![]() | 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 |
How can we reference the reviews which received 5 stars?
Justblowharder ( talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Will this film be released to theaters beyond the film festival circuit? Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Where are the characters' names derived from? Are they named (eg Laura, the Bad Man) in the credits? Popcornduff ( talk) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In the infobox, the gross is listed as $2,824,615. However, the citation currently lists the lifetime gross as $1,086,000 as of April 20, 2014. Am I reading this incorrectly? My change was reverted by User:Status, so perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thing. I did do a 'find on page', though, and couldn't find the other number listed. Where on that citation does it list $2,824,615? Happy to discuss this, but if nobody objects, I'll just change it back sometime tomorrow. -- Yamla ( talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone care to chime in on this? I've uploaded it once or twice now and it keeps getting deleted for reasons that are unclear. The majority of film entries on Wikipedia contain images of the posters, yet an administrator by the name of Yamla keeps deleting the image. This is getting ridiculous. Scottdoesntknow ( talk) 06:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the paragraph regarding Kristy Puchko's interpretation in the "Critical Response" section of "Reception." The paragraph made no mention of Puchko's criticism/praise of the film and instead focused on the writer's interpretation of the film. Seeing as the rest of the section (and nearly every section like it on Wikipedia) is focused on scores and criticism/praise from notable reviewers it seemed like a fair edit.
If someone disagrees then they should perhaps consider creating a "Meaning" or "Interpretations" tab for the film. But bear in mind that the writings of writers other than Kristy Puchko will need to be represented. And if one would like to keep the review of Kristy Puchko in the "Critical Response" tab please refrain from just re-posting the deleted paragraph. It would be more fitting to instead find a sentence or passage that sums up the writer's overall opinion of the film and then adding it to the paragraph that already has quotes like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugthug ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Should be rewritten. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
changes I've made. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a few forms of dispute resolution, including the dispute resolution noticeboard. I haven't seen this film yet, so I can't really comment directly on the plot summary. But I will say that it's difficult to write a proper plot summary for artsy, experimental films, especially when they depend highly on subjective interpretation. Rewriting the plot summary to help readers understand it better is a noble goal, but to do so through personal interpretation violates our policy on original research. There's no actual policy against flowery language, so I'm quite a bit more ambivalent about that, but I think it's generally a poor idea to stray from simple, clear, and concise business writing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've asked for a third opinion. Capuchinpilates ( talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What if my rewrite was un-reverted, and adapted in ways others thought necessary? The re-write was criticized by Popcornduff as full of unnecessary detail. I tried to take out many details that were not pertinent to the overall plot, and put in ones that were. For example, with the beach scene, I took out that 1) the couple drowned, 2) the swimmer was hit in the head with a rock, 3) the woman dragged him to a van, 4) the baby was left, and 5) the motorcyclist took away the belongings. It was too much detail for one scene. What was important was that the woman observed the swimmer trying to save the couple, because this is directly related to the largest plot arc, the transformation of the woman.
I also took out these unnecessary details 6) lady was put in the back of a van, 7) the women went to a nightclub, 8) the swimmer touches another man, 9) the lonely man gets bundled into a car, 10) the van in abandoned in the fog, 11) the woman walks to a restaurant, 12) she retches and spits out cake, 13) she goes to a bus stop, 14) a man offers to help her, 15) the man brings her home, 16) they eat and other stuff, 17) she’s alone in a room, 18) she goes to a castle, 19) she kisses the man, 20) she examines her vagina, 21) she goes to a bothy, and 22) that the logger is of the “commercial” variety. However, if anyone thinks any of these scenes are important and should be included, please add it back in.
My rewrite was also criticized for summarising scenes in a weird way, such as, "a series of increasingly unsettling experiences that leave her confused, curious and afraid." But I think that this sentence serves various purposes. It is the topic sentence of the paragraph, rather than the topic sentence being “The woman visits a nightclub and picks up another man.” The weird sentence also serves to concisely describe what happens after the beginning part of the movie. And the scenes that are then briefly described in this paragraph, are in the service of this topic sentence, and in relating the important influences upon the main character. For example, the plot summary of the movie Melancholia has this topic sentence: “Over the course of the evening, Justine is frustrated by various personal and professional difficulties.” But if someone thinks that my weird sentence should be rewritten to be clearer, or include a different set of scenes to punctuate it, that fine with me.
