Everything else is OR. Valeince ( talk) 02:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
IP user 210.195.7.210 ( talk · contribs · logs) has changed the lede back to "reboot", and has linked to the computing term, not the media term. I've reverted twice, but can't be bothered doing so again. — Hugh ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Plot summaries on Wikipedia should be complete, not just a TEASER to promote curiosity about the film and encourage readers to go watch it. The current plot summary fails that test. What are the "dark secrets", and what happens after those secrets are discovered? Please see WP:SPOILER. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Reviews from Fantastic Fest are pretty confident about Swinton playing Dr. Jozef Klemperer: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Some of them don't even mention "Lutz Ebersdorf". Maybe it's time to take it off the infobox and cast list? Nardog ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
04:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's too soon. With the film entering public release, there is even more of a possibility of additional coverage in the coming weeks. There could be more production details, more non-critic commentary, etc. Seems like waiting a month would be better. We shouldn't be in a hurry with this kind of thing on Wikipedia. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example of new (from what I can tell) coverage from the past week. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It also seems like there has been some coverage about the film's relationship with feminism that is not mentioned here except in a screenplay-related quote. Search results here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I think it's necessary to "balance" the critical reception section. Things like replacing negative criticisms in the quote templates will work. Only negative criticism stands out. Sebastian James ( talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of horror movies and have no interest in watching this film, but the article looks like a lot of good work has been put into it so I'm intrigued enough to take this review. I should be back soon with some thoughts on the article. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So, it might be a little early for this review, but the article is in good shape and there are obviously dedicated editors here who will make the small updates necessary moving forward (mostly in the reception section), so I am happy to promote the article to GA as long as a few issues are addressed. First, some small things:
I might come up with some more stuff later, but for now my bigger concern is the amount of direct quoting that is happening in the article at the moment. There is a lot of room for paraphrasing and copy-editing to clean-up these throughout. I am currently looking at the copyvio detector that is available from this review page above, and there are several articles that are being directly quoted a bit too much. If you can work on all the quote instances and try get them down a bit then that will be a good start for the article. Let me know how you go with all of this, or if you have any questions. Good luck, adamstom97 ( talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
box office is out of date according to box office mojo and i tried to fix it but it did'nt work so can someone else do it for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadetrain ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, the film was released and it wasn't a remake. It only occasionally followed the plot of the original film and when it did, it did so very loosely. Meanwhile, "reboot" (which it was) is backed by multiple reliable sources, with no primary sources contradicting it.
This is why we go by what sources tell us, and not by whatever sherlocking or idea of what the film will be that you people assume before it's released. I'm perfectly fine with leaving the article at "Based on the 1977 film", but had this gone to WP:RSN, "reboot" would win by a landslide. Dark Knight 2149 05:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a part in the beginning of the plot discussion where it says "her psychologist", but it's ambiguous as to whether "her" is Susie or Patricia. I'm unsure myself so I thought I'd just point it out here. easytoplease ( talk) 06:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This article seems excessively detailed for its subject in almost all sections. Sadievico ( talk) 22:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suspiria (2018 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Suspiria (2018 film) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 27, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 13 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Darkknight2149: let's talk about this instead of edit-warring, shall we? Guadagnino quite clearly calls the film an "homage" to the original:
Can we agree to quote him on that, instead of trying to argue that it's a reboot? No one associated with the production has used that term, that I can find. Besides, the link you want is Reboot (fiction), not plain reboot, which is about restarting computers. — Hugh ( talk) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This film is not a “reboot”.It is a “remake”. or at most a “reimagining”.I wonder if the user arguing for “reboot”has even read the Wikipedia articles defining “reboot” and “remake”.By Wikipedia’s own definition of “reboot”, this film is not a reboot. At most it is a “reimagining” (see wikipedia article defining “remake”). As to Guadanino saying it’s not a remake that is irrelevent. There are definitions for “reboot”, “remake”, and “reimagining” and Guadanino saying the film is not a remake doesn’t make it so. I can serve you turkey and call it chicken, but that doesn’t make what you’re eating chicken. 2604:2000:6A58:A500:7549:1233:C694:6E0C ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Suspiria is also not a “Franchise”. Marvel garbage and Batman movies, and James Bond are “Franchises”. This is not. To say it is is a distortion to try to justify a poor argument. 