Talk:The Whale (2022 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Whale (2022 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Hong Chau

An IP editor is trying to add Chau along with Fraser and Sink regarding critics' praise of the actors' performances. The praise for Fraser and Sink is reliably sourced and comes from this which says, "Both Fraser and Sadie Sink's performances have been thoroughly lauded..." While it is possible that Chau's performance has been praised, this source does not cover it. Another source needs to state that, and it cannot be individual reviews since that would be WP:SYNTHesis. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

It looks like this film's reception (in the general sense) may not be so simple to pin down. I think we need to differentiate between different parties. We have film critics, moviegoing audiences, and commentators (who may just be called "critics" in some sources). The review aggregators indicate the balance of film reviews is toward positivity, though it is worth noting that Metacritic's breakdown of 19 positive, 16 mixed, and 5 negative technically means that positive reviews are in the minority (19 vs. 21). While there may be some overlap in commentary, I think it is most appropriate to have film critics' comments in the "Critical reception" section and to have in the "Portrayal of obesity" section comments from others who are not typically film critics. Let's use this discussion thread to hash out anything and to share reliable sources that capture the overall trends. Remember that per WP:SYNTH, we cannot take an individual opinion and say that multiple people felt this way. We can only cite sources that summarize the trends. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This says, "Fraser’s performance has been embraced by critics and audiences starting at the world premiere in Venice earlier this year and has built throughout the fall season... The film received a long standing ovation in Venice, echoed at Q&As throughout the weekend. Exits show extremely strong word of mouth across all audiences for Fraser and co-stars Sadie Sink and Hong Chau." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To WP:BALANCE the "Critical reception" section, using Metacritic above as guidance, a rough sampling of film critics should be proportionally something like 4 positive reviews, 3 mixed, and 1 negative for a total of 8. This can be doubled across the board. Let's make sure not to have too many reviews in any one category more than others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, Barry Wom, keeps trying to template the review-aggregator prose despite WP:TMPG, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." It is unnecessary to hide the text behind a template, especially when this film does not have a straightforward reception to summarize. That is also why it is worth breaking down Metacritic, which categories reviews by positive, mixed, and negative, compared to Rotten Tomatoes, which simplistically categorizes a review as positive or negative. The Metacritic breakdown helps show that positive reviews are only a plurality of all reviews. Furthermore, MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews... Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged," which is reason to have an opening sentence that is based in prose and not numbers. See User:Erik/Best practices#Review aggregators for a fuller argument of this approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RT template I've re-added doesn't contain any text. The template is designed to ensure the same text is used across multiple articles. Fair point on Metacritic though. Barry Wom (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to use the same text across multiple articles, though. The template can make it easier to plug in the default text to at least start working with. MOS:FILM#Critical reception also says, "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in writing; prevalent styles of summarizing or use of templates are not required to be followed." I think it's more appropriate to lead with the RT consensus because it is more descriptive for how critics received a film. We shouldn't be an extension of RT here. No reason that people who like RT can't check the website itself to decide about seeing the movie. The encyclopedia should write for the long run. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points again; I've reverted the changes. To be fair, your previous claim that "templates should not normally be used to store article text" was confusing. Barry Wom (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that there can be a different way to write about a review aggregator's score. Like the average reader may not know that Rotten Tomatoes just categorizes a review as positive or negative, so I've had more explanatory wording in other places. The template text does not strike me as sustainable, long-term writing. "Critics largely praised the film" is more direct than "The film has 69% on Rotten Tomatoes", which doesn't tell a reader from any background or any part of the world that clearly how to understand how a film was received. Hence my personal essay challenging the template-type text. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic is currently breaking down the 42 reviews as 19 positive, 18 mixed, and 5 negative. For what it's worth, the count of reviews can go up to around 62 (though this film may not have that many). We should continue to be mindful of sampling the right balance of reviews for the "Critical reception" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red link

I've added the link The Whale (play) which is red at this time of writing. Per WP:REDLINK, "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Google shows that the play has clear notability with substantial coverage from reliable sources circa 2012 as seen here. Therefore the red link should not be removed, and an article for the play should be created by someone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone removed red link again. LancedSoul (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. A comment below missed the point, but the point here is that it has clear notability, and there's nothing lazy about waiting for a competent page-creator to put in the work. It's always those hiding behind anonymous IPs that make the bizarre comments. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well no..that guideline is supported by references from 2008 when there were far less articles, adding a red link and just saying "you guys create this and don't remove the red link" is pretty lazy...