Another criticism was that it isn’t important that the word “mute” is used to describe the motorcyclist. That’s right I think, it isn’t important, but I think that they character with the second most scenes in the move deserves some description. On the Wikipedia page on How To Write a Plot Summary, it gives this good example: “The girl, Little Red Riding Hood, is described as 'a dear little girl who was loved by everyone who looked at her.” If she can have a whole sentence about her, why can’t the motorcyclist have one word? To me mute seemed good because it’s pretty shocking that a common character never speaks a single word, and mute is not just a glaring fact, but also seems to capture his ethos. But if others think another adjective better fits, replace it.
Another criticism was using “impassively” to describe how the protagonist drives. She spends a lot of time driving in the movie, and does it in a very particular way. I think an adverb is proper to evoke the very strange way she both interacts with the world, and looks.
These following two phrases were critiqued as purple prose and flower: "completes her masquerade" and "she is no longer the hunter but the hunted.” Completing her masquerade, is a simple description of what she was up to in a number of sequential scenes, and the phrase contains not a single adjective or adverb. Purple prose would be: “In superfluously completing the over-wrought, and grotesque masquerade-like maneuver …” For the line about the hunted, I explained earlier in talk that it was factual, concise, and relevant to the larger plot. These kinds of descriptions may have a taint of interpretation, but are not original research, and are factual. Neither of the 2 phrases are flowery. But both are also not crucial to the section, so take em out if anyone wants. That goes more so for the line about being in the dirt; the reason I wrote it is because being in the dirt is purposely shot this way, as it is evocative of what is happening to the character.
Plus, I don’t think we need to be zealots in keeping any whiff of interpretation out of the plot section. For most movies a simple description of the scenes will do, but for a movie like this with almost no dialogue and the movie itself providing no overt explanation of anything, I think a small amount of explanation of the plot is needed. Like for Fight Club: “When the narrator has believed himself to be asleep, Tyler has in fact been controlling his body.”
Popcornduff wondered what problem I was trying to solve by writing it; the problem was that the summary wasn't very useful. For the Wikipedia reader who hasn’t seen the movie but wants to know what it is about, the summary offered little of the actual plot. For the reader coming to the site because they saw the movie and were confused by it, it offered little more than an arbitrary series of some of the scenes that they had just watched. Capuchinpilates ( talk) 02:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I did the edit I was talking about above, it was reverted by Popcornduff, and I just opened up a dispute on the Dispute Resolution Board. You can follow the proceedings there. Capuchinpilates ( talk) 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to PRAISE the plot summary. It is exactly what is needed. It is minimalistic and distanced from interpretation. It is very tricky to summarize a film such as this, but I think the OP did a terrific job! I actually read the last paragraph and thought "yeah, but, doesn't this mean that ...." and I think that is a good thing! Jackbox1971 ( talk) 08:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Without implying anything plot-wise, I think it should be mentioned that the corpse the motorcyclist retrieves at the beginning looks the same as the woman who then takes her clothes. It's an important and self-evident plot element left to the viewer to ponder. Kumagoro-42 20:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it seems you're just dismissing audience reception. I'm sorry, but that isn't being fair to the audiences. 6.2 on IMDB is an incredibly mediocre score to receive. Look at the stats:
The highest amount of scores for the film given are 7, 8, 6, 5 and 1. That to me doesn't seem like a film that's fully positive. Dismissing the polarizing statement is incorrect and I must insist you read it. Rusted AutoParts 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The sentence 'Under the Skin was chosen by 20 critics and publications as the best film of 2014 from 122 top-ten lists' is not actually what the cited source [1] states. The source gives the film 122 'points' based on a scoring system, being (20 x 3) + (7 x 2) + (48 x 1) = 122. The actual number of lists referred to is 20 + 7 + 48 = 75. The total number of lists drawn from is 201. Hence the film appeared on 75 of a possible 201 lists, of which it was chosen as the best on 20.
ENKC ( talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I just read the plot section - it was very hard to follow (and that's coming from someone who's seen the film). If anything I would say it tries to imitate the artsy feel of the movie: mysterious, truncated and inexplicable.
But. What makes for a strong cinematic experience makes for a confusing trainwreck of an encyclopedic article. While our articles should not assume things that aren't in the film, we must be comprehensible. The plot section must be written for a reader who haven't seen the film, and should be clear and concise.
If the story does not make sense, fine: but then we need to make sure that's what happens in the film, and not on paper. A reader certainly does not need to walk away understanding everything if a movie watcher doesn't. But the reader should not feel the article is strangely failing to clearly depict events.
