Talk:Fight Club/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Kyle Shaw
Do other editors think it is appropriate to include the headlines about Kyle Shaw in the article? Some time ago, I included information about Luke Helder, who was reported to plan a Fight Club-style attack, but I later removed it in retrospect. Including the information about Shaw seems to run afoul of recentism and BLP concerns. One concern is that he is under 18 years old, so WP:BLPNAME says that privacy is more prevalent here. Perhaps another way we can approach this is to leave the person's name out of the article altogether. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) agrees and amended the article appropriately. If there are any further thoughts on this, please share! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing, other than to concur with the reduction of the section; in ten years' time we'll probably consider even that undue weight on the subject. Steve T • C 20:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The information about this incident has been removed by an editor, but others have appeared fine with it, particularly through the FAC process. He falsely calls the incident "a cultural impact" where there is no such thing. The start of fight clubs after the film came out, the polls approving of the film, and now this incident make up the overall cultural impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Expanding themes
- "There's something about getting hit in the face that gives you an adrenalized version of life that's very profound... It's like nothing else you experience in life." —David Fincher
Toronto Sun ("Cruisin' for a bruisin'")
The movie is full of cutting, sly asides about IKEA, Calvin Klein and the new Volkswagen Bug. "In the movie we smash it (with a sledgehammer)," Norton says of the VW, "because it seemed like the classic example of a Baby Boomer generation marketing plan that sold culture back to us."
Empire ("Menace II Society")
- Are there actually any subliminal messages in Fight Club? "There's a moment during the burning scene (Pitt puts acid on Norton's hand) where the narrator says, 'I try not to think of the words "searing" or "flesh",' then we cut to, literally, the dictionary definitions of 'searing' and 'flesh'. We thought that would be funny: at the moment he's trying not to think of those words, he literally thinks of those exact words, so you see them for, like, two frames."
Film Comment
Where did the Ikea catalog scene come from? That was the moment where I knew I'd never seen a movie like this before. "In the book he constantly lists his possessions, and we were like, How do we show that, how do we convey the culmination of his collecting things, and show how hollow and flat and two-dimensional it is? So we were just like, Let's put it in a catalog. So we brought in a motion controlled camera and filmed Edward walking through the set, then filmed the camera pan across the set, then filmed every single set dressing and just slipped them all back together, then used this type program so that it would all pan. It was just the idea of living in this fraudulent idea of happiness. There's this guy who's literally living in this Ikea catalog.""It's not about tricking you, it's a metaphor, it's not about a real guy who really blows up buildings, it's about a guy who's led to feel this might be the answer based on all the confusion and rage that he's suffered and it's from that frustration and bottled rage that he creates Tyler. And he goes through a natural process of experimenting with notions that are complicated and have moral and ethical implications that the Nietzchean ubermensch doesn't have to answer to. That's why Nietzsche's really great with college freshman males, and unfortunately doesn't have much to say to somebody in their early thirties or early forties. And that's the conflict at the end—you have Tyler Durden, who is everything you would want to be, except real and empathetic. He's not living in our world, he's not governed by the same forces, he is an ideal. And he can deal with the concepts of our lives in an idealistic fashion, but it doesn't have anything to do with the compromises of real life as modern man knows it. Which is: You're not really necessary to a lot of what's going on. It's built, it just needs to run now."
Interview ("Fighting Talk")
- "We tried to set up a mournful, almost Holden Caulfield-like inner narrative in the film as my character talks about his life of travel and hotel rooms with mouthwash and toothbrushes and single servings and mini-everythings. Tyler, of course, is very quick to bust him for sidestepping the pain he feels about the textures of his life by being smug and cynical. Tyler is, in effect, the reassertion of the purer self. He has a moral certainty, and he's willing to name hypocrisy when he sees it. He's willing to do whatever he has to do to explore what might be right, whereas my character acknowledges what's wrong but holds back from completely stripping himself of those things because theu are still a security blanket for him... A lot of people have been responding to Tyler as a sort of Nietzschean ubermensch in the sense that he's advocating liberation of the human individual through the rejection and destruction of the institutions and value systems that are enslaving us. Now, that's certainly correct. But the tension in the film comes from my character asking, What are the limitations of a nihilistic attitude? It can be enthralling, it can be seductive, it can feel liberating on certain levels. But at what point do the practical applications of it start to become exactly the things they're critiquing, and at what point do Tyler's initiatives start to dehumanize people just as much? I like that the film raises those questions, but then it dumps them in your lap and leaves you to sort it all out instead of supplying you an easy answer." —Edward Norton
Some thematic possibilities to add. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"See also" section
The "See also" section was removed, but I'd like to justify its inclusion. In addition to supporting editors at the film article's FAC page not having an issue with it, the similar works were culled from Allmovie's database. It is not a film critic's review where they identify other films they thought were similar. A list of similar works offers readers opportunity to navigate to other film articles that would not have been visited otherwise. If there is a better way to list similar works, we can discuss one, but this kind of movie database website is solid in its credentials and better than IMDb, which would likely be user-determined. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like a very good idea to make use of the often misused/neglected "See also" section for something like this. The list of films comes from a completely independent source, so original research isn't a problem, and I think a lot of readers would find it useful. Steve T • C 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I first removed the "see also" because it was all taken from one source and there is no criteria for what films relate to this film. Also those films add nothing to this film, I would think see also Chuck Palahnuik, see also David Fincher, see also Nihilism, otherwise I have no idea how Trainspotting or Crash are a see also for this film. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- When I looked at the article for each similar work, I could tell how they were similar to Fight Club. Allmovie surely operates on some kind of criteria to generate such a list. The "See also" section are for linking to articles that are not mentioned in the article body. For example, we already have {{David Fincher}} and {{ChuckPalahniuk}} templates, and nihilism is already linked in the "Themes" section. There can be similarities perceived or not perceived at all, but what matters is that the similar works are being determined by a reliable source, not by us editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), whose opinion I appreciated in addressing the Kyle Shaw issue, appears opposed to the section, saying in the edit summary, "OK, then it's undue weight given to one proprietary algorithm whose criteria are unknown. Suggested recently on the film project talkpage, but got no support." Allmovie is considered a reliable source, so there is no reason to question how it came up with similar works. Undue weight is not an argument because this is a "See also" section, not a "Critical analysis" section that requires a balance of input from proper authorities. I cannot see how or why this section would need tempering with "similar works" as suggested by other sources... if there are other sources, we can examine them. Still, there's no reason to dismiss Allmovie in its entirety. In addition, I don't recall any discussions about similar works in "See also" at WT:FILM -- there was one discussion complaining about "List of American films in [year]" and some side discussion about "See also" that was inconclusive. There was also an "Allmovie" discussion that was more focused on excluding it from the "External links" section, but not really focused on its similar works feature. