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 |
I saw Tenet in the cinema and thought, hmmm. Then I saw it streaming (several times), and did more research online, and realized it was more coherent than I gave it credit for. It is probably one of the most complex films I have ever seen. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the 700-word limit does not apply to Tenet (it specifically mentions exemptions for non-liner timeline films, and even mentions Nolan's earlier, less complex film, Memento), and I believe that it does need a little more elaboration (e.g. no mention that Sator was communicating with the future, that the future wants to wipe us out, that the film takes place over 2 weeks and loops back on itself so that the Opera, Vietnam and final Stalsk-12 events take place at almost the same time etc.).
However, I do not believe that it should be expanded above circa 900-words as some of the Plot is best discussed via a new section on "Concepts". A Concepts section would include terms like the "Timeline" (this is a fantastic graphic of the 2-week timeline - would be great if we could do/source a non-copyvio version): Tenet Timeline), the concept of a Temporal Pincer (which is where Tenet gets its name - ten minutes forward and backward), and the " Grandfather paradox" (and how it applied to Tenet), the "turnstiles" etc etc. This would make a more powerful article, and there are, literally, a hundred quality RS now explaining such terms. However, I don't want to start to do this if there is resistance to it, and there is edit warring etc. 109.255.90.188 ( talk) 12:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It is my opinion that this film is an example par excellence for the exception in WP:FILMPLOT: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." There can be no contesting that the plot of this film is non-linear and intricate. Popcornfud is simply wrong when stating that a longer plot than 700 words is in violation of the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, since the guideline allows for exceptions, and this is clearly one of them. His reverts for no other reason than the plot length, are unacceptable. Such formalistic reverts do injustice to editors who try to improve this article. Debresser ( talk) 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Popcornfud is simply wrong when stating that a longer plot than 700 words is in violation of the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, since the guideline allows for exceptions, and this is clearly one of them
Just focusing on this, I would like to amend the Plot to a slightly larger size, and in particular:
There are copies of the script online, so we can be accurate with specific words/phrases, which would also help reduce the number of words. 109.255.90.188 ( talk) 13:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
As an alternative, or addition, I propose the following plot summation:
Okay? -- Edoe ( talk) 11:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't even a good joke. El Millo ( talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The Ringer here has a decent summary of how critics received the film, "Critics’ reviews for Tenet varied considerably. Raves outnumbered dismissals, but the response skewed less positive than usual for Nolan films, with many of the complaints echoing and amplifying criticisms directed at previous films. Tenet was hard to follow... It was cold... The sound mix made the dialogue hard to discern." This should be included in the first paragraph of the "Critical response" section per MOS:FILM#Critical response emphasizing "detailed commentary". Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The second paragrah states that principal photography lasted 3 months, from May to November, which is clearly 6 months... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:B902:4701:DCD3:D79D:DA25:6CF3 ( talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article lack adequate coverage of its controversial and highly notable theatrical rollout in the midst of the pandemic.