Feel free to edit further, but if you remove something that you feel is an assumption that isn't supported by the events of the film, make sure you don't leave our plot summary hanging. There's being terse, and then there's being incomprehensible. CapnZapp ( talk) 09:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The plot section says that she and the man from the bus watch tv and eat. There was definitely food prepared, but did she eat any? 2602:306:3A29:7740:C51D:BA0D:439F:F5F9 ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I'm part of a research group of undergrads trying to improve the quality of this WP page. Looking at Featured and A Class film articles, what stands out is an overall better structure for the page, and better formatting for the different sections of the article. May I suggest beginning by adding a [Cast] section after the plot? If no one objects I'll add it myself. All the best 95.144.243.60 ( talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm also part of the research group of undergrads trying to improve the quality of this WP page. If nobody objects I am interested in including some research regarding the exploration of gender politics in the film, as i have noticed there are is some research connected to this theme, however i have found some articles which might provide some more scholarly value. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.qmul.ac.uk/stable/10.1525/fq.2014.67.4.44?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Niamh- -murphy ( talk) 14:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Structural reorganisation of some of the paragraphs ('production' and sub-headers 'pre-production', 'filming' and 'post-production') - Repositioning of images to avoid sandwiching - Additional info about dash-cams hidden in the van used for filming (under 'filming') - Added track list for the soundtrack - Added scholarly comments for the 'themes' section concerning female representation - Added GBP figures in the summary table at the top of the article. I think that should cover it. We endeavored to find valuable secondary and tertiary sources to support every change. Feel free to revert any changes that don't improve the quality of the page or contravene WP guidelines. Thank you again for bearing with us these past few weeks! Christian Dametto ( talk) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm also part of the research group aiming to improve the quality of this page. I've gone through the references and removed a few that were linked to articles that were either not available or had been taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulymaan Hameed ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I just got done watching this movie, and during the attempts to pick up men while driving a van I was able to predict the rest of the movie based on what I remembered about the 1995 film "Species." That film was a concept of Dennis Feldman in 1987 that he developed into a script for the film. I may not understand the intricacies of crediting in film making, but it seems the spirit of giving credit should not be suspended just because an immensely similar story is made into a film and released in a different market. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Kamchak ( talk) 01:09, 2 August 2018 (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 |
How can we reference the reviews which received 5 stars?
Justblowharder ( talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Will this film be released to theaters beyond the film festival circuit? Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Where are the characters' names derived from? Are they named (eg Laura, the Bad Man) in the credits? Popcornduff ( talk) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In the infobox, the gross is listed as $2,824,615. However, the citation currently lists the lifetime gross as $1,086,000 as of April 20, 2014. Am I reading this incorrectly? My change was reverted by User:Status, so perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thing. I did do a 'find on page', though, and couldn't find the other number listed. Where on that citation does it list $2,824,615? Happy to discuss this, but if nobody objects, I'll just change it back sometime tomorrow. -- Yamla ( talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone care to chime in on this? I've uploaded it once or twice now and it keeps getting deleted for reasons that are unclear. The majority of film entries on Wikipedia contain images of the posters, yet an administrator by the name of Yamla keeps deleting the image. This is getting ridiculous. Scottdoesntknow ( talk) 06:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the paragraph regarding Kristy Puchko's interpretation in the "Critical Response" section of "Reception." The paragraph made no mention of Puchko's criticism/praise of the film and instead focused on the writer's interpretation of the film. Seeing as the rest of the section (and nearly every section like it on Wikipedia) is focused on scores and criticism/praise from notable reviewers it seemed like a fair edit.
If someone disagrees then they should perhaps consider creating a "Meaning" or "Interpretations" tab for the film. But bear in mind that the writings of writers other than Kristy Puchko will need to be represented. And if one would like to keep the review of Kristy Puchko in the "Critical Response" tab please refrain from just re-posting the deleted paragraph. It would be more fitting to instead find a sentence or passage that sums up the writer's overall opinion of the film and then adding it to the paragraph that already has quotes like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugthug ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Should be rewritten. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
changes I've made. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a few forms of dispute resolution, including the dispute resolution noticeboard. I haven't seen this film yet, so I can't really comment directly on the plot summary. But I will say that it's difficult to write a proper plot summary for artsy, experimental films, especially when they depend highly on subjective interpretation. Rewriting the plot summary to help readers understand it better is a noble goal, but to do so through personal interpretation violates our policy on original research. There's no actual policy against flowery language, so I'm quite a bit more ambivalent about that, but I think it's generally a poor idea to stray from simple, clear, and concise business writing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've asked for a third opinion. Capuchinpilates ( talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What if my rewrite was un-reverted, and adapted in ways others thought necessary? The re-write was criticized by Popcornduff as full of unnecessary detail. I tried to take out many details that were not pertinent to the overall plot, and put in ones that were. For example, with the beach scene, I took out that 1) the couple drowned, 2) the swimmer was hit in the head with a rock, 3) the woman dragged him to a van, 4) the baby was left, and 5) the motorcyclist took away the belongings. It was too much detail for one scene. What was important was that the woman observed the swimmer trying to save the couple, because this is directly related to the largest plot arc, the transformation of the woman.
