Talk:Fight Club/Archive 1

Plot

The plot section should be completely rewritten. Not only is it missing a lot of details, but the writing and grammar are quite poor. I suggest using the novel's article as a guideline for what to add in to it (though keep in mind the differences between the novel and film when doing so). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 20:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this was written two years ago. Well, I rewrote most of the section[1], though I should have checked the book's article beforehand. I plan to continue editing later. This entire article is still really lacking. -Bordello 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite all those revisions, I still think the plot section is a little weak. Can someone help to further revise it? -Bordello 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the plot? We don't need to expand it, but all these random edits are making it fall apart. I'm going to put up a different tag up there once I figure out how. -Bordello 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to assume Marla is irrelivent to the plot, she is part of why the narrator realises who Tyler is she deserves a mention. While I the rules are not essential in the plot seciton there inclusion in the article would be sensible.

Some of the other edits I made were becase I felt it made the article read better esp. the bit aobut project mayhem, where it is almost repeating itself, the current paragraph brakes are somewhat arbitrary, not clearly linked to stages in the plot, having them at what in a play would be act breaks would make it easier to follow.

Moving the picture was simply to put it in with the text about project mayhem which makes sense, also spacing through the article makes it easier to read. You also seem to have made a factual error about the phone calls.

There is a template asking for the article to be expanded so I did! You have effectivley reverted the article, why not just lable it as such? Nate1481 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Narrator's name

I think it is important to note where the name "Jack" from the credites originated. Now for some reason, LGagnon editted out this part: "The name of the Edward Norton's character is never mentioned in the film, but he is usually referred to as "Jack" in reference to the series of Reader's Digest articles he reads throughout the film."

Shouldn't it stay?

-- [[User:Spikeballs|Spikeballs]]

The narrator is never referred to as Jack; he says "I am Jack's (organ/feeling)", but never says "I am Jack." That is why I removed it; there is no name given for the character, period. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

On the official website he was referred to as Jack. Mmmmya, he was. Period 165.146.94.72 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added back in, but with the modifier "fans refer to the narrator as", not "he is referred to as". The latter implies that he might be referred to that by the movie or maybe the author of the book, actors in the film. "Jack" is only used by the fans. I don't remember hearing anything on the commentaries about the name. --Queson 16:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, how about "The name of Edward Norton's character is never mentioned in the film, but fans of the film often refer to him as "Jack," in reference to the series of Reader's Digest articles he reads throughout the film."? Surely everybody will agree this is accurate and informative enough to go into the article?

-- Spikeballs 17:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Reads and paraphrases" would be more accurate, but otherwise that's ok. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

referred to as "Jack" by many of the film's fans reads wrong to me. Fans are more likely to be picky and bring up the fact he's never named :-) However, in the screenplay he's labelled as Jack, and the VHS video's blurb reads "Norton stars as Jack, a chronic insomniac...". I'm thinking about how to best phrase this. -- Jon Dowland 15:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Beyond this, though, when he's not called by one of his pseudonyms (Rupert, etc.) most people in the movie call him "sir" or Tyler. So, for this, I suppose he can only correctly be called "the narrator", though that is tiring to say. Is there a solution to this? -Bordello 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Even Palahniuk never refers to him as anything but "the narrator". It's like trying to do a Dr Who article without saying "the Doctor". -- LGagnon 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's "the narrator" indefinitely then. -Bordello 08:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The narrator uses many names in the movie: "Cornelius" (one of the apes from planet of the apes), "Jack" (from the journals found in the house on Paper street: "I am Jack's colon. If I get cancer, I kill Jack). The journals have other names, probably more personalities in Narrator's messed up mind. (e.g., "I am Jane's erect nipples..."). He is so disassociative that he doesn't have a core personality. That was what Marla and Tyler were for... Hotspur

Someone went throught replacing with Jack again, changed it back Nate1481 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"The narrator"/"The Narrator" should be consistently capitalized or not. It's inconsistent again in both the Plot and Differences section. --Hcethatsme 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I made it all lowercase. Wasn't sure which we wanted but I don't consider it a proper name. Every name is taken12345 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On the DVD, on the Chuck Palahniuk and Jim Uhls Commentary, the main character is consistantly referred to as "Jack", its more that just fans of the film, its the novelist and screenplay writer. FrankieVA 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the narrator is never officially called Jack in the film. If you read the name on his paycheck, it says "Jack Moore" on it. Papabrow 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to the Trivia section. I think we should leave the actual article alone on this. Every name is taken12345 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gothic 2

Could someone point out some proof for the Gothic 2 information? I've looked around the web and I've seen nothing so far. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Because nobody has resonded, I'm removing the part about Gothic 2. -- LGagnon 00:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a GOTHIC NOVELS semester course, so from what I've studied, Fight Club is very gothic in a post-modern context.

