![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So says the writer and director of the film, Neil Jordan, in a 25th anniversary discussion about the movie available to watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD2lhfB53Bs
What part of this movie or story is Japanese? There are no Japanese names associated with the movie, nor does Japan come up anywhere in this article. Am I missing something? Patwinkle ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I just want to throw this out there- A huge FUCK YOU goes out to whoever it was that thought it was a GOOD idea to give away the huge plot twist with NO SPOILER TAGS in the SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PAGE. Whoever made that call, please die in a chemical fire. Thank you!
And just to address the people who so desperately want to leave it in there: You can't say "oh people are coming to this article for this reason or that". you DONT KNOW why people are coming to this article, or what level of enjoyment of this film they expect for you to RUIN for them. HAs it ever occurred to you that Wikipedia is full of in-links, and someone (say, me) could arrive at this page without ever having heard of the film? I don't read through The Usual Suspects article and say "Hmm, it was rated as one of the best reveals, even topping The Crying Game. Gee what's that?" Oh that's what it is- Two hours I won't get to spend watching a classic film because you douchebags apparantly are psychic, and know the intentions and expectations of every person visiting this article
Thank you for helping to ruin Wikipedia. 66.157.239.10 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm hardly an expert on these topics, but based on my own understanding of the (continually contested) meaning of the terms and my having seen this movie, I'm not sure "transsexual woman" is the best description of Dil. I would say he/she is a "transgendered man". As far as I know, and according the wikipedia article transsexual, a TS is someone who desires a physical sex change or operation of some sort, and is not merely someone who prefers to live with an identity of the other gender. There certainly is no evidence in the movie itself, or in anything I've read about the movie, to suggest that Dil desires an actual sex change operation. So, I don't see any reason why it's accurate to say she's "transsexual". Revolver 11:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Should the reference to Dils trasngendered nature be removed from the begining of the article? While this is a long time after the movie it IS still a spoiler and someone might conceivably look at the article without knowing about "the secret"
Shouldn't the novel be in a disambiguation position if it is, in fact, wholly unrelated to the film? Right now the link of the novel on the John Braine page links to this page, which, if I understand what's going on here correctly, should not be the case. But I don't know enough about either the book or the novel to be certain. Can someone who knows this stuff either fix it or make it clear? CoramVobis 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The summary of this movie contains POV information. There is nothing in the movie that implies that Fergus is actually "attracted" to the Dil character. The person who wrote this was biased by their personal interpretations. The final paragraph that discusses the nature of Fergus's sexuality is also pure speculation and should be removed.
I agree with the change of pronouns to 'she', in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline regarding self-identification. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article currently leave out a kind of important part of the film? Like, you know, the twist ending? 70.171.57.254 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have redone the introduction to this article. Specifically, I have added the twist ending into the introduction. I expect that somebody will want to revert this. I encourage this person not to. Here's why:
One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema. The LGBT perspective on this film is huge, and needs to be mentioned in the lead. This cannot, to my mind, be done well without using the word "transgender" in the lead.
More to the point, it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to exclude this perspective from the lead. It is a highly notable, absolutely important perspective. It should not be marginalized far outside of the lead. The need to write a good introduction that actually informs people of the major issues surrounding this film trumps the need to cover the twist ending of a 15 year old movie. Phil Sandifer 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with putting the plot twist in the introduction, but there really should be a spoiler warning. There is nothing giving the reader any indication that the film's ending is going to be given away right off the bat.
Consensus hasn't been reached on spoiler warnings. I honestly don't see why people oppose them so much. I have added a spoiler warning at the beginning of the article, which is permitted in rare situations. From the policy:
"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work. Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead."
I think this applies in this case. True, the movie is 13 years old, but that doesn't mean that everybody has seen it already. There are surely people who were toddlers when the film came out and are looking to watch it. Adding the spoiler doesn't detract from the article because the important aspect remains intact in the lead. -- YellowTapedR 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the film is not "frankly primarily notable for its twist," as one editor said in an edit summary. It had six Academy Award nominations, including best picture.-- YellowTapedR 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why there should be a spoiler warning. The movie has been out for thirteen years. People coming to this article want to know more about the movie, and that includes the transgender revelation. This isn't some unreleased, lots-of-speculation movie where someone who hasn't seen it could accidentally stumble on it. Lead sections of movie articles should have a brief summary of the film. You can't briefly summarized this movie without mentioning the one thing that makes it notable: that Dil's trans. Putting a spoiler warning is, imho, unnecessary. Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled? If someone didn't want to be spoiled, they'd take two hours out of their day and watch the movie, or they'd look it up on IMDB. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review. Kolindigo 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment by jdsully8 shows that not everyone going to this article has seen the movie or wishes to be spoiled. The twist belongs in the article and even probably should be in the introduction, but adding a spoiler warning does not take anything away from it. And, again, the transgender angle is not the only notable thing about the film, since it was heavily nominated at the Academy Awards and was praised overwhelmingly by critics.