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I raised the matter at WT:FILM#"See also" at Fight Club for additional input. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), whose opinion I appreciated in addressing the Kyle Shaw issue, appears opposed to the section, saying in the edit summary, "OK, then it's undue weight given to one proprietary algorithm whose criteria are unknown. Suggested recently on the film project talkpage, but got no support." Allmovie is considered a reliable source, so there is no reason to question how it came up with similar works. Undue weight is not an argument because this is a "See also" section, not a "Critical analysis" section that requires a balance of input from proper authorities. I cannot see how or why this section would need tempering with "similar works" as suggested by other sources... if there are other sources, we can examine them. Still, there's no reason to dismiss Allmovie in its entirety. In addition, I don't recall any discussions about similar works in "See also" at WT:FILM -- there was one discussion complaining about "List of American films in [year]" and some side discussion about "See also" that was inconclusive. There was also an "Allmovie" discussion that was more focused on excluding it from the "External links" section, but not really focused on its similar works feature. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal (sorry Erik :) ). I just do not see a list of similar works, sourced only from Allmovie, as being an appropriate use of the see also section. Allmovie's criteria for what are and are not similar works are unknown and, from my experiences, appear fairly randomly done and often leave one scratching your head at why. Its one thing to note a critic compared the film to X or Y in the reception section, but a see also of "similar" works, does not add to the value of the article, to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why is knowing the criteria for how Allmovie lists similar works relevant? Do you not see it as a reliable source? If it is a reliable source, then we don't need to scrutinize how the website did it. Just because one cannot see the relevance of a particular similar work does not mean there is not relevance there. People are always going to disagree if a list of similar works was built of our own opinions, but citing Allmovie passes over (or is supposed to pass over) the interpretative argument. Most critics are not going to compare films so directly, and even if they do, these are not always the most mentioned passages in the "Critical reception" section -- the passages will usually be more direct analysis of why the film worked or did not work for them. Ask yourself this: Is a list of similar works detrimental or not to Wikipedia? We cite a reliable source that we know uses some kind of criteria for the list (and knowing that criteria is irrelevant if we can trust the source). Such a list is more beneficial to readers than it is not, and we put it out of our hands and avoid original research by citing a secondary source. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Allmovie surely operates on some kind of criteria to generate such a list, because I don't see how a heroin users attempt to stop doing drugs in Scotland is anything like a man with insomnia starting fight clubs then blowing up the banking district. How is people having sex in cars or a loner stalking a celebrity connected to this film? If there were an explanation of the criteria then maybe I would understand it, otherwise the section is better left off until those questions can be answered. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I agree with Erik here. Allmovies is considered a reliable source—we don't need to scrutinize their methods for developing this list. A similar debate ensues when people add genres to movies, bands, and so on using Allmovies or Allmusic as a source. Only if one of the items is disputed should we look for second, back-up sources. We are providing this list as a courtesy to readers, and having nothing is far more damaging than having a sourced list whose algorithm is not completely transparent. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) For Trainspotting, the similarity to Fight Club is pretty clear from its tagline: "Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a starter home. Choose dental insurance, leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose your future. But why would anyone want to do a thing like that?" There may not necessarily be the same characters nor the same events, but it's the same underlying message. For Crash, it's a psychological drama about a subculture that received controversy when it was came out. For what it's worth, I emailed Allmovie to ask for clarification on how it determines similar works; perhaps that can help shape the argument? Fight Club is more than men fighting; a film like the recent Fighting has the same plot device, but it is less related to Fight Club than Trainspotting or Crash. I had intended for the "See also" section to give readers a chance to see articles about films that are considered "peripherally related" (as WP:SEEALSO states); it does not mean we're forcing them to see it. If they don't think it's similar, they can choose not to see it. Some examples are clear; some are less so. Citing Allmovie (and we can look for other sources to cite) avoids making the section highly interpretative. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Allmovie seems to be regarded as a reliable source for general factual information regarding movies, but that doesn't mean that everything it contains is citable factual information. Pauline Kael's books are also also reliable sources for factual information concerning movies, but that doesn't mean, say, that, if she said that a particular film was a particular director's greatest work, that claim could be dropped into the article as fact. (And Kael's ideas about similar films will prove very different from Allmovies'.) The New York Times is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that one of its movie critic's annual 10-best list could be dropped into an article as general factual information. My impression is that allmovie gives way more weight to superficial plot similarities than is appropriate (I knew, without looking, that Costa-Gavros's Z would be "similar" to Stone's JFK, for example, but seeing that Woody Allen's Take The Money And Run was "similar" to Ernest Goes To Jail, a comparison that approaches the nightmarish, astonished me.) The "similar artists" listings in allmusic, which presumably are determined by the same general algorithm, consistently include laughable pairings (Warren Zevon/Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake/Velvet Underground, and a personal favorite, Bertolt Brecht/Ira Gershwin). And what does "similar" mean, anyway? Similar reactions by critics? Similar appeal to audiences? Similar DVD sales patterns? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think in this case we're using it as a "If you enjoyed this article, check out this article." Right? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wolfowitz, thanks for weighing in. We're not trying to pass off the similar works as fact. If necessary, we can attribute the list more clearly to Allmovie by saying "Allmovie lists these as similar works to Fight Club" or something like that. Regarding Kael, I think that whatever she had to say about a movie would be best integrated in the article body other than the "See also" section. We can also consider tempering the list with editorial discretion (as WP:SEEALSO advises anyway), like if someone had such a section at Take The Money and Run, we can discuss that Ernest Goes To Jail isn't a good similar work to include. Kind of like practicing editorial discretion to determine discriminate and indiscriminate information about a topic. Like I said, I emailed Allmovie if people really are curious about the criteria, but in the case of this film, all the examples seem to be related in subversive subject matter or subject matter related to feeling out-of-place in society (there does not seem to be superficial plot similarities here). Can you envision a working list of similar works at all? I'm not trying to treat the list as critical to the article, so I think it is a bit much to throw the hammer down to find overlapping references to secondary sources by the highest authorities of cinema. It's of lighter importance than the contents of the article body, hence its placement, but at the same time, it gives readers a navigational opportunity that is a more condensed alternative to browsing hundreds of films in the categories. Do you know of any other sources we can use? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think in this case we're using it as a "If you enjoyed this article, check out this article." Right? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Allmovie seems to be regarded as a reliable source for general factual information regarding movies, but that doesn't mean that everything it contains is citable factual information. Pauline Kael's books are also also reliable sources for factual information concerning movies, but that doesn't mean, say, that, if she said that a particular film was a particular director's greatest work, that claim could be dropped into the article as fact. (And Kael's ideas about similar films will prove very different from Allmovies'.) The New York Times is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that one of its movie critic's annual 10-best list could be dropped into an article as general factual information. My impression is that allmovie gives way more weight to superficial plot similarities than is appropriate (I knew, without looking, that Costa-Gavros's Z would be "similar" to Stone's JFK, for example, but seeing that Woody Allen's Take The Money And Run was "similar" to Ernest Goes To Jail, a comparison that approaches the nightmarish, astonished me.) The "similar artists" listings in allmusic, which presumably are determined by the same general algorithm, consistently include laughable pairings (Warren Zevon/Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake/Velvet Underground, and a personal favorite, Bertolt Brecht/Ira Gershwin). And what does "similar" mean, anyway? Similar reactions by critics? Similar appeal to audiences? Similar DVD sales patterns? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I share the views expressed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Allmovie is considered a reliable source for facts, but a list of similar films - no doubt compiled by one individual - heavily relies on POV, doesn't it? I could understand including the "See also" section if it provided the reader with some insight into how the films listed were similar to Fight Club in plot or theme, but to just provide a list of films allegedly similar to it and then leaving it to the reader to determine why doesn't seem to be adding much to the article. I'm assuming someone who has seen some or all of the films readily will grasp the connection, but how about those like myself who are not familiar with them? Is it sufficient to say these films are similar because someone at Allmovie says so and leave it at that? I don't think so.
The lead of this article includes the statement, "The director and the cast compared the film to the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and the 1967 film The Graduate. They said its theme was the conflict between a generation of young people and the value system of advertising." This is the type of explanation that's missing from a simple list of "similar" films. I think if there was a brief comment after each title citing the link between it and Fight Club, then the "See also" section would have more value. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Erik, I have to disagree with the use of the similar films list on Allmovie. If you look down at the related works list, you will see the 1966 film Seconds. I can not find the connective tissue between them which would make them related in any way. I could list a few things that are far more similar than the films listed on Allmovie. The films A Beautiful Mind, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Sybil, and Thelma & Louise are more similar that some on the Allmovie list. There are the television series Dollhouse and My Own Worst Enemy. Even the Matrix films all come to mind. I have seen so many of those lists on Allmovie have things really wrong. Sorry. LA (T) @ 09:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Plot is terribly written
The plot for Fight Club is much, MUCH, more detailed that this sad attempt. Fix it. 203.59.213.54 (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane
- WP:SOFIXIT. :) The summary is within a word range, though, because the Wikipedia article on a fictional work should focus more on the real-world context. Do you have any ideas on how to include more details in just as many words? —Erik (talk • contrib) 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Name of protagonist
I noticed that it says a 'nameless' protagonist but on the back (blurb) of the DVD box it says his name is Jack. Is there any mention of this in the article? This is from the UK version if it makes a difference. JTBX (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, the film character is intended to be nameless. "Jack" was a placeholder. It is clear that the film never really tries to identify the narrator. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- The name Jack is used several times in reference to the protagonist. For instance, when he's getting fired, "I am Jack's fiery inferno" (or something, I can't remember the exact quote) and "I am Jack's raging bile duct." Vesperholly (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- He's quoting the reader's digest stories, and the credits say "Narrator". Darrenhusted (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
83.223.9.175
ban ip adress 83.223.9.175! -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Zen influence
I am glad to see that some of the philosophical and cultural antecedents of this film have been covered, but why is there no mention of Zen in here?
A would-be Zen monk (traditionally at least) on trying to gain entry to a monastery was turned away with insults, and even beatings, until eventually he would be allowed in. Likewise the Zen monastery traditionally made their monks work hard, and do certain tasks etc (this apparently originated to stop tax dodgers and lazy drop outs using the monasteries as "holiday camps"). All of this can be found in most basic overviews of Japanese Zen, and anyone who knows Fight Club probably can see what I'm thinking of - particularly Bob Paulson's entry into the house on Paper Street. Likewise the Fight Clubbers end up in drab uniforms, which are as redolent of the monastic life as Fascism. Project Mayhem is thus not just about Chinese re-education camps.
There are also some other parallels I can think of, but unlike Zen, I can't prove them. They're probably more indirect, as in the case of Muscular Christianity and come via American adaptations. The Tyler Durden figure is similar to Gilmartin in Confessions of a Justified Sinner for example.
Other than this, good article. I'm usually not very impressed by pop culture articles on Wikipedia, even featured ones, so well done! --MacRusgail (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- This might have some information. I think it is best suited at Interpretations of Fight Club as one of the topics of academic interest. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, probably best over at "interpretations", which is a good article, but has some surprising omissions.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Protect from vandalism (lock the article)?