My argument is that Fight Club manifests "the gothic" from a Freudian, psychological perspective in respect to the consumerist time setting.

(If you are unfamiliar with "the gothic" in terms of what constitutes a "gothic hero" from a psychological perspective, I suggest you read Freud's "Mourning versus Melancholia." My definition of "the gothic" is very psychologically based. Continue if interested!)

I've been contemplating Freud's concepts of mourning and melancholia in the context of a post-modern consumerist world. I have a theory that a melancholic (in this context) may direct his cathexis not exclusively in himself but rather in material objects. In the setting of a capitalist society, one could argue that a modern-day melancholic's love object may be material, but the psychological implications of the love object suggest that the love object actually represents his perception of a love object desired by someone else. That is, the melancholic directs his cathexis according to his materialistic desires and in an object that is essentially an object desired by society.

Thus, in the context of a post-modern consumerist world, when the melancholic loses his love object, his cathexis has no object to fulfil his desire for plaisir. In other words, by losing the love object, the melancholic has essentially lost the basis for his cultural identity.

Thus, a melancholic directs his cathexis away from plaisir (such would be the case for a person in mourning) but rather towards jouissance. To compensant for his lost, the melancholic invests his emotional and psychological energy (cathexis) in a particular excess that goes beyond his desire for conformity. By chosing jouissance rather than plaisir, the melancholic destroys his cultural identity by moving away from his normative subjectivity towards nihilism.

When I researched the term "jouissance," I learned that it was considered to be "self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent self," and suicidal. These tendencies apply to melancholics, which is the definition I learned in class.

Oftentimes, a "gothic hero" is melancholic. There is an actual "loss" (person, ideal,..) but also an ambiguous loss that can't be described (or acknowledged). This discrepancy causes the gothic hero to deal with his loss in an unhealthy manner; rather than redirect his cathexis towards something else (move on) he directs it towards himself. He subconsciously must feed his ego. Depression is often a result, in which the melancholic's behavior of self-deprecation lowers his self-esteem. Melancholics oftentimes become increasingly narcissitic as they continue to feed their ego until the "love/lost object" becomes the ego.

The protagonist's (Edward Norton) love object is his material possessions. His alter ego (Brad Pitt) destroys his love object, thus destroying his cultural connection to society (castration). Norton externalizes his repressed emotions (a very gothic tendency) in Brad Pitt. Note, however, that what is repressed is not always negative.

Norton and Pitt inhabit an abandoned, dark, cramped, decaying house on the margins of society (a very gothic setting).

If you have any questions, or wish for me to continue my analysis, don't hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

OTHER GOTHIC REFERENCES: Melancholia (Freud) Frankenstein (Mary Shelly) The Yellow Wallpaper (Charlotte Perkins Gilman) the uncanny doubles/twins repressed emotions externalized dark, abandoned spaces death of a beautiful woman sublime eroticism/fetishes female sexuality (threatening) phallic simbolism / castration revenge .....

Edgar Allen Poe -- 24.193.95.48

First of all, do not delete my comments when you write your own; it is not proper wiki ettiquette. Second of all, your comment is totally unrelated to the subject of this section. We were talking about the game Gothic 2, not gothicness in general. As for your interpretations, it will not help this article for you to impose your POV onto it. Unless you can cite a source that backs your opinion (and one that is specifically about Fight Club), you have no reason to add your opinion as fact. -- LGagnon 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LGagnon- sorry! That was my first wikipedia entry. I should have established the fact that I was posting my POV. I thought "Gothic 2" just meant gothic as a theme in the movie. If what I posted is inappropriate, you may delete it. I just wanted to help....if someone studying gothic literature or pyschology came across my article they might find it useful.

On another note, my Gothic teacher read the entry I posted above and agreed with my theory. It shouldn't be construed as a fact. It is my personal opinion and I posted it so you can do whatever you want with it (agree, disagree, whatever).