A decade before The Crying Game came out, Sleepaway Camppulled the-girl-is-really-a-boy trick. That revelation is not in the lead of that article (perhaps it should be, because that's the only scene anyone remembers from it). -- YellowTapedR 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This plot detail is the key fact about the movie - it's embarrassing to put a "spoiler" tag on it. The movie isn't a new release, and people coming here are looking for critical commentary and historical importance, not for a summary to decide whether to go to the cinema to see it. I don't see why a spoiler tag is needed. As Kolindigo asks, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's your opinion that the plot detail is the key fact about the movie. Just because it isn't a new release doesn't mean that everyone's seen it. It is not wikipedia's job to provide "critical commentary." You have no basis for your claims on why people are coming to this article. The spoiler tag takes nothing away from the article and doesn't prevent anyone looking to learn about historical significance from reading it.
The spoiler guidelines make it clear that tags in the introductions of articles are allowed in rare circumstances. This is one of the exceptions. People may expect to be spoiled when they read the plot summary in an article, but they don't expect to have the ending given away for them in the intro. -- YellowTapedR 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The "edit warring" is being done by a group of editors who are against spoiler warnings in just about every circumstance. The page in its current form is a version by one of those editors. -- YellowTapedR 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide what readers should expect when going to any article. I read articles on movies I haven't yet seen, but I skip the plot section so as not to get spoiled. I would never expect a spoiler to be right there in the introduction without any kind of warning. -- YellowTapedR 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a fair compromise to keep the twist in the lead but have a spoiler warning. -- YellowTapedR 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Cricket?! Did I watch the same movie every else did? I'm tired of debating this. You guys do what you want. But the movie I watched was about the theme that you can't change your spots and it featured a man who fell in love with a transwoman and still loved her after finding out she was a transwoman, which was shocking and groundbreaking at the time (and I dare say, it would still be shocking today). If you look on spoiler sites, the catchphrase is always the crude "she's a he!" It's what makes the film still very notable even over a decade after its release, because Jaye Davison managed to make people think he's a woman, and so it was a shock to audiences. I'm not saying it isn't notable for being yet another indie movie that managed to do well in awards season, but it's also notable for being a mainstream depiction of transgender characters without condemning them. Kolindigo 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the discussion above. I come to Wikipedia for information. I might do that before I watch a movie, to see if it's worth watching, or after I've watched it to look at it in more detail. I expect a "Plot Summary" section that I can avoid. I do not expect a revelation of the surprise ending in the introduction, or anywhere in an article other than "Plot Summary" or "Synopsis." I find above comments indicating that Wikipedia is telling me it's my own fault for looking at the article to be disturbing, and such a policy will simply mean that I no longer come to WP for information. I understand that the plot revelation needs to be in the lead for NPOV purposes, but please, put a spoiler tag in. TMac 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines say spoiler tags are allowed in the introductions in rare circumstances. This is one of them, since the surprise is given away. -- YellowTapedR 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but not in the intro. Reading the above comments, I think you are clearly outnumbered here, so what's the point in arguing anymore?-- YellowTapedR 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any suggested compromise in those comments. What do you suggest? -- YellowTapedR 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, another spoiler dispute, with dear Tony showing up out of nowhere to show his support for getting rid of spoiler tags as always. Completely regardless of the situation. Let's sum this up. - The twist ending of this movie is apparently so essential to the reception and influence of this film that it has to be in the introduction. Argument accepted. - Putting the twist ending in the introduction will ruin the film for whoever reads the introduction. You can't stop in time. Common courtesy dictates you don't ruin a piece of art for someone in the introduction. If someone starts reading the plot/synopsis/etc, that's indeed at someone's own risk. This is something else. People - this is what spoiler tags were made for. There is no other way to put the twist ending of the movie in the introduction (where it apparently belongs) without ruining it for those who have not seen this film yet. This delay isn't getting the article anywhere. Cayafas 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's okay to put the transgender spoiler in the lead of this article, someone should go and add the spoiler to the lead of The Sixth Sense. Seems only reasonable.-- 167.30.38.188 ( talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I get the idea, "the big reveal is a dick". But the phrasing makes it sound like surrealism or radical plastic surgery, or even science fiction, when it's quite apparent that Dil, irrespective of whatever gender self-identification she may have, is biologically male. In fact, perhaps "biologically male" would be the right term. -- Tony Sidaway 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I altered the wording slightly to say: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, when the male protagonist discovers that his seemingly female love interest has a penis while undressing." I think it better represents why the revelation is so startling and takes away the sci-fi element. -- YellowTapedR 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to look at a diff between the last unprotection and the current protection.