The article is featured on the front page of wikipedia today, and above the movie poster, it says "Fight Club(Leiws Hing is gay)". I somehow believe this to be vandalism. 212.10.53.102 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism on articles featured on the main page is very common, but they are rarely locked because it's important to reinforce the idea that anyone can edit articles, and to show faith in the open wiki system that vandalism will quickly be reverted. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Skomorokh, barbarian 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually "Leiws Hing is gay" was part of the original film title, hence it got left on. LOL... --MacRusgail (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Plot inaccuracy
I have tried to change the plot outline to make it more accurate and have been reverted twice so I thought I would talk it over here. My basic problem is that this sentence "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place but only if the narrator will hit him." is just incorrect. Tyler never states that the narrator hitting him is a prerequisite to him staying at his house. Here is the dialogue from the film
- Can I stay at your place? - Yeah. - Thanks - I want you to do me a favour. - Yeah, sure. - I want you to hit me as hard as you can. - What? - I want you to hit me as hard as you can. ... - You just want me to hit you? - Come on. Do me this one favour. - Why? - I don't know. Never been in a fight. You? - No. But that's a good thing. - You can't know yourself if you haven't! - I don't wanna die without any scars. - Come on. Hit me, before I lose my nerve. - Oh, God. This is crazy. - So go crazy! Let it rip.
I had changed the text to read "After a conversation regarding consumerism, Tyler accepts the narrator's request to stay at his place. Before they leave for Tyler's house, Tyler asks the narrator to hit him so that he can experience being punched and this leads to a fistfight between the two. After the fight, the narrator moves into Tyler's dilapidated house." I think my change is accurate and the current description is incorrect. Other opinions? Remember (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I am going to add back my revision. If someone reverts this addition, please discuss you reasons here. Remember (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't. The current version passed through GA and FA, and as such the consensus is for it. You r addition is clumsy and is not in keeping with a summary. Less is more. You need consensus for change, don't make a change then keep reverting, see here. The FA version stays until there is consensus to bloat the plot summary up. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- To weigh in, I don't think we need the particulars of that scene. The scene certainly is near and dear to the hearts of us fans, but we need to move forward with the plot and not worry about such detail. After comparing materialism to consumerism, though, the latter seems to be the more accurate definition. I'm fine with changing the word. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 21:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone else have an objection to changing materialism to consumerism? Remember (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I am trying to build consensus, that is why I am having a discussion here, but no one seems to be discussing my point. Second, I don't want to expand the plot needlessly and I agree that we shouldn't be mired in details but we should be factually accurate. I believe the current version of this article (which I think is great by the way) contains a factually incorrect statement (i.e., that Tyler says that the Narrator must hit him in order to stay at his house). So in an effort to build clear consensus: does everyone think that this statement "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place but only if the narrator will hit him." is correct. Please state if you think this is correct or incorrect below (or you just don't care).
- Incorrect - The scene clearly shows that the narrator is invited to stay with Tyler before Tyler asks the narrator to hit him and therefore the narrator is not required to hit Tyler before he can stay in the house. One way to change it would be to say "Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler's inviting the narrator to stay at his place, and as they are leaving the bar, Tyler asks the narrator to hit him." Remember (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone out there? Remember (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that no one objects to this change. If you do object to the change, please discuss here. Remember (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly "consumerism" is the better word, and I don't have issue clarifying that the hit was not a prerequisite for staying with Tyler. I never got that impression myself. It was more of "in addition". There shouldn't be a problem adjusting it to say "following the discussion..." It allows us to take personal opinion out of the matter, because the character doesn't actually state it's a requirement to stay with him and for us to assume that would be a bit of OR. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that no one objects to this change. If you do object to the change, please discuss here. Remember (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone out there? Remember (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The current summary of that scene is clearly incorrect, so it needs to be changed. I currently can't come up with a correct, yet concise alternative, tho. --Conti|✉ 14:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- All you need to do is change two sentences, as the rest is fine: "A conversation about consumerism leads to Tyler inviting the narrator to stay at his place; afterward, he requests the narrator to hit him." and "After the two engage in a fistfight outside the bar, the narrator moves into Tyler's dilapidated house." BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Summarized discussion from Darrenhusted talk page on this issue
For those interested in this issue, I discussed this issue with main user that had been reverting my edits, User:Darrenhusted, on his talk page, and his stance was that the current text (i.e., that Tyler tells the narrator that he has to hit him in order to stay at his house) was correct and written in an appropriate way. It then became obvious that we had a fundamental disagreement on the facts at hand and that we could not reach a consensus on a revised text. So I decided to stop the edit war over this issue because it wasn't going anywhere. If you want to see the actual dicussion see here User talk:Darrenhusted#Fight club issue. I had posted the whole discussion here, but User:Darrenhusted objected to that discussion being posted here [1]. Therefore, out of a respect for his desires, I have summarized our discussion here. Remember (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Expansion
The New York Times has a good article [2] that could be used to expand the cultural impact section. ComingSoon.net [3] also has more details about the Blu-Ray. 167.176.6.7 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Cast section
Curious, this article has no cast section. Was this a conscious decision? Indeed, there are only a few main characters, and their roles are mostly discussed under "casting", but it seems like an odd exclusion all the same. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a conscious decision. :) Prose is preferred over listing, and there was not much to say about Meat Loaf and his character or Jared Leto and his character here. They are mentioned at Interpretations of Fight Club, though, in the "Fascism" section. There could be more interpretations involving their characters since that sub-article has a long way to go. Erik (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Genre
May anyone please identify the movie genre of the film? Stratogustav (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is not a clear-cut genre for this movie, which is why I've left one out of the lead sentence. Do you think it is any particular genre? It is a bit choppy to call it action/black comedy, considering the nature of action films and black comedy films versus this one. Erik (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe action/satire which is the genre of the book, but it is hard for me to really call a particular genre for it, that's why I ask. Stratogustav (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Opening paragraph
For some reason the Guardian is quoted in the first part of the article. Why is this? It has no relevance no great american political change happend. I see Guardian quoted all the time on Wikipedia by leftists users who don't want to use the perfectly good telegraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.24.187 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
IMDB
Worth mentioning that Fight club is in the TOP20 (Rank 16 as of Feb. 19, 2010) of IMDB? 71.227.116.103 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is not, unfortunately. We avoid citing user ratings because there tends to be vote stacking and demographic skew. It's not a good representation of what non-critics thought of it. Better results come from bona fide polls like those conducted by CinemaScore. Erik (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Genre for the film: Macho-nihilist?