You don't have to note that you are giving POV on the talk page; that's understood on talk pages. My point was that you were not providing anything that helps to further the article. Talk pages are here for commentary on how to improve the article, not commentary on the subject matter alone. It's no big deal though; as long as you understand how the talk pages work now I'm not bothered by it. -- LGagnon 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Major philosophical difference in Project Mayhem between book and movie

In the film, Tyler is careful to plan the demolition of the credit card company buildings to occur when they are unoccupied, to avoid direct loss of life. His "in the future I see" speech and other statements suggest that he is aiming for no less than the total destruction of civilization as we know it, which would of course indirectly lead to tens of millions of casualties.

In the novel, Tyler seems unconcerned about killing people directly.

I'm guessing that the change was made in the screenplay in order to make slightly less politically incorrect. This seems like a pretty significant difference to me; should something about this be added to the list of differences?

-- Brouhaha 06:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not capitalize fight club

For those who haven't read the book, Palahniuk never once capitalizes the club's name. The only time it is ever capitalized is in the book's title. To keep this article consistent with the book's presentation, I believe we should keep all instances of "fight club" in lower case unless referring to the title of the book and/or film. -- LGagnon 19:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it just to be consistant with the book, but I agree to it grammar-wise anyway. -Bordello 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarities to other films

Let's try not to fill this section up too much. Tons of films are compared to one another over and over again, and eventually this section could become nothing more than a nit-picking trivia section. The article should try not to stray its focus into other films unless they are really notable for the purpose of this article. In my opinion, Collateral isn't really notable enough to have added a large paragraph about it. -- LGagnon 17:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I think the Collateral connection is bigger than the 12 Monkeys ones, but I guess you're right that that's beyond the scope of the article. Maybe the entire section could be reduced to a paragraph in the trivia section. It could state that the motives of Fight Club are repeated in a few other films, sometimes incidentally, sometimes as direct homage. Then a couple of names can be mentioned, namely Collateral and 12 Monkeys. What do you think? Spikeballs 20:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an improvement. Go ahead and try your idea and we'll see how it works out. -- LGagnon 02:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you watch 12 Monkies, believe me, the connection is there. Its actually almost like Tyler Durden is in two movies. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why Collateral is an homage to Fight Club? There's no explanation in this article nor mention of Fight Club in the Collateral article. -- Jon Dowland 15:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Look at an older version of the page (somewhere around July 16-18). There's an elaborate explanation. Spikeballs 09:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I think someone should mention the Korean thriller "Tale of Two Sisters" as a very similar film when compared to Fight Club. Both main characters, the narrator and Su-mi (Tale of Two Sisters) are both unreliable narrators and have the same split personality disorder problem and both are potentially and actually very destructive characters...has anyone seen this movie? If not, then punch in "Tale of Two Sisters" and read up! -- Ren 06:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's an Introduction to the LOTR. Now you understand why Gollum always talks that way.--Mato Rei 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitting Tyler not requirement for staying with him.

From my DVD, after Tyler asks Jack to ask him if he wants to stay at his place. 0:30:44:

Jack: Can I stay at your place?
Tyler: Yeah.
Jack: Thanks.
They walk a bit, Tyler turns and comes back.
Tyler: I want you to do me a favor.
Jack: Yeah, sure.
Tyler: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Jack: What?
Tyler: I want you to hit me, as hard as you can.
Flash forward in the flashback to splicing frames and seasoning the hotel food.

0:32:45:

Jack: What do you want me to do you just want me to hit you?
Tyler: Come on, do me this one favor.
Jack: Why?
Tyler: Why I don't know why. I don't know. Never been in a fight, you?

I disagree.

"Jack: Can I stay at your place?

Tyler: Yeah."

Arrangement made. Concluded. A done deal.

Note that Tyler doesn't say "But only if you do me a favour", or anything remotely similar. He simply readily agrees that Jack can stay at his place, without imposing conditions. Well, he would, wouldn't he.... who's place is it, anyway? TheMadBaron 05:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

LG, I again checked, and I still don't hear a "But". The subtitles' (which is however quite sloppy) also without it. I have the R2 special edition DVDs. — Jeandré, 2005-09-18t20:23z

Here's an excerpt from the screenplay:

JACK: Can I stay at your place?
TYLER: Yes, you can.
JACK: Thank you.
TYLER: Your welcome. But, I wan't you to do me one favor.