It's here.
A bit depressing, really.
The puzzling phrase "and the event passed without incident" remains. Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that presuppose that Jaye Davidson turning up in any other gear might have caused a problem? The supposed "speculation about what Davidson would wear to the Oscars, as his appearing as a man would possibly spoil the film's surprise" seems to be completely unsupported.
And we have:
Oh dear.
On the plus side of the equation, we now know what Jaye Davidson wore to the Oscars. Nice. -- Tony Sidaway 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the trivia section needs to go, but maybe the Ace Ventura bit belongs somewhere. There are surely a lot of people who only know the twist in The Crying Game because they saw Ace Ventura. The part about Jaye Davidson going to the Oscars can be snipped, too. I've stopped caring what happens in the intro though, but I did add a citation request because the second paragraph seems somewhat opionated. -- YellowTapedR 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of continuously edit warring, why don't both sides of the spoiler issue come to a compromise. I think the info about the twist should be in the lead. The more I think about it, the more I think the tag is unneccessary because of the film's age and the fact that it has been countlessly spoofed.
But I could go either way on it. To stop the article from being protected again because of edit warring, why not just keep the info in the lead and place a spoiler tag before the second paragraph? -- YellowTapedR 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't assume that everyone who visits wikipedia is familiar with this movie, or has even heard of it. Why spoil the surprises of the movie for someone who is just reading the main info section of the page. I mean it's not like people are putting in "Dil blasts away Jude at the movie's conclusion" in the intro. Why would you put the penis reference there? Just put it in the plot summary. The intro already mentions that the film has to do with transgenderism, alternate relationships, an effect on the LGBT community, etc, you don't need to put specific plot points in it that are meant to be surprising. "The movie everyone is talking about, but no one is giving away it's secrets" is how the movie was marketed. Come on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) About WP:LS again, it clearly states The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.. I believe that the mention of the penis in the lead actually violates this part of the guideline.-- Ramdrake 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it is quite clear (see the talk page history) that Tprayx has logged-out to continue reverting the page (and to avoid WP:3RR, which he/she has now broken), I have semi-protected the page from editing. Tprayx, I could have blocked you for violating the three revert rule, but opted to protect instead. Do not break the 3RR in the future, using either your account or your IP or a combination, or you will be blocked. If the reverting continues on this page, I will be blocking anyone who breaks the 3RR (including Tprayx's backdated reverts if this user starts up again in the next twenty-four hours). Daniel 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you would block the page instead of the user. Regardless, the warring is getting silly. -- YellowTapedR 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwoman is what Dil was in the movie and best fits the role, rather than to use "male-to-femle transexual", while linking to the article Transwoman is over-kill. More people will click on the link and read more and learn more, as is encouraged for wikipedia. Please don't change it. Thanks. Jeeny 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the film an Irish film? I ask because it credits the country of origin is given as Uk/Japan, (which confuses me also). The film is by an Irish filmmaker, and one of the themes is about the troubles in Ireland. -- Dumbo1 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The film was listed as being of japanese/UK because thats where the finance came from. However Neil Jordan (who's irish) has said on several occasion that it's an irish film. Both because of the themes/subject matter and the fact that the guy who concieved it and directed it is irish. So...take your pick I guess. Though I really don't think you could call it a japanese film. User:Teknolyze —Preceding comment was added at 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Crying Game That Cries Out For Help.-- 2600:1702:4B28:F760:808B:CA42:FF39:E267 ( talk) 00:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So says the writer and director of the film, Neil Jordan, in a 25th anniversary discussion about the movie available to watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD2lhfB53Bs
What part of this movie or story is Japanese? There are no Japanese names associated with the movie, nor does Japan come up anywhere in this article. Am I missing something? Patwinkle ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I just want to throw this out there- A huge FUCK YOU goes out to whoever it was that thought it was a GOOD idea to give away the huge plot twist with NO SPOILER TAGS in the SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PAGE. Whoever made that call, please die in a chemical fire. Thank you!