Some links to use;
Best regards, Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a section in this article about the possibility of a sequel because the main actor of the film says "Yes, that would be so cool! We'll see!" Without anything else, like anything by Nolan or a production company? Do I have that right? Seems to me we should get rid of the section. I don't believe this site is supposed to have a 'possible sequel' section on a movie because one of the actors says it's maybe going to happen. Can we axe the section? Or am I not understanding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.57.47 ( talk) 02:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that the plot summary is neither too long nor excessively detailed. Rather the section should remain as is and the template removed. Any thoughts? Anastasios999 ( talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:PLOTBLOAT “ The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.” I would argue that this film fits the unconventional structure definition, what with a non-linear storyline and a complicated plot. Anastasios999 ( talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
" ... filmed both backwards and forwards ..." Irrespective of the plot, in the real world we live in, ALL filming is 'forwards'; for those who don't know, a 'backwards' effect is created by playing the film in 'reverse', and this 'trick' has been around for over 100 years in cinema. Who wrote this stuff? 72.251.15.149 ( talk) 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This movie doesn't use reversed footage for many parts. Instead it is shot forwards with the actors acting and even speaking backwards in some cases (i.e. Sator interrogating the protagonist through the proving window). This is all explained and shown in the extra features. Floydian τ ¢ 00:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments
Working
Some Dude From North Carolina All edits for all the sections above should be up to date. Ready for next set of edit requests when available. ErnestKrause ( talk) 00:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
03:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC): I am failing the article for a variety of reasons. My main concern is its size. Tenet's release was a massive one and the cast and crew participated in an accordingly huge press tour. There are hundreds of interviews with the cast describing the pre-production phase and the casting process. There is also a highly-detailed book that I believe includes dozens of in-depth details about the production. Now, all of those materials do not need to be added for this to be a good article. But they do need to be at least partially present. #Filming, for instance, is primarily a list of shooting locations without coverage of why they were chosen or what makes them notable. #Accolades should be addressed as well (the "2021"s should be actual dates of when ceremonies took place). I still believe the critical response section should be rewritten (see example). There are also a lot of unsourced claims in this article. I have tagged them but there are enough to warrant a fail based on WP:GAFAIL. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk)
I just removed the following text from the intro:
I see two concerns. First, is the styling of the name on a teaser poster significant enough for just the mention in the intro? Second, what source exists to verify the styling? — C.Fred ( talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I have seen some confusion in the plot section regarding the Goya and Rubens. In the script/screenplay, Sir Michael Crosby describes his Goya in the Harrods bag as "It's a fake, by a Spaniard named Arepo. One of two we confiscated from an embezzler in Bern". In the next line, Crosby calls the other one "A Rubens." (the script/screenplay uses the term Rubens again when Sator shows Kat he still has the painting). In the film, however, the short sentence, "A Rubens." is left out (I thought it was in it, but having rewatched the Sir Michael scene again with close captioning, the sentence is left out). Therefore, one could assume that the other painting was also a Goya? What should be done? Several sources assume both are Goyas (e.g. here, and here). 78.18.249.133 ( talk) 21:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
There are some great graphics available online that explain the complex timeline of the film - can any of them be included in this article or does their licensing prevent that? Could even merit a seperate sub-section in the article to explain the overall timeline, which I think you need to understand to have any chance of understand the film. 78.18.254.195 ( talk) 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. — El Millo ( talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The critical piece of missing information is "the 14th", the date that is mentioned several times in the film, and is when the Opera, Vietnam, and Stalsk-12 happens. I think adding it might help clarify that it starts and ends on the same day (bar the epilogue). 78.18.241.130 ( talk) 22:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
El Millo, sorry for reverting you there, but this plot is too tight and missing basic facts (i.e. the 14th). The reader should not have to read the entire article (which is huge) to understand the Plot. Wikipedia allows for leniancy in Plots for complex/non-linear plots, of which this is a prime example. 78.18.241.130 ( talk) 00:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Anon IP editor: I would leave you a note on your talk page but you seem to hop IP addresses, so I'll air it out here. You seem to be protective of the contents of this page in a manner consistent with acting as if the article belongs to you. I must say you have done FANTASTIC work in making the plot more accessible (not an easy feat for a film like this), but I'm only trying to make it more so, removing clunky wording and streamlining things a bit more. You don't get to revert me just because you, and only you, think it's unnecessary or dislike my changes. Like it or not, everyone is invited to contribute and you don't get to just keep it one way because you personally prefer it. I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole better. I've let you do whatever you please to undo the work I, and other editors, have done so far. I only ask the same courtesy in return. (I should also point out that hopping IP addresses is one reason account creation is strongly encouraged: it makes it easier for people to reach you in editing disputes.