I don't read the 'But, ' as implying it's a condition of staying at his place. More, He would like him to do this favor, as he owes one, as a result of Tyler putting him up. -- Jon Dowland 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the screenplay: Right... which the film is based on. Just as the screenplay is based on the book. If you check back just a bit in it you'll find "Why don't you cut the shit and ask if you can stay at my place?" where the film has the "So just ask. Cut the foreplay and just ask, man"

So, the "interpretation" I did just now:

J: Aww, it's late. Hey, thanks for the beer.
T: Yeah, man.
J: I should find a hotel.
T: What?
J: What?!
T: A hotel?
J: Yeah.
T: Just ask, man.
J: What are you talking about?
T: Oh god... 3 pitchers of beer and you still can't ask.
J: What?
T: You called me because you needed a place to stay.
J: Oh hey. No no no.
T: Yes you did. So just ask. Cut the foreplay and just ask, man.
J: Would that be a problem?
T: A problem for you to ask?
J: Can I stay at your place?
T: Yeah.

T: I want you to do me a favour.
J: Yeah sure.
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
J: What?
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
(End of scene)

And here's from the screenplay: (which never mentions going outside even)

J: (looks at watch) God, it's late. I should find a hotel...
T: A hotel?
J: Yeah.
T: So, you called me up, because you just wanted to have a drink before you... go find a hotel?
J: I don't follow...
T: We're on our third pitcher of beer. Just ask me.
J: Huh?
T: You called me so you could have a place to stay.
J: No, I...
T: Why don't you cut the shit and ask if you can stay at my place?
J: Would that be a problem?
T: Is it a problem for you to ask?
J: Can I stay at your place?
T: Yes, you can.
J: Thank you.
T: You're welcome. But, I want you to do me one favor.
J: What's that?
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
J: What?
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Freeze picture.

{sjöar 213.67.90.98 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)}

Hitting Tyler was not a requirement of staying, it was more of a friendly gesture. Although this could be up for major interpretation and only the makers of the movie truly know, it seems as this is more of a friendly "guy request" made by Tyler and although the narrator would have gotten shit for it if he didnt. he probably would have still been allowed to stay. Also, if you think more literally into the film, This is actually the narrator asking himself this, he wouldnt have asked unless he was open to it on some level and either way, he (in the Tyler sence) would have let him stay because he ultimatly needed a place to stay.Papabrow 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast section size

Do we really need to include every minor role in the Cast section? I'm going to remove some of the minor characters for now, as many aren't improtant and won't likely have articles for their actors. -- LGagnon 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

brazilian shooting

a 24 years old medicine student in brazil after shooting the bathroom's mirror invaded the movie theater of a shopping center with a SMG and shot the public until the last bullet killing and injuring people. the film got blamed and bacame infamous in brazil. wouldn't be intersting to put something about it in the article? - 201.14.240.226, 2005-11-12t09:28:32z

Here is a source, if anyone cares to add it: [2] --God Ω War 05:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't say the film was blamed; it just says he was watching it at the time. It also notes that the city where it happened is a very violent place already. -- LGagnon 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Theme

The way I have interpreted this film is that of the consequences of living in modern society. The biggest point, in my opinion is how our androcentric and "macho" society has actually robbed males of their masculinity. Furthermore, about how it has served to alienate modern man from everyone around him, hence the sensibility in the idea of a "single serving friend". I think the film is a great critique of consumerism and capitalism, and reinforces anarchist ideals instead

I don't think it's accurate to suggest the film's major themes are that of anarchism. There are just as many themes that contradict anarchist philosophy, such as the cult of personality worship the "space monkeys" develop for Tyler. It also would seem that while anti-consumerism as at the heart of the story and modern anarchism, there are many philosophies that also carry anti-consumerism as part of their ideological pov. As anarchism is never specifically referenced in the text or film, we must seek the author's intentions on the subject. Until the author states that the theme was anarchism, or that Tyler is meant to be an anarchist, we should not assume it is. Cast

No Logo

While I can understand the anti-consumerism comparison, No Logo couldn't have been echoed by the film, as the book was published the year after the film's theatrical release. I suggest either removing that or editing it to be more accurate. -- LGagnon 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Columbine's effect on the movie's Box Office