And just to address the people who so desperately want to leave it in there: You can't say "oh people are coming to this article for this reason or that". you DONT KNOW why people are coming to this article, or what level of enjoyment of this film they expect for you to RUIN for them. HAs it ever occurred to you that Wikipedia is full of in-links, and someone (say, me) could arrive at this page without ever having heard of the film? I don't read through The Usual Suspects article and say "Hmm, it was rated as one of the best reveals, even topping The Crying Game. Gee what's that?" Oh that's what it is- Two hours I won't get to spend watching a classic film because you douchebags apparantly are psychic, and know the intentions and expectations of every person visiting this article
Thank you for helping to ruin Wikipedia. 66.157.239.10 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm hardly an expert on these topics, but based on my own understanding of the (continually contested) meaning of the terms and my having seen this movie, I'm not sure "transsexual woman" is the best description of Dil. I would say he/she is a "transgendered man". As far as I know, and according the wikipedia article transsexual, a TS is someone who desires a physical sex change or operation of some sort, and is not merely someone who prefers to live with an identity of the other gender. There certainly is no evidence in the movie itself, or in anything I've read about the movie, to suggest that Dil desires an actual sex change operation. So, I don't see any reason why it's accurate to say she's "transsexual". Revolver 11:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Should the reference to Dils trasngendered nature be removed from the begining of the article? While this is a long time after the movie it IS still a spoiler and someone might conceivably look at the article without knowing about "the secret"
Shouldn't the novel be in a disambiguation position if it is, in fact, wholly unrelated to the film? Right now the link of the novel on the John Braine page links to this page, which, if I understand what's going on here correctly, should not be the case. But I don't know enough about either the book or the novel to be certain. Can someone who knows this stuff either fix it or make it clear? CoramVobis 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The summary of this movie contains POV information. There is nothing in the movie that implies that Fergus is actually "attracted" to the Dil character. The person who wrote this was biased by their personal interpretations. The final paragraph that discusses the nature of Fergus's sexuality is also pure speculation and should be removed.
I agree with the change of pronouns to 'she', in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline regarding self-identification. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article currently leave out a kind of important part of the film? Like, you know, the twist ending? 70.171.57.254 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have redone the introduction to this article. Specifically, I have added the twist ending into the introduction. I expect that somebody will want to revert this. I encourage this person not to. Here's why:
One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema. The LGBT perspective on this film is huge, and needs to be mentioned in the lead. This cannot, to my mind, be done well without using the word "transgender" in the lead.
More to the point, it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to exclude this perspective from the lead. It is a highly notable, absolutely important perspective. It should not be marginalized far outside of the lead. The need to write a good introduction that actually informs people of the major issues surrounding this film trumps the need to cover the twist ending of a 15 year old movie. Phil Sandifer 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with putting the plot twist in the introduction, but there really should be a spoiler warning. There is nothing giving the reader any indication that the film's ending is going to be given away right off the bat.
Consensus hasn't been reached on spoiler warnings. I honestly don't see why people oppose them so much. I have added a spoiler warning at the beginning of the article, which is permitted in rare situations. From the policy:
"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work. Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead."
I think this applies in this case. True, the movie is 13 years old, but that doesn't mean that everybody has seen it already. There are surely people who were toddlers when the film came out and are looking to watch it. Adding the spoiler doesn't detract from the article because the important aspect remains intact in the lead. -- YellowTapedR 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the film is not "frankly primarily notable for its twist," as one editor said in an edit summary. It had six Academy Award nominations, including best picture.-- YellowTapedR 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why there should be a spoiler warning. The movie has been out for thirteen years. People coming to this article want to know more about the movie, and that includes the transgender revelation. This isn't some unreleased, lots-of-speculation movie where someone who hasn't seen it could accidentally stumble on it. Lead sections of movie articles should have a brief summary of the film. You can't briefly summarized this movie without mentioning the one thing that makes it notable: that Dil's trans. Putting a spoiler warning is, imho, unnecessary. Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled? If someone didn't want to be spoiled, they'd take two hours out of their day and watch the movie, or they'd look it up on IMDB. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review. Kolindigo 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment by jdsully8 shows that not everyone going to this article has seen the movie or wishes to be spoiled. The twist belongs in the article and even probably should be in the introduction, but adding a spoiler warning does not take anything away from it. And, again, the transgender angle is not the only notable thing about the film, since it was heavily nominated at the Academy Awards and was praised overwhelmingly by critics.