I also took out these unnecessary details 6) lady was put in the back of a van, 7) the women went to a nightclub, 8) the swimmer touches another man, 9) the lonely man gets bundled into a car, 10) the van in abandoned in the fog, 11) the woman walks to a restaurant, 12) she retches and spits out cake, 13) she goes to a bus stop, 14) a man offers to help her, 15) the man brings her home, 16) they eat and other stuff, 17) she’s alone in a room, 18) she goes to a castle, 19) she kisses the man, 20) she examines her vagina, 21) she goes to a bothy, and 22) that the logger is of the “commercial” variety. However, if anyone thinks any of these scenes are important and should be included, please add it back in.
My rewrite was also criticized for summarising scenes in a weird way, such as, "a series of increasingly unsettling experiences that leave her confused, curious and afraid." But I think that this sentence serves various purposes. It is the topic sentence of the paragraph, rather than the topic sentence being “The woman visits a nightclub and picks up another man.” The weird sentence also serves to concisely describe what happens after the beginning part of the movie. And the scenes that are then briefly described in this paragraph, are in the service of this topic sentence, and in relating the important influences upon the main character. For example, the plot summary of the movie Melancholia has this topic sentence: “Over the course of the evening, Justine is frustrated by various personal and professional difficulties.” But if someone thinks that my weird sentence should be rewritten to be clearer, or include a different set of scenes to punctuate it, that fine with me.
Another criticism was that it isn’t important that the word “mute” is used to describe the motorcyclist. That’s right I think, it isn’t important, but I think that they character with the second most scenes in the move deserves some description. On the Wikipedia page on How To Write a Plot Summary, it gives this good example: “The girl, Little Red Riding Hood, is described as 'a dear little girl who was loved by everyone who looked at her.” If she can have a whole sentence about her, why can’t the motorcyclist have one word? To me mute seemed good because it’s pretty shocking that a common character never speaks a single word, and mute is not just a glaring fact, but also seems to capture his ethos. But if others think another adjective better fits, replace it.
Another criticism was using “impassively” to describe how the protagonist drives. She spends a lot of time driving in the movie, and does it in a very particular way. I think an adverb is proper to evoke the very strange way she both interacts with the world, and looks.
These following two phrases were critiqued as purple prose and flower: "completes her masquerade" and "she is no longer the hunter but the hunted.” Completing her masquerade, is a simple description of what she was up to in a number of sequential scenes, and the phrase contains not a single adjective or adverb. Purple prose would be: “In superfluously completing the over-wrought, and grotesque masquerade-like maneuver …” For the line about the hunted, I explained earlier in talk that it was factual, concise, and relevant to the larger plot. These kinds of descriptions may have a taint of interpretation, but are not original research, and are factual. Neither of the 2 phrases are flowery. But both are also not crucial to the section, so take em out if anyone wants. That goes more so for the line about being in the dirt; the reason I wrote it is because being in the dirt is purposely shot this way, as it is evocative of what is happening to the character.
Plus, I don’t think we need to be zealots in keeping any whiff of interpretation out of the plot section. For most movies a simple description of the scenes will do, but for a movie like this with almost no dialogue and the movie itself providing no overt explanation of anything, I think a small amount of explanation of the plot is needed. Like for Fight Club: “When the narrator has believed himself to be asleep, Tyler has in fact been controlling his body.”