The whale in the room

Should the whale in the room be addressed? as in why it was probably liked by critics at the international film festival but disliked by critics and pundits in american media? I don't know if any sources mention this. It's always hard to find evidence of systemic bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:45:4C25:9484:50C:9A5A:338 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless there’s an actual credible source that discusses this. That’s how Wikipedia works - third-party sources. Of course if you’ve found one, feel free to add it to the article as it would add to the representation of the film’s reception. Rebochan (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph in plot section

Should the opening paragraph start in the plot section with "Charlie is a morbidly obese and reclusive professor" or "Charlie is a reclusive professor with severe obesity"? An IP user has changed it to the latter sentence instead of sticking with the former. Edwordo13 (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office drop - correlation implied causation

This sentence is framed in such a way to imply correlation/causation:

“It dropped 20% domestically following the announcement of Fraser and Chau's Oscar nominations.[28]” 194.223.177.198 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis: The Ending

Hello all,

I've noticed that every time I've looked at this page, the ending to the plot synopsis is different. The ending to the film is ambiguous; did we just see Charlie die, or is it symbolic? When we see the shot of the family on the beach is this a flashback, or has he ascended to his version of Heaven? It's hard to say which version is the "definitive" one as it's left open to interpretation. So I suppose what I'm asking is, how should this be phrased? At present I removed mention of the final shot of the beach. I'm not leaning too heavily either way on this, but the main reason I started this discussion is because I see it keeps going back and forth. Would love to hear other peoples thoughts. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to leave it as is, as it states exactly what happened. ("Charlie begins to float as he becomes engulfed in a bright white light.") Anything else (he died, he's in heaven, etc.) is interpretation and Wiki is not the place for that. Bobbyandbeans (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At most I think it could mention that the final image is of an aforementioned family visit to the beach, though I'm leaning more towards not including this. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that idea of leaving it as Charlie floating and being engulfed in light, I just might support rewriting it slightly to include the violence (for lack of a better word) with which he is jerked/convulses, if I remember correctly, right before the light takes over.

Regarding the beach sequence, I'm fine with including it, as long as it doesn't break the fourth wall ("we see Charlie and his family on the beach"). But I'm okay leaving it off as well. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinnamonrollsaregood, Bobbyandbeans, and YouCanDoBetter: There should be no debate about this. Read MOS:PLOT. The film is the source for the plot, not our interpretation of what happened. We only write what see and hear in the film. Any interpretation about the meaning in the film belongs in a "Themes" section, with reliable sources. All we see is the character looking up and being engulfed in bright white light. That's it. We don't see anything else. You are entitled to your personal conclusion that he died, went to heaven, or whatever other personal interpretation you might have (and there are many possible interpretations), but it does not belong in the Plot section. In any event, MOS:PLOT is the default, so there needs to be a clear consensus to violate MOS:PLOT to add any explanation about what happened. Sundayclose (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much the consensus. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do see the shot of the family at the beach directly after he is engulfed in the bright white light. I think thats why there has been a lot of back and forth on whether or not to delete it. If all we saw was the bright white light and then the end credits, that would be different, but we see the shot of the beach and then it goes to the credits. If anything, I'm wondering if the final sentence should read "The final shot of the film is of a previously mentioned trip that Charlie, Ellie and Mary took to the beach". That's more so the question I'm trying to answer here with other editors opinions.

IMHO there's no reason to include it. Wiki plot sections don't include every single thing you see on screen and it's not vital to the plot or film overall so what would be the point of adding it? Plus the section is already dangerously close to the 700 word limit.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that there should be no mention of him dying and going to Heaven or anyones personal interpretation of what the ending meant (such as "he begins to float to symbolize his guilt has been lifted"). Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie's sexuality

Should Charlie's homosexuality be stated at the very beginning of the plot section or not? I occasionally take a look at the opening paragraph of the plot section and it's sometimes there. Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Edwordo13 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The important issue in this regard is the relationship Charlie was in that eventually led to his obesity and health problems. The nature of Charlie's sexuality becomes evident as the plot description continues. If he had been in a heterosexual relationship, we wouldn't state it at the beginning of the plot summary. There's no need to mention his homosexuality any earlier. Sundayclose (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"She wasn't trying to hurt him"

With Charlie's statement to Liz near the end of the film that Ellie "didn't do it to hurt him, she did it to send him home...she just wanted to send him home," it seems that Charlie is saying that Ellie "outed" Alan to his parents in the same way she blabbed to Thomas's parents, only in Alan's case it didn't work out that way, as Alan was rejected by his parents and committed suicide. This helps to explain Thomas's earlier comment that Ellie's behavior is confusing in that it isn't always clear whether she is trying to help or hurt someone. I haven't seen this crucial plot point analyzed, or even discussed anywhere online. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want changes to the article, we must have a reliable source to support your claim, not just your opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not the place to "analyze" or "discuss" the plot but to just quickly introduce the characters and outline major events. "These characters, who are this-and-that, do this thing. Then this happens, then this character reveals this, then this other character does this..." For discussion or analyzing I might suggest Reddit, that site has threads for movies.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some film articles do have a section for analysis (sometimes referred to as "Themes"), but they are not based on Wikipedia editors' opinions. They are cited to very reputable sources of film criticism. Examples: Ghost World (film) and Brokeback Mountain. Sundayclose (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]