The Columbine High School massacre was still in the minds of Americans (and film critics) when Fight Club premiered. At the time I was taking a course with film critic Leonard Maltin and the subject came up. Fight Club had the unfortunate timing of being the first, seemingly overly violent (albeit, to those who were not looking very hard), film that got the brunt of critical reaction to violence in film --critics were looking for a film to lash out at and a big name commercial film with strong elements of anarchy was the perfect target. Interestingly, as time passed, and the emotions of Columbine cooled, the critical praise of the film grew to what it is today. Bobak 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's probably best to include more info on that than just a sentence, though; a whole paragraph would be nice. -- LGagnon 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Breasts

Havent seen the film but can someone explain to me if this guy has image:Robert_Pulson_with_Jack.jpg.jpg female breasts and why? Tutmosis 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Go read the novel's article. -- LGagnon 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually see the film before posting comments like this...--58.162.103.251 03:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Homoeroticism

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include the homoerotic themes of the film in the Reactions and Themes section? It's mentioned briefly in the novel's article, but a paragraph here could take note of the various images; the phallic gun in Edward Norton's mouth, the hyper-masculinization, the near-sexual fervor of the violence, and various dialogue referring to the main characters' relationship ("ozzie and harriet", "breaking up", etc.). -- Mrcool1122 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Find some outside sources for criticism first. It's best to prove that someone is criticizing the film that way first before adding in details that may back that claim. -- LGagnon 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This Web page discusses homoeroticism in the movie: "There's a blatant homoerotic charge to this identification which the film doesn't shy away from..." Amy Taubin, the author, sometimes writes film reviews for the Village Voice. I think this theme deserves inclusion in the article. Griot 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want a scholarly source that talks about it, look up Robert Alan Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus's article "Hiding Homoeroticism in Plain View: The Fight Club DVD as Digital Closet." It's in Critical Studies in Media Communication Volume 19, Issue 1 (March 2002), pages 21-43. Used it recently in a paper on the DVD extras as a means of squelching interpretation.ProfJeFF 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot I wasn't signed in, edited to include sig)

His name is Robert Paulson

Can someone explain what the chanting of "His name is Robert Paulson" was all about? JoachimK 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When the Narrator says it, he s denying the destruction of his friend's identity to the other members of Mayhem; they take it as a sign that only in death will they regain their identity, and so honor their first fallen brother whenever one of them dies. Daemon8666 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The narrator's motivation

From "Differences between novel and film":

"The narrator shoots himself to kill Tyler, rather than to make a decision on his own as in the novel."

Isn't the narrator's motivation in the film actually ambiguous? How can we be sure it was to kill Tyler? FAL 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The scene is quite different from in the novel. In the novel, Tyler is already gone for good by the time he shoots himself. The narrator already got rid of him simply by arguing with him. In the film, Tyler is still there, and the narrator is still trying to get rid of him. Since the narration says nothing about why he's shooting himself, the only thing we can tell for certain is that he's still trying to get rid of Tyler. -- LGagnon 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He shoots himself to so that Tyler will not hurt anyone else. Killing himself is the only way to ensure this.--God Ω War 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, not anything definite. Palahniuk's characters are very morally ambiguous, and thus you may be wrong. -- LGagnon 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article "differences between novel and film" thers a line about a woman giong crazy because of a anonamous note left about piss and a perfume bottle.It is indistinguishable if they mean he pissed in it or on it. -- 63.238.223.66

Could you cite a page number for that? I don't remember that scene. -- LGagnon 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the way I see this the narrator shoots himself in order to get rid of Tyler, but looking at the actions the narrator takes after shooting himself it seems to me he actually became Tyler. Does finally hitting bottom make you Tyler? -- Archy 23:47, 31 January 2006 (GMT+1)

Does anyone know why the narrator only has a bullet hole in his cheek while tyler has a bullet hole in the back of his head?Papabrow 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pay increases

Shouldn't something be included about the fact that it was supposed to be a very low budget movie but Pitt refused to take a pay cut after saying he would and therefore the movie cost alot more than it recouped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.176.26 (talk • contribs)

Not without an external source. Slac speak up! 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue mistake

The narrator didn't make a mistake when he said that it began with Marla; the screenwriter did. In the novel, the narrator also says it began with Marla, but he goes on to explain why he says this, rather than jump to Bob. In the novel, Marla was the catalyst for the awakening of Tyler's personality (which the screenwriter also left out of the film). The scene isn't proof that he's an unreliable narrator (even though he is); it's proof that they couldn't fit the entire prologue into the film. -- LGagnon 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clues about Durden's identity

The "Clues..." section screams original research, as it offers analysis of quotes and shots from the film w/out reference to a secondary source. Anyone have a source for these? I would think it necessary to delete the section without one. --Newt ΨΦ 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Finding references for most of those shouldn't be that difficult. I did cull this line, though:

After his first fight the Narrator notes that everything in life gets the volume turned down. The first punch thrown in the first fight was straight to Tyler's ear.