A decade before The Crying Game came out, Sleepaway Camppulled the-girl-is-really-a-boy trick. That revelation is not in the lead of that article (perhaps it should be, because that's the only scene anyone remembers from it). -- YellowTapedR 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This plot detail is the key fact about the movie - it's embarrassing to put a "spoiler" tag on it. The movie isn't a new release, and people coming here are looking for critical commentary and historical importance, not for a summary to decide whether to go to the cinema to see it. I don't see why a spoiler tag is needed. As Kolindigo asks, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's your opinion that the plot detail is the key fact about the movie. Just because it isn't a new release doesn't mean that everyone's seen it. It is not wikipedia's job to provide "critical commentary." You have no basis for your claims on why people are coming to this article. The spoiler tag takes nothing away from the article and doesn't prevent anyone looking to learn about historical significance from reading it.
The spoiler guidelines make it clear that tags in the introductions of articles are allowed in rare circumstances. This is one of the exceptions. People may expect to be spoiled when they read the plot summary in an article, but they don't expect to have the ending given away for them in the intro. -- YellowTapedR 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The "edit warring" is being done by a group of editors who are against spoiler warnings in just about every circumstance. The page in its current form is a version by one of those editors. -- YellowTapedR 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide what readers should expect when going to any article. I read articles on movies I haven't yet seen, but I skip the plot section so as not to get spoiled. I would never expect a spoiler to be right there in the introduction without any kind of warning. -- YellowTapedR 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a fair compromise to keep the twist in the lead but have a spoiler warning. -- YellowTapedR 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Cricket?! Did I watch the same movie every else did? I'm tired of debating this. You guys do what you want. But the movie I watched was about the theme that you can't change your spots and it featured a man who fell in love with a transwoman and still loved her after finding out she was a transwoman, which was shocking and groundbreaking at the time (and I dare say, it would still be shocking today). If you look on spoiler sites, the catchphrase is always the crude "she's a he!" It's what makes the film still very notable even over a decade after its release, because Jaye Davison managed to make people think he's a woman, and so it was a shock to audiences. I'm not saying it isn't notable for being yet another indie movie that managed to do well in awards season, but it's also notable for being a mainstream depiction of transgender characters without condemning them. Kolindigo 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the discussion above. I come to Wikipedia for information. I might do that before I watch a movie, to see if it's worth watching, or after I've watched it to look at it in more detail. I expect a "Plot Summary" section that I can avoid. I do not expect a revelation of the surprise ending in the introduction, or anywhere in an article other than "Plot Summary" or "Synopsis." I find above comments indicating that Wikipedia is telling me it's my own fault for looking at the article to be disturbing, and such a policy will simply mean that I no longer come to WP for information. I understand that the plot revelation needs to be in the lead for NPOV purposes, but please, put a spoiler tag in. TMac 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines say spoiler tags are allowed in the introductions in rare circumstances. This is one of them, since the surprise is given away. -- YellowTapedR 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but not in the intro. Reading the above comments, I think you are clearly outnumbered here, so what's the point in arguing anymore?-- YellowTapedR 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any suggested compromise in those comments. What do you suggest? -- YellowTapedR 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, another spoiler dispute, with dear Tony showing up out of nowhere to show his support for getting rid of spoiler tags as always. Completely regardless of the situation. Let's sum this up. - The twist ending of this movie is apparently so essential to the reception and influence of this film that it has to be in the introduction. Argument accepted. - Putting the twist ending in the introduction will ruin the film for whoever reads the introduction. You can't stop in time. Common courtesy dictates you don't ruin a piece of art for someone in the introduction. If someone starts reading the plot/synopsis/etc, that's indeed at someone's own risk. This is something else. People - this is what spoiler tags were made for. There is no other way to put the twist ending of the movie in the introduction (where it apparently belongs) without ruining it for those who have not seen this film yet. This delay isn't getting the article anywhere. Cayafas 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's okay to put the transgender spoiler in the lead of this article, someone should go and add the spoiler to the lead of The Sixth Sense. Seems only reasonable.-- 167.30.38.188 ( talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I get the idea, "the big reveal is a dick". But the phrasing makes it sound like surrealism or radical plastic surgery, or even science fiction, when it's quite apparent that Dil, irrespective of whatever gender self-identification she may have, is biologically male. In fact, perhaps "biologically male" would be the right term. -- Tony Sidaway 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I altered the wording slightly to say: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, when the male protagonist discovers that his seemingly female love interest has a penis while undressing." I think it better represents why the revelation is so startling and takes away the sci-fi element. -- YellowTapedR 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to look at a diff between the last unprotection and the current protection.