Hi, when I watched this film, my first thought in categorizing this film, would been under a new film genre, called "Macho-nihilst". Naturally, I googled such a term in regards to Fight club, and found a film review done by Total Film, which gave this particular line: ...macho-posturing and nihilism.... If you have any thoughts on this, or would like to expand on this subject, fell free to comment. CatJar (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- The terms are not germane for the lead sentence, though. If Fight Club had an easy genre to determine, it would be included. However, macho and nihilist are characteristics of the film that would be discussed in better context. For example, masculinity is discussed in the article body, but nihilism is not really the whole film, just the conduct of Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) himself. So the terms would not work in the lead sentence. Erik (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it would seem so, yet there is more to it than that. Nihilism is not just reflected by Tyler Durden, but by the unnamed narrator himself (since he is Tyler Durden also), and by Fight Club. Now the question of how it is "macho"; most if not all the main characters are male, with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter character: Marla Singer; the issues involved in Fight Club are representations of what an average male may go through, and the methods to combat them: e.g. fighting in clubs, insecurity, and most prominently, testicular cancer.CatJar (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So you propose coining a brand new genre for one film? One film is not a genre. And how does it help the reader throwing a vaguely defined neologism in the lead sentence? The main cast is 66% "macho", and 33% not-"macho", and whether it is true nihilism or simply anarchy is certainly up for debate, and hence no help to the opening words of an article which is already an FA. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- He's just trying to help contribute to Wikipedia, Darren. We can explain the writing of the lead section in a way that he can do it better next time. CatJar, it may help to read MOS:FILM#Lead section to get an idea of what goes in the lead sentence and the rest of the lead section. Erik (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Did that read harsh, because I wasn't aiming for harsh? Though maybe "vaguely defined neologism" may seem harsh I was simply aiming for economy of words. My point remains that adding two wikilinked words at the start of the lead is not helpful, it's simply a distraction from what is meant to be a simple statement of fact; Fight Club is a 1999 film adapted from the 1996 novel. What is gained from creating a genre to tack on? Darrenhusted (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no real genre for this film, and it would be out of place to try to provide a new one. Regarding tone, I think the key is to come off as inclusive. Don't lead with a critical question; explain your opinion and cite WP:NEO and so forth to show why the edit does not suit the article. I guess the way you write is a bit direct, that's all. Erik (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Did that read harsh, because I wasn't aiming for harsh? Though maybe "vaguely defined neologism" may seem harsh I was simply aiming for economy of words. My point remains that adding two wikilinked words at the start of the lead is not helpful, it's simply a distraction from what is meant to be a simple statement of fact; Fight Club is a 1999 film adapted from the 1996 novel. What is gained from creating a genre to tack on? Darrenhusted (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Jane Austen's Fight Club
An editor added a passage about the viral video Jane Austen's Fight Club to the article. The citation was originally a link to the YouTube video, but I replaced it with a citation from Entertainment Weekly and revised the passage. I'm mostly okay with including mention of this video since we tend to sample other singular items in the "Cultural impact" section. I don't think we should get too much in detail about the video, though, like the director's identity and the cast members' identities. I'm opening this discussion in case anyone wants to debate the merits of this passage. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Extra source
Hi! I found:
WhisperToMe (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Video game
As terrible as it is, should Fight Club (video game) not be mentioned somewhere in the article? – Zntrip 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- We could mention it one sentence in "Cultural impact", but I'm looking at it now and am not sure where it could be best placed. We could also put it in "See also", which I think is the simplest option. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ed Norton's Character
I think I stumbled on a bit of obscure trivia that might be worth including here. This article (as of Jan 4) begins by saying Edward Norton's character is unnamed. While it is true the name is never directly mentioned in the movie, a couple versions are used by Norton and in the marketing and production materials:
- Much confusion exists amongst fans about the Narrator's name. Many believe it is Jack due to his use of the phrase "I am Jack's...", but others argue that he only uses the moniker Jack because that was the one he saw in "Annotated Reader". Interestingly, in the press packages released for the movie, which came in the form of an Ikea-esque catalog, the character is referred to as Jack, as he is on the back of the DVD, and in the booklet accompanying the DVD, where the Chapter list is referred to as "Jack's Chapters". Also, the original screenplay by Jim Uhls refers to him as Jack. On the other hand, in the closed captions for the film, he is referred to as Rupert. Edward Norton reveals that he refers to the character as Jack on the audio commentary on the DVD and Blu-ray.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/trivia?tr0755994
Furthermore, it appears that the Norton's character's real name could be Michael DeSoto. A prop ID badge worn by Norton and bearing the name Michael DeSoto was auctioned off by Christie's in 2001. Their web site states:
- A prop FMC I.D. card printed with the name Michael DeSoto -- 2x3½in. (5.1x8.9cm.) [...] made for the 1999 20th Century Fox film Fight Club;[...] in individual common mount with a document on 20th Century Fox Archives headed stationery concerning the provenance.
They go on to say:
- In Fight Club, Michael DeSoto [Ed Norton], wears an identical I.D. card attached to the top pocket of his shirt.