I've never heard anything about that being a "clue," and it really seems like it's stretching it a bit. Jeff Silvers 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the entire subject of the possible clues to Tyler's identity, prior to the revelation at the end, is really nothing more than interpretation of the film. Though all indication from those involved in the film are that this is/was encouraged. I think that the movie is dense enough that numerous sections on this page are really nothing more than interpretations. If that is a problem, then they all could probably be relocated to such a page.--Absurdity 01:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fight Club Narrator NOT an Actuary

I think it was on this site that someone first wrote that Norton's character is an actuary. This rumour has now been propagated to other pages. I think this was a genuine mistake rather than an act of attempted vandalism but I must stress that the character is not an actuary. He isn't like an actuary or "kind of" an actuary... he isn't an actuary at all anymore than he is a professional cricket player. I'm a big fan of the film (seen it like ten times) and I'm an actuary and trust me, we don't inspect broken cars or whatever... As I've already written on the actuary discussion page:

"The narrator in Fight Club is not an actuary. He inspects defective cars and notes how many have gone wrong due to the car company's negligence. This is not at all actuarial work, especially as he does not do it for insurance purposes or analyse it financially but rather his aims is to find out the car manufacturer's breakdown rate. Let me try and clarify what it is about. An actuary would not typically go out on site and investigate claims. Other people would do that and then the actuary would then use that claim-frequency information (coupled with the financial impact of the claim) to estimate the insurance company's liablities. It is a mathematical office job, we do not go and check out car wreckages or attend funerals to ensure life insurance claims are valid. Typically you're dealing with thousands or even millions of policies and claims as an actuary; any individual one is of little interest to you, rather the overall statistical happenings are what is of importance."--Zoso Jade 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Fictional Actuaries Actuarial disco boy 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this is all very interesting, and, now, duly noted. You're right, I was wrong. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, an Actuary is: "A statistician who computes insurance risks and premiums." Norton's character does not compute insurance risks nor premiums, but merely figures out the equasion for the probability of fatal defects in his company's cars, to save money, weighing settlement costs of dead or injured customers against call-back costs. Ok, clear.

But, it doesn't answer the question: what is he then? Even if he isn't by the strictest definition an "actuary", I don't understand what other job Norton's character could have. If someone could clarify this for me, I would appreciate it. -Bordello 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not direclty mentioned in the film in a similar manner ot his name. 'Liability Assessor', might be apropreate but it smacks of original research Nate1481 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In one scene (after the narrator's boss finds his "The first rule of fight club is..." paper in the copier), the narrator answers the phone with "Complicance and Liability." Maybe this could be incorporated into the description of his job...?

In the beginning of the scene in which the Narrator is investigating the charred husk of a car crash, he identifies himself as a "recall coordinator" in the voice-over. the mention happens at 20:25, approximately.--Absurdity 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Starcraft Zerg Briefining room soundtrack used in a scene

When the boss comes with the fight club paper and the narator kind of loses it. Listen closely and you'll hear something familiar

"real" fight clubs inspired by the film?