It's here.
A bit depressing, really.
The puzzling phrase "and the event passed without incident" remains. Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that presuppose that Jaye Davidson turning up in any other gear might have caused a problem? The supposed "speculation about what Davidson would wear to the Oscars, as his appearing as a man would possibly spoil the film's surprise" seems to be completely unsupported.
And we have:
Oh dear.
On the plus side of the equation, we now know what Jaye Davidson wore to the Oscars. Nice. -- Tony Sidaway 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the trivia section needs to go, but maybe the Ace Ventura bit belongs somewhere. There are surely a lot of people who only know the twist in The Crying Game because they saw Ace Ventura. The part about Jaye Davidson going to the Oscars can be snipped, too. I've stopped caring what happens in the intro though, but I did add a citation request because the second paragraph seems somewhat opionated. -- YellowTapedR 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of continuously edit warring, why don't both sides of the spoiler issue come to a compromise. I think the info about the twist should be in the lead. The more I think about it, the more I think the tag is unneccessary because of the film's age and the fact that it has been countlessly spoofed.
But I could go either way on it. To stop the article from being protected again because of edit warring, why not just keep the info in the lead and place a spoiler tag before the second paragraph? -- YellowTapedR 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't assume that everyone who visits wikipedia is familiar with this movie, or has even heard of it. Why spoil the surprises of the movie for someone who is just reading the main info section of the page. I mean it's not like people are putting in "Dil blasts away Jude at the movie's conclusion" in the intro. Why would you put the penis reference there? Just put it in the plot summary. The intro already mentions that the film has to do with transgenderism, alternate relationships, an effect on the LGBT community, etc, you don't need to put specific plot points in it that are meant to be surprising. "The movie everyone is talking about, but no one is giving away it's secrets" is how the movie was marketed. Come on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) About WP:LS again, it clearly states The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.. I believe that the mention of the penis in the lead actually violates this part of the guideline.-- Ramdrake 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it is quite clear (see the talk page history) that Tprayx has logged-out to continue reverting the page (and to avoid WP:3RR, which he/she has now broken), I have semi-protected the page from editing. Tprayx, I could have blocked you for violating the three revert rule, but opted to protect instead. Do not break the 3RR in the future, using either your account or your IP or a combination, or you will be blocked. If the reverting continues on this page, I will be blocking anyone who breaks the 3RR (including Tprayx's backdated reverts if this user starts up again in the next twenty-four hours). Daniel 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you would block the page instead of the user. Regardless, the warring is getting silly. -- YellowTapedR 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwoman is what Dil was in the movie and best fits the role, rather than to use "male-to-femle transexual", while linking to the article Transwoman is over-kill. More people will click on the link and read more and learn more, as is encouraged for wikipedia. Please don't change it. Thanks. Jeeny 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the film an Irish film? I ask because it credits the country of origin is given as Uk/Japan, (which confuses me also). The film is by an Irish filmmaker, and one of the themes is about the troubles in Ireland. -- Dumbo1 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The film was listed as being of japanese/UK because thats where the finance came from. However Neil Jordan (who's irish) has said on several occasion that it's an irish film. Both because of the themes/subject matter and the fact that the guy who concieved it and directed it is irish. So...take your pick I guess. Though I really don't think you could call it a japanese film. User:Teknolyze —Preceding comment was added at 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Crying Game That Cries Out For Help.-- 2600:1702:4B28:F760:808B:CA42:FF39:E267 ( talk) 00:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)