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole bettersome times, a lot of times, we as editors revert others because we are trying to make the article better as a whole, the same way someone makes an edit because they think they are making the article better. That's why we have discussions at talk pages. If you make a WP:BOLD edit and are reverted, you should come here discuss in order to see if it was correctly or incorrectly reverted, if there should be a compromise or if any of the two parties are convinced that the other way is the correct one. — El Millo ( talk) 17:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Hitchcockian doubles and MacGuffins" section feels uncomfortably like a list of Wikia fan theories. Unlike the usual film analysis we see in articles, fan theories tend to be individual creative exercises to fill in narrative gaps. It's true that there are sources that support the existence of various theories, yet that doesn't make any of the theories notable enough to make a case for their validity, which happens a few times in this section. I suggest reducing the section to an acknowledgement that the film has generated many competing fan theories and then possibly merging into another section; the ScreenRant article would be a good source for that. Thoughts? Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 22:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
In the final scene, I think most people missed Kat is Neil's mother. Neil is the boy Kat is walking with. Wondering if anyone else noticed this. 2600:1700:CCD0:DFC0:60BA:B897:3C58:D17A ( talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That term needs to be defined. 135.180.193.96 ( talk) 16:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
That being said, how should we integrate it into the article? $chnauzer 23:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The parallels with 2022 war in Ukraine section should be removed as it's entirely irrelevant to the film. From what is written in this section, two commentators reference Tenet, and the other just mentions that Tenet put Estonia on the map. I really don't see how this section is appropriate for the article, and it's especially not appropriate for being considered to be a theme of a film that released nearly two years before the invasion. Michael60634 ( talk) 08:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
the real-life possibility that Putin has cancer and is trying to take it out on the worldis very problematic as completely hypothetical, and we don't include content simply because
at least doesn't hurt to leave it inor because
Putin and his cronies actually would enjoy seeing the section removed. Even if Michael is not being neutral here, I still agree with the argument he provided, and with Trailblazer now there's still a majority that considers this shouldn't be in the article and much less have its own section. — El Millo ( talk) 15:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:09, 3 June 2023 (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 |
I saw Tenet in the cinema and thought, hmmm. Then I saw it streaming (several times), and did more research online, and realized it was more coherent than I gave it credit for. It is probably one of the most complex films I have ever seen. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the 700-word limit does not apply to Tenet (it specifically mentions exemptions for non-liner timeline films, and even mentions Nolan's earlier, less complex film, Memento), and I believe that it does need a little more elaboration (e.g. no mention that Sator was communicating with the future, that the future wants to wipe us out, that the film takes place over 2 weeks and loops back on itself so that the Opera, Vietnam and final Stalsk-12 events take place at almost the same time etc.).
However, I do not believe that it should be expanded above circa 900-words as some of the Plot is best discussed via a new section on "Concepts". A Concepts section would include terms like the "Timeline" (this is a fantastic graphic of the 2-week timeline - would be great if we could do/source a non-copyvio version): Tenet Timeline), the concept of a Temporal Pincer (which is where Tenet gets its name - ten minutes forward and backward), and the " Grandfather paradox" (and how it applied to Tenet), the "turnstiles" etc etc. This would make a more powerful article, and there are, literally, a hundred quality RS now explaining such terms. However, I don't want to start to do this if there is resistance to it, and there is edit warring etc. 109.255.90.188 ( talk) 12:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It is my opinion that this film is an example par excellence for the exception in WP:FILMPLOT: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." There can be no contesting that the plot of this film is non-linear and intricate. Popcornfud is simply wrong when stating that a longer plot than 700 words is in violation of the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, since the guideline allows for exceptions, and this is clearly one of them. His reverts for no other reason than the plot length, are unacceptable. Such formalistic reverts do injustice to editors who try to improve this article. Debresser ( talk) 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Popcornfud is simply wrong when stating that a longer plot than 700 words is in violation of the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, since the guideline allows for exceptions, and this is clearly one of them
Just focusing on this, I would like to amend the Plot to a slightly larger size, and in particular:
There are copies of the script online, so we can be accurate with specific words/phrases, which would also help reduce the number of words. 109.255.90.188 ( talk) 13:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
As an alternative, or addition, I propose the following plot summation:
Okay? -- Edoe ( talk) 11:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't even a good joke. El Millo ( talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The Ringer here has a decent summary of how critics received the film, "Critics’ reviews for Tenet varied considerably. Raves outnumbered dismissals, but the response skewed less positive than usual for Nolan films, with many of the complaints echoing and amplifying criticisms directed at previous films. Tenet was hard to follow... It was cold... The sound mix made the dialogue hard to discern." This should be included in the first paragraph of the "Critical response" section per MOS:FILM#Critical response emphasizing "detailed commentary". Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The second paragrah states that principal photography lasted 3 months, from May to November, which is clearly 6 months... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:B902:4701:DCD3:D79D:DA25:6CF3 ( talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article lack adequate coverage of its controversial and highly notable theatrical rollout in the midst of the pandemic.