Popcornduff wondered what problem I was trying to solve by writing it; the problem was that the summary wasn't very useful. For the Wikipedia reader who hasn’t seen the movie but wants to know what it is about, the summary offered little of the actual plot. For the reader coming to the site because they saw the movie and were confused by it, it offered little more than an arbitrary series of some of the scenes that they had just watched. Capuchinpilates ( talk) 02:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I did the edit I was talking about above, it was reverted by Popcornduff, and I just opened up a dispute on the Dispute Resolution Board. You can follow the proceedings there. Capuchinpilates ( talk) 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to PRAISE the plot summary. It is exactly what is needed. It is minimalistic and distanced from interpretation. It is very tricky to summarize a film such as this, but I think the OP did a terrific job! I actually read the last paragraph and thought "yeah, but, doesn't this mean that ...." and I think that is a good thing! Jackbox1971 ( talk) 08:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Without implying anything plot-wise, I think it should be mentioned that the corpse the motorcyclist retrieves at the beginning looks the same as the woman who then takes her clothes. It's an important and self-evident plot element left to the viewer to ponder. Kumagoro-42 20:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it seems you're just dismissing audience reception. I'm sorry, but that isn't being fair to the audiences. 6.2 on IMDB is an incredibly mediocre score to receive. Look at the stats:
The highest amount of scores for the film given are 7, 8, 6, 5 and 1. That to me doesn't seem like a film that's fully positive. Dismissing the polarizing statement is incorrect and I must insist you read it. Rusted AutoParts 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The sentence 'Under the Skin was chosen by 20 critics and publications as the best film of 2014 from 122 top-ten lists' is not actually what the cited source [1] states. The source gives the film 122 'points' based on a scoring system, being (20 x 3) + (7 x 2) + (48 x 1) = 122. The actual number of lists referred to is 20 + 7 + 48 = 75. The total number of lists drawn from is 201. Hence the film appeared on 75 of a possible 201 lists, of which it was chosen as the best on 20.
ENKC ( talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I just read the plot section - it was very hard to follow (and that's coming from someone who's seen the film). If anything I would say it tries to imitate the artsy feel of the movie: mysterious, truncated and inexplicable.
But. What makes for a strong cinematic experience makes for a confusing trainwreck of an encyclopedic article. While our articles should not assume things that aren't in the film, we must be comprehensible. The plot section must be written for a reader who haven't seen the film, and should be clear and concise.
If the story does not make sense, fine: but then we need to make sure that's what happens in the film, and not on paper. A reader certainly does not need to walk away understanding everything if a movie watcher doesn't. But the reader should not feel the article is strangely failing to clearly depict events.
Feel free to edit further, but if you remove something that you feel is an assumption that isn't supported by the events of the film, make sure you don't leave our plot summary hanging. There's being terse, and then there's being incomprehensible. CapnZapp ( talk) 09:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The plot section says that she and the man from the bus watch tv and eat. There was definitely food prepared, but did she eat any? 2602:306:3A29:7740:C51D:BA0D:439F:F5F9 ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I'm part of a research group of undergrads trying to improve the quality of this WP page. Looking at Featured and A Class film articles, what stands out is an overall better structure for the page, and better formatting for the different sections of the article. May I suggest beginning by adding a [Cast] section after the plot? If no one objects I'll add it myself. All the best 95.144.243.60 ( talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm also part of the research group of undergrads trying to improve the quality of this WP page. If nobody objects I am interested in including some research regarding the exploration of gender politics in the film, as i have noticed there are is some research connected to this theme, however i have found some articles which might provide some more scholarly value. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.qmul.ac.uk/stable/10.1525/fq.2014.67.4.44?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Niamh- -murphy ( talk) 14:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Structural reorganisation of some of the paragraphs ('production' and sub-headers 'pre-production', 'filming' and 'post-production') - Repositioning of images to avoid sandwiching - Additional info about dash-cams hidden in the van used for filming (under 'filming') - Added track list for the soundtrack - Added scholarly comments for the 'themes' section concerning female representation - Added GBP figures in the summary table at the top of the article. I think that should cover it. We endeavored to find valuable secondary and tertiary sources to support every change. Feel free to revert any changes that don't improve the quality of the page or contravene WP guidelines. Thank you again for bearing with us these past few weeks! Christian Dametto ( talk) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm also part of the research group aiming to improve the quality of this page. I've gone through the references and removed a few that were linked to articles that were either not available or had been taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulymaan Hameed ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I just got done watching this movie, and during the attempts to pick up men while driving a van I was able to predict the rest of the movie based on what I remembered about the 1995 film "Species." That film was a concept of Dennis Feldman in 1987 that he developed into a script for the film. I may not understand the intricacies of crediting in film making, but it seems the spirit of giving credit should not be suspended just because an immensely similar story is made into a film and released in a different market. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Kamchak ( talk) 01:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)