Source: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=3839475
I can't speak to the quality of the IMDB source, but I think the Christie's auction is pretty compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.0.201 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "Themes" section says, "The character is identified in the script as "Jack", but left nameless in the film." I'm not sure if if the Michael DeSoto tidbit is relevant to the article; the narrator being nameless was the whole intent. While the Christie's web page could be used, I'm not seeing what context it could be used because whatever sentence we write will be speculative. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He can't be called "Jack" in the original script, because the scenes were filmed with the Reader's Digest based dialogue, as in "I am Joe's Gall Bladder." I know this because I watched a rough cut of the film in June 1999. References to "Joe" and "Jane" were changed to "Jack" and "Jill" and "Reader's Digest" changed to "The Annotated Reader" because of unwillingness on the magazine's part to be represented in the film. Additionally, the video store where movies are erases was originally quite visibly BLOCKBUSTER; the shot was changed for theatrical release to keep the store's large sign out of the frame. You can hear this partially discussed in the DVD commentary. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.141.101 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
partial implementation. Fight Club moved to Fight Club (novel) per the discussion and Fight Club (disambiguation) moved to Fight Club. While the discussion suggested waiting 30 days to reconsider if there is a primary topic, I'd suggest waiting at least 90 days. In doing the moves, it appears that these pages have been moved around a bit and I think that waiting to allow more time to get this right is a wise direction to take. Also, it will take a while for the links to the dab page to be disambiguated. I have no idea where some of them should be pointing so I'll leave that in the hands of the dab project. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Fight_Club_(film) → Fight_Club — The film is pretty clearly the primary topic. It gets roughly half again as many views as the novel, despite the novel currently having the unadorned article title; it seems quite likely that most of its views are due to people searching for information about the film. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: The novel takes precedence since it came first. The film is the adaptation of the novel. Jmj713 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is absolutely true that the novel came first. However, for the purpose of figuring out which subject is pointed to by the ambiguous term, that is simply not the criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation; the relevant text there is "it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. ... If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, the articles for books that I have seen and worked on where there was a film adaptation, the book is always the main topic, with the film carrying the "(film)" disambiguation. Jmj713 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke is a counterexample. That said, you're correct that most books are the primary topic over their film adaptations, but that's normally because the book was a hit before it gets adapted. I think this might be an exception to that. Powers T 03:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the consensus-derived guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation is that if there is a subject that people overwhelmingly more often mean when they search for a term, that term should either be the title of or redirect to the article for that subject. Another counterexample following this consensus-derived guideline is Shrek; people almost always mean the film, not the book, when they search for "Shrek". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, the articles for books that I have seen and worked on where there was a film adaptation, the book is always the main topic, with the film carrying the "(film)" disambiguation. Jmj713 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is absolutely true that the novel came first. However, for the purpose of figuring out which subject is pointed to by the ambiguous term, that is simply not the criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation; the relevant text there is "it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. ... If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Qualified oppose: As things stand now, I can't support declaring the film as the clear primary topic. But I would support moving Fight Club to Fight Club (novel), and Fight Club (disambiguation) to Fight Club. Then I'd give it a month or two to see how the page views shake out. If the film emerges as the obvious primary topic, then I would support moving the film article to Fight Club.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this suggestion, it's not unreasonable, since it's hard to tell from the stats alone whether the overwhelming majority of Fight Club's hits are from people looking for the film as I am confident is the case. I believe we could be confident about this using evidence outside of those statistics, but I would be happy with this plan as a more cautious approach. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the disambiguation page should be at the primary name. Then generic "fight clubs" can also listed. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- This rationale is really at odds with the consensus-derived guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation; see above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I completely support Shelfskewed's idea - that seems the cleanest method. Millahnna (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose move, but support Shelfskewed's idea. Tassedethe (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose move, but support Shelfskewed's idea. The film might be sufficiently more popular than the novel to execute this move, but it certainly can't be done now when the novel gets more hits and we can only speculate as to which is more well known. –CWenger (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article about the novel does not get more hits, despite being at Fight Club. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- But in the initial proposal you said "The film ... gets roughly half again as many views as the novel, despite the novel currently having the unadorned article title." –CWenger (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right - "half again as many" means 1.5 times as much. The article for the film gets 1.5 x as many hits as the article for the novel. Sorry, I should have been more clear, although hopefully the "despite" clause makes more sense now. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- But in the initial proposal you said "The film ... gets roughly half again as many views as the novel, despite the novel currently having the unadorned article title." –CWenger (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I am on the fence here. While it makes sense to make the film the primary topic due to its popularity, the current setup has sufficed for this long. The hatnote at Fight Club is specifically modified to link to the film then the disambiguation page, since the film would definitely be of greater interest than the other disambiguated topics. While WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say anything about source material and its adaptations, my experience is that the source material usually qualifies as the primary topic unless it is pretty obscure. No one has ever complained about winding up at this film's source material's article on the way to the film adaptation, where I've seen opinions voiced (in general) that the source material should be the primary topic when the question arises. Thoughts on that? Feel free to sway me one way or another. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- "the current setup has sufficed for this long" - Well, I was inconvenienced just now, because I went to Fight Club trying to find out about the movie, and I suspect all but a handful of the ~80k viewers of Fight Club last month had a similar experience. I think that is the rationale for the guideline. If you've seen opinions that the source material should be the primary topic, it might be worthwhile to take it up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation; right now the consensus is that source material has nothing to do with what the primary topic is. I won't try to sway you here; I don't think this is a good forum for debating that guideline because I imagine most of the folks that care about it and have discussed it will be more likely to be watching Wikipedia:Disambiguation than this page. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support move. The film is far more likely to be the reader's target—no one is disputing that. We must serve the user first and foremost, even though the stodgy academic inside me agrees with Jmj713 above. ShelfSkewed, with all due respect, article space is not the place to run user tests; that aside, pageviews are an unclear indicator of usability and are never used alone in serious usability testing. We would have to know intent, success rate, eventual destination, and many other factors. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support since readers searching for "Fight Club" are more likely to be looking for the film than the novel or the other topics, and that makes the film the primary topic. Should have kept it that simple from the get-go, so disregard my comment above. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I already opposed the move and commented, but just wanted to make a further appeal. First I'd like to stress again, as has been pointed out by Erik, the source material (book) is usually the primary topic with the adaptation carrying any disambiguating information. Also, it's not our place to judge and weigh what is and isn't "more popular", which feels like POV. Popularity isn't really encyclopedic. Jmj713 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not about merely weighing popularity; it's about what best serves users. If the film article is overwhelmingly the desired destination of users who come to Wikipedia seeking information about Fight Club, then it is a pointless inconvenience to make them reach it by way of the novel's article or a disambiguation page. If, on the other hand, a substantial portion of users want the novel's article (or any of the other articles using the title), then the solution is to put the dab page at the plain title, from which all users can navigate to their desired articles. At this point, most of us agree that the novel's article should not be the primary topic, because the film's article is in such high demand. The pertinent question is whether the film's article should become the primary topic, or whether this is an instance of "no primary topic", with the dab page located at the plain title.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jmj713, the definition of a primary topic is what readers are most likely to look for. The guidelines also say, "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." The exception can be invoked for certain topics, but it is not like the novel is a vital article or contains educational value. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support as the article meets the description of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there are no concerns about recentism. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral on move. It's probably the primary topic, but I don't think it's clearly such. I'd Support Shelfskewed's idea, which alligns better to current statistics. If the speculation is right, and a large portion of people who are ending up at the novel want the film, it'll be clear quite quickly. Worm 09:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have to echo Andy's comment above, that "pageviews are an unclear indicator of usability and are never used alone in serious usability testing". Erik (talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't deny that, but they are an indicator. They should not be taken in isolation, but nor should they be totally ignored. Worm 15:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose User convenience is not paramount. A core purpose of an Encyclopedia is didacticism. In this case, that the film was derived from the novel. As expressed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:In such a case [when educational value is taken into account], consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users. This is why Titanic is about the ship, not the film. walk victor falk talk 05:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is a bit far-fetched to say that the novel Fight Club is comparable to the RMS Titanic in fame. User convenience is paramount; the opening of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly indicates this. There are exceptions made for educational value. For example, if there was a really popular film called Mars in the next few years, it certainly would not upstage the planet's article (which is the primary topic). That's the kind of educational topic that would be an exception. Your argument means it would require all source material to be the primary topic, no matter the popularity of the film adaptation. Unless you somehow think that the novel especially ranks highly as an educational tool? Like up there with To Kill a Mockingbird? Erik (talk | contribs) 05:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I must insist that user conveniency is not paramount. Better increased knowledge at a slight incommodity than comforttably numb ignorance, at least if you have an encyclopedic viewpoint. Even so, as I argue below, it is not given that the current article location is inconvenient to users. walk victor falk talk 14:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Clearer if separate comment. Inconveniency is assumed, not proven. What users want is to learn something, not necessarily arriving at an article that match their preconceptions. Wp:primarytopic is to prevent finding an ungermane and thus confusing aricle, which is not the case here as these two articles are related to each other. walk victor falk talk 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I must insist that user conveniency is not paramount. Better increased knowledge at a slight incommodity than comforttably numb ignorance, at least if you have an encyclopedic viewpoint. Even so, as I argue below, it is not given that the current article location is inconvenient to users. walk victor falk talk 14:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- In no way do I say that the novel is as famous as the ship nor that it should be the standard to determine article titles nor that I require "
source material" original artwork to primary topic no matter what. It is just an example of what could happen at worst if policy was misapplied, comparable with your Mars example. - The relative notability of the artworks is what is significant, based on critical assement. Why? Because "was this film play based on a novel?" is a highly probable basic user query, right next after "who is director?" and "who wrote the script?", thus higly educational and convenient to many users. I cannot imagine that Kenneth Brannagh movies like "Much ado nothing nothing", "Othello", "Henry V", being the wp:primarytopic instead of the plays, notwithstanding their quality and popularity. It is the generally accpeted convention on wikipedia that the original artwork is the primary topic, with only a few exceptions like Cool Hand Luke (novel). To answer your question specifically, no it doesn't have to be up there with "To kill a mocking bird." It's more than enough that "Fight Club" became a notable book in its own right and that it launched Chuck Palahniuk's career as a best-selling author. walk victor falk talk 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- "It launched Chuck Palahniuk's career as a best-selling author." The film actually did that; "Cultural impact" section says, "The film's success also heightened the profile of the novel's author, Chuck Palahniuk, to global renown." I agree with you that the Shakespeare plays would be the primary topics. You say "a notable book in its own right"; are you referring to notability? If not, you should use another word to avoid confusion. A book can have minimal notability and get its own article, and a film can be a huge hit afterward. So are you saying that any book that meets the bare minimum threshold of notability should always, always be the primary topic, no matter how insanely popular the film is? Educational value nonwithstanding? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment From an order statistic point of view, 50% more page views is just barely above random noise, showing a preference at most. "Overwhelming" means an order of magnitude at minimum. walk victor falk talk 15:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at last month for the novel, then last month for the film, you can see the parallel in traffic. Since the novel's article has a link to the film in the hatnote, the disambiguation page barely gets visited, which shows that it's not readers just visiting the film article after enjoying the novel; they go right for the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that if only 3 out of 5 people going to any Fight Club page wanted the film article, there would be no overwhelming primary topic. But I think this is extremely unlikely. Fight Club only gets the traffic it does because it lives at Fight Club and some people go there first on the way to Fight Club (film) – if they can even find it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Homoerotic?
"The director copied the homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel..." He did? I've seen this movie at least fifteen times and I have no idea what this sentence is about. Gingermint (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article body contains the reference that backs this. There is a lot of analysis about masculinity in Fight Club, especially about heteronormativity and homoeroticism. See this, for example. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Really pushing it. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of homosexuals. 87.113.82.185 (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not wishful thinking. Academic analysis has looked at homoeroticism in the film; see here. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
99% of people do not think 'homoerotic' when watching fight club, it is merely a film intellectuals ramblings. Sure include it in the article in the relevant section but to have it also in the intro is seriously misunderstanding the purpose of having a synopsis of a film. It is a largely hidden and debatable theory, not part of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.185 (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- There were contemporary reports from mainstream publications pointing out the film's homoeroticism, so it is not a fringe viewpoint. See the following sample sources: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, Salon, and New Yorker. It was Fincher's own intent, and we have reliable (what you call "intellectual" as if it should be excluded on these grounds) sources that discuss the homoeroticism in retrospect. The lead section is an overview of the article body, so it's not going to just contain the synopsis (otherwise we would just keep the very first paragraph). Erik (talk | contribs) 00:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Embellishment of Critical Reception?