2604:2000:6A58:A500:7549:1233:C694:6E0C ( talk) 17:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Who the hell do you think you are? You think you're the King. You’re the one man community. Nobody has accepted anything but you. You are the one that only sees it your way.This isn’t about my personal feelings. It has to do with how those terms have been defined. However, since it doesn’t match what you want it to be, it’s “poorly worded”. It’s crap. You’re like Trump. Good God. You obviously have no life. Enjoy your comic book fantasy worlds, manchild. 2604:2000:6A58:A500:19FB:D404:2523:3095 ( talk) 02:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Sequels that ignore continuity of other prior sequels are reboots, as are attempts to revive franchises by "re-starting" them; but the definition in our reboot article doesn't appear to allow for "reboots" of individual standalone films. I have seen the word used in marketing materials as a euphemism for "remake", since remakes, especially in the horror genre, have developed a bad reputation over the last 20 years or so, but Wikipedia should not be written to accord with marketing bullshit. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not a reboot. They are not trying to "reboot" a franchise. There is a director doing their take on the source material. The sources use the words homage and remake and we should follow suite. Everything else is OR. Valeince ( talk) 02:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
IP user 210.195.7.210 ( talk · contribs · logs) has changed the lede back to "reboot", and has linked to the computing term, not the media term. I've reverted twice, but can't be bothered doing so again. — Hugh ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Plot summaries on Wikipedia should be complete, not just a TEASER to promote curiosity about the film and encourage readers to go watch it. The current plot summary fails that test. What are the "dark secrets", and what happens after those secrets are discovered? Please see WP:SPOILER. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Reviews from Fantastic Fest are pretty confident about Swinton playing Dr. Jozef Klemperer: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Some of them don't even mention "Lutz Ebersdorf". Maybe it's time to take it off the infobox and cast list? Nardog ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
04:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's too soon. With the film entering public release, there is even more of a possibility of additional coverage in the coming weeks. There could be more production details, more non-critic commentary, etc. Seems like waiting a month would be better. We shouldn't be in a hurry with this kind of thing on Wikipedia. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example of new (from what I can tell) coverage from the past week. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It also seems like there has been some coverage about the film's relationship with feminism that is not mentioned here except in a screenplay-related quote. Search results here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I think it's necessary to "balance" the critical reception section. Things like replacing negative criticisms in the quote templates will work. Only negative criticism stands out. Sebastian James ( talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of horror movies and have no interest in watching this film, but the article looks like a lot of good work has been put into it so I'm intrigued enough to take this review. I should be back soon with some thoughts on the article. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So, it might be a little early for this review, but the article is in good shape and there are obviously dedicated editors here who will make the small updates necessary moving forward (mostly in the reception section), so I am happy to promote the article to GA as long as a few issues are addressed. First, some small things:
I might come up with some more stuff later, but for now my bigger concern is the amount of direct quoting that is happening in the article at the moment. There is a lot of room for paraphrasing and copy-editing to clean-up these throughout. I am currently looking at the copyvio detector that is available from this review page above, and there are several articles that are being directly quoted a bit too much. If you can work on all the quote instances and try get them down a bit then that will be a good start for the article. Let me know how you go with all of this, or if you have any questions. Good luck, adamstom97 ( talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
box office is out of date according to box office mojo and i tried to fix it but it did'nt work so can someone else do it for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadetrain ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, the film was released and it wasn't a remake. It only occasionally followed the plot of the original film and when it did, it did so very loosely. Meanwhile, "reboot" (which it was) is backed by multiple reliable sources, with no primary sources contradicting it.
This is why we go by what sources tell us, and not by whatever sherlocking or idea of what the film will be that you people assume before it's released. I'm perfectly fine with leaving the article at "Based on the 1977 film", but had this gone to WP:RSN, "reboot" would win by a landslide. Dark Knight 2149 05:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a part in the beginning of the plot discussion where it says "her psychologist", but it's ambiguous as to whether "her" is Susie or Patricia. I'm unsure myself so I thought I'd just point it out here. easytoplease ( talk) 06:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This article seems excessively detailed for its subject in almost all sections. Sadievico ( talk) 22:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)