I seem to remember that the film caused "real" fight clubs to spring up in the US and possibly in other countries. I have done basic web searches but have turned up nothing. Has anyone got specific info on this? It would be very interesting as a social phenomenon, given that the film's portrayal of violence was rather realistic - I mean, if it was glamorised violence then a "real" fight club would last about as long as it took for the club members to experience the real thing. But since the violence was not glamorised (relatively speaking), I wonder how the "real" fight clubs fared? Sociologically this would be fascinating... I seem to remember reading about it in a newspaper around 6 months after the film was released. If anyone can include a source or info I'd be grateful. Thanks. Ryancolm 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do a search on YouTube for "Fight Club," you'll come across a number of amateur videos ostensibly of fight clubs. More often than not, however the fighters are not engaging in full-contact, until-we-bleed fight club activities. They'll avoid hitting each other's faces, for instance, or only slap with open hands. I've seen (obviously cannot cite, as this is just personal experience) loose fight clubs wherein a bunch of guys/women (yes, both genders) get together and beat each other up. These sorts of things generally aren't filmed, however, and I suspect that those who "get" the concept of fight club and take it to heart, as opposed to "getting" it and rejecting it as infantile, realize that recording and bragging about it later is antithetical to the purpose of a fight club.ProfJeFF 04:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In the back of my copy of Fight Club, Palanuik mentions several actual fight clubs inspired from his book. Notabley, a 4H fight club and a Mormon fight club (if memory serves right). -Bordello 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article in USA Today about actual fight clubs inspired by the movie. Count Ringworm 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Clues about Durden's identity

I suggest the following courses of action:

• Fork "Clues about Durden's identity" section's content onto own article a la Fight Club in popular culture
• Rewrite as prose instead of a list (possibly too difficult, especially for all points)
• Delete entirely on trivial basis; information is not encyclopedia-worthy

I'd like to get this film article cleaned up in terms of its lists. Suggestions about the "Differences between novel and film" would be appreciated as well; the information is less trivial than "Clues about Durden's identity" and could warrant a content fork. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of the movie Fight Club and I have some additional clues to Tyler's identity that I think you should include in the article. 1. When Jack is talking to Marla on the phone in Tyler and Jack's house (the scene where Pitt is working out in the backround) he puts the phone down without hanging up. Now, if you pay close attention to Marla's dialogue, you'll see that when Tyler picks up the phone, Marla's dialogue is at a point before Jack put down the phone. 2. When Tyler/Jack have their first recruit waiting outside, Tyler watches, from what I presume is his bedroom window, Jack beat up the 1st space monkey with a broom. Later on Jack watches from this same window as the first space monkey yells at Angel Face and Bob. Granted, that one might be a bit of a stretch. 3. Tyler's kiss-scar only appears once he begins giving Jack his kiss-scar. Before then no such scar existed on Tyler's hand. I'm not sure of how much a clue that one really is, I've watched the movie literally more than a hundred times and everything seems like a clue to me now, but there you go.

Similarities to "The Secret Sharer" by Joseph Conrad?

I saw this movie a few days after I had read Conrad's "The Secret Sharer" for school, and I noted a lot of similarities:
-It focuses on human "doubles"(Narrator and Tyler, obviously, and the Captain and Leggatt)
-The doubles have and bring out in the original qualities that the originals wish they could have (Leggatt gives the captain confidence, Tyler is a manifestation of the narrator's ideal self)
-The doubles are notably more violent than the originals (Leggatt is a murderer, Tyler, although with a higher regard for life than the narrator, starts the idea of fighting as an escape from the mundane)
-The doubles both endanger the originals' well-being (The captain could be killed if he is discovered hiding a murderer)
-Both have unnamed narrators

I'm hesitant to add an entire section on this, though. Feedback please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.21.125 (talk • contribs) 19:27, November 14, 2006

Thank you for asking on the talk page. No worries; you did the right thing by asking. However, I don't know if it's possible for what you suggested to be added into the article. To draw similarities between the two would be original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. We try to use reliable sources to verify that information. It's not enough that you notice a connection between the two -- the perception has to be published by an authorized source before including the comparison to what Conrad wrote. I'd suggest using search engines for both "The Secret Sharer" and "Fight Club" to see if there's anything that comes up where someone made a similar observation. Hope that helps. Feel free to ask further questions here or on my talk page. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Example: A link like this would not qualify to explain the connection because it is not a reliable source. You would need something posted by an independent news source and not on a forum. Read the reliable source link to see what counts and what doesn't. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Like I said, I'm hesitant to make a new section, being an inexperienced wikipedia-er who doesn't want to break any rules. So yeah, I'll get back to you on the source thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.21.125 (talk • contribs) 19:11, November 15, 2006

Don't worry; you won't get in trouble if you make an edit that's not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Most editors will revert if there's a problem with the edit; just ask on the talk page why your edit was reverted, and they should explain it to you. Anyway, I hope you find a comparison; it sounds interesting enough to add. If you want to edit on Wikipedia further, I suggest you create an account. I think registering helps show that you're serious about contributing. Again, any questions, feel free to ask. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)