Some links to use;
Best regards, Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a section in this article about the possibility of a sequel because the main actor of the film says "Yes, that would be so cool! We'll see!" Without anything else, like anything by Nolan or a production company? Do I have that right? Seems to me we should get rid of the section. I don't believe this site is supposed to have a 'possible sequel' section on a movie because one of the actors says it's maybe going to happen. Can we axe the section? Or am I not understanding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.57.47 ( talk) 02:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that the plot summary is neither too long nor excessively detailed. Rather the section should remain as is and the template removed. Any thoughts? Anastasios999 ( talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:PLOTBLOAT “ The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.” I would argue that this film fits the unconventional structure definition, what with a non-linear storyline and a complicated plot. Anastasios999 ( talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
" ... filmed both backwards and forwards ..." Irrespective of the plot, in the real world we live in, ALL filming is 'forwards'; for those who don't know, a 'backwards' effect is created by playing the film in 'reverse', and this 'trick' has been around for over 100 years in cinema. Who wrote this stuff? 72.251.15.149 ( talk) 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This movie doesn't use reversed footage for many parts. Instead it is shot forwards with the actors acting and even speaking backwards in some cases (i.e. Sator interrogating the protagonist through the proving window). This is all explained and shown in the extra features. Floydian τ ¢ 00:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments
Working
Some Dude From North Carolina All edits for all the sections above should be up to date. Ready for next set of edit requests when available. ErnestKrause ( talk) 00:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
03:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC): I am failing the article for a variety of reasons. My main concern is its size. Tenet's release was a massive one and the cast and crew participated in an accordingly huge press tour. There are hundreds of interviews with the cast describing the pre-production phase and the casting process. There is also a highly-detailed book that I believe includes dozens of in-depth details about the production. Now, all of those materials do not need to be added for this to be a good article. But they do need to be at least partially present. #Filming, for instance, is primarily a list of shooting locations without coverage of why they were chosen or what makes them notable. #Accolades should be addressed as well (the "2021"s should be actual dates of when ceremonies took place). I still believe the critical response section should be rewritten (see example). There are also a lot of unsourced claims in this article. I have tagged them but there are enough to warrant a fail based on WP:GAFAIL. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk)
I just removed the following text from the intro:
I see two concerns. First, is the styling of the name on a teaser poster significant enough for just the mention in the intro? Second, what source exists to verify the styling? — C.Fred ( talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I have seen some confusion in the plot section regarding the Goya and Rubens. In the script/screenplay, Sir Michael Crosby describes his Goya in the Harrods bag as "It's a fake, by a Spaniard named Arepo. One of two we confiscated from an embezzler in Bern". In the next line, Crosby calls the other one "A Rubens." (the script/screenplay uses the term Rubens again when Sator shows Kat he still has the painting). In the film, however, the short sentence, "A Rubens." is left out (I thought it was in it, but having rewatched the Sir Michael scene again with close captioning, the sentence is left out). Therefore, one could assume that the other painting was also a Goya? What should be done? Several sources assume both are Goyas (e.g. here, and here). 78.18.249.133 ( talk) 21:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
There are some great graphics available online that explain the complex timeline of the film - can any of them be included in this article or does their licensing prevent that? Could even merit a seperate sub-section in the article to explain the overall timeline, which I think you need to understand to have any chance of understand the film. 78.18.254.195 ( talk) 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. — El Millo ( talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The critical piece of missing information is "the 14th", the date that is mentioned several times in the film, and is when the Opera, Vietnam, and Stalsk-12 happens. I think adding it might help clarify that it starts and ends on the same day (bar the epilogue). 78.18.241.130 ( talk) 22:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
El Millo, sorry for reverting you there, but this plot is too tight and missing basic facts (i.e. the 14th). The reader should not have to read the entire article (which is huge) to understand the Plot. Wikipedia allows for leniancy in Plots for complex/non-linear plots, of which this is a prime example. 78.18.241.130 ( talk) 00:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Anon IP editor: I would leave you a note on your talk page but you seem to hop IP addresses, so I'll air it out here. You seem to be protective of the contents of this page in a manner consistent with acting as if the article belongs to you. I must say you have done FANTASTIC work in making the plot more accessible (not an easy feat for a film like this), but I'm only trying to make it more so, removing clunky wording and streamlining things a bit more. You don't get to revert me just because you, and only you, think it's unnecessary or dislike my changes. Like it or not, everyone is invited to contribute and you don't get to just keep it one way because you personally prefer it. I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole better. I've let you do whatever you please to undo the work I, and other editors, have done so far. I only ask the same courtesy in return. (I should also point out that hopping IP addresses is one reason account creation is strongly encouraged: it makes it easier for people to reach you in editing disputes.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole bettersome times, a lot of times, we as editors revert others because we are trying to make the article better as a whole, the same way someone makes an edit because they think they are making the article better. That's why we have discussions at talk pages. If you make a WP:BOLD edit and are reverted, you should come here discuss in order to see if it was correctly or incorrectly reverted, if there should be a compromise or if any of the two parties are convinced that the other way is the correct one. — El Millo ( talk) 17:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Hitchcockian doubles and MacGuffins" section feels uncomfortably like a list of Wikia fan theories. Unlike the usual film analysis we see in articles, fan theories tend to be individual creative exercises to fill in narrative gaps. It's true that there are sources that support the existence of various theories, yet that doesn't make any of the theories notable enough to make a case for their validity, which happens a few times in this section. I suggest reducing the section to an acknowledgement that the film has generated many competing fan theories and then possibly merging into another section; the ScreenRant article would be a good source for that. Thoughts? Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 22:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
In the final scene, I think most people missed Kat is Neil's mother. Neil is the boy Kat is walking with. Wondering if anyone else noticed this. 2600:1700:CCD0:DFC0:60BA:B897:3C58:D17A ( talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That term needs to be defined. 135.180.193.96 ( talk) 16:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
That being said, how should we integrate it into the article? $chnauzer 23:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The parallels with 2022 war in Ukraine section should be removed as it's entirely irrelevant to the film. From what is written in this section, two commentators reference Tenet, and the other just mentions that Tenet put Estonia on the map. I really don't see how this section is appropriate for the article, and it's especially not appropriate for being considered to be a theme of a film that released nearly two years before the invasion. Michael60634 ( talk) 08:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
the real-life possibility that Putin has cancer and is trying to take it out on the worldis very problematic as completely hypothetical, and we don't include content simply because
at least doesn't hurt to leave it inor because
Putin and his cronies actually would enjoy seeing the section removed. Even if Michael is not being neutral here, I still agree with the argument he provided, and with Trailblazer now there's still a majority that considers this shouldn't be in the article and much less have its own section. — El Millo ( talk) 15:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)