I detest this film, and was surprised that Roger Ebert's negative review is only mentioned in the briefest of scraps, followed up by an excerpt of his regarding the film taken from an entirely separate review of his. Ebert's stature in the world of film criticism is, ahem, fairly considerable. The opening sentence of his review of this movie is his own personal declaration that it is "frankly and cheerfully fascist" and "a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up." (the full review is contained here: Fight Club :: rogerebert.com.) I find these statements to be quite bold, as well as noteworthy, especially coming from a well-known and highly-acclaimed public figure such as Ebert, and feel that they, as well as other negative views of the film, ought not be given short shrift.
But my own personal opinion of Fight Club as a deplorable, ugly, and cruel assault on, among other things, the filmic senses, ends here.
Because for a "featured article" on Wikipedia, I find that the entire section of "critical reception" devoted to this film severely underwritten. Indeed, I, personally, found those who do support this film, find it entertaining, and advocate its message are not provided their requisite space either. This is especially vital when considering the undeniable impact the movie has left on modern societal culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenKong77 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I actually read Ebert's description of the film (e.g., "a thrill ride masquerading as philosophy") as negative, but maybe that's because I was familiar with the rest of the review. I can see how it doesn't quite seem negative, especially with "visceral and hard-edged". We can change the summary of the reviews. What kind of wording do you propose? Feel free to change it or add a draft here. As for the follow-up, I thought it was worth noting the contrast of his opinion with others' opinions. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic makes the film seem like a critical darling, but it was a bit more controversial at the time. As for advocating its message, I'm not sure what you mean? There is academic analysis of the film, but what I've seen is either pretty negative or pretty neutral. None of the analysis seems to quite celebrate the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Recent Edit to Include Cultural Rankings on Popular Film Sites
I made an edit to include references to its rankings on popular film sites such as IMDB and FilmCrave. Why were these removed? There is no note on the discussion page and nothing in the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I meant to include my signature Heartiscontentious (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- IMDB is user-edited; that's why it's used exceedingly sparingly as a source, especially when it comes to reviews from IMDB users. FilmCrave has the same flaws. By contrast, Rotten Tomatoes aggregates ratings from established film critics; it is deemed to be a reliable source for rankings and reception. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- And if you look at the edit summary where your edit was reverted, you'll see a link to MOS:FILM#Reception, which spells out in more detail what I just said. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- But the section was talking about cultural impact, not critical response. Real people make up the cultural impact. I could understand your argument if you were referring to the critical reception, but this section is not for critical reception - this is cultural impact. I think we need to reinstate the imdb and filmcrave references. Again...forgot to sign Heartiscontentious (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I might be wrong but I'm guessing cultural impact refers to how it impacted culture, i.e. references in other films, songs, tv shows, merchandise, popular quotations, effects on future film making. Not how users rated it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Heart. I removed the passage per MOS:FILM#Reception: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." That vulnerability is why Fight Club manages to be the #14 best film of all time at IMDb. Unlike CinemaScore, user ratings are not bona fide polls, meaning that there isn't someone waiting to survey all the moviegoers. The voters are the people who go out of their way to support the film, and there's a particular demographic skew there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Erik, Thanks for the comments. I understand what you are saying, but again you are referencing the critical response section of MOS:FILM#Reception, which is not related to cultural response. Also MetaCritic and RottenTomatoes are both referenced. Seems to be double standards and subjective opinions when it comes to these types of things. I think that IMDB is a much more reputable source than MetaCritic and even FilmCrave has its place, specifically when it comes to cultural impact, not critical consensus. Thanks Heartiscontentious (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The "Critical response" section is just a place to put the guidelines. They're not important enough to have their own section on that page. The same logic still applies about using them in the first place. As for Rotten Tomatoes, we do not include its user ratings, but we include the score based on the website's collection of non-user reviews. Same with Metacritic. (See WP:RTMC about how their use is permitted.) The "Cultural impact" section already uses several references about the film's legacy that come from publications that have control over ranking films and their characters. IMDb is not controlled; I've seen Transformers end up in the Top 250 films of all time, and many films with fanbases tend to have unrealistically high ratings even before they are released. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- For one, IMDB will never have movies that are not released in its top movies of all time. Their algorithm doesn't allow it. And two, the comment about fanbases that tend to have "unrealistically high ratings" is cultural. Critics are not culture, critics are professional movie reviewers. As far as the MOS:FILM#Reception related to cultural and critical uses, you are making assumptions once again. And finally, the page still links to allrovi, imdb, rottentomaotes and BoxOffice mojo in the bottom links section. It would seem logical (using your logic above) that it could be linked to FilmCrave's main movie page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was talking about two separate examples of why IMDb is faulty. As for the guidelines, I am not making assumptions. You are saying that because that passage is in the "Critical response" section means it is okay to use user ratings as long as they are not in that section in the article. It is fine to present a film as popular among a particular demographic, but that cannot be done with user ratings. It's not a "fair" poll of everyone who saw the film. It is a purportedly universal poll that is skewed by a particular demographic. These guidelines are driven by editorial consensus; we do not include user ratings from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, FilmCrave, or anywhere else. You can start a discussion to change the guidelines, but in my experience, many editors are fine with excluding user ratings. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- But you are making assumptions that guidelines (keep in mind that these are guidelines and as the article states, there can be exceptions) apply to ALL sections of a film page. No where in the guide does it state that "if a guideline appears in a section, it applies through out the guide." In addition - if you say you can't use IMDB.com for ratings, why is it linked as an external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, I am not making assumptions because I worked with other editors of film articles to shape these very guidelines. User ratings are intended to be excluded fully. User ratings are subject to the same difficulties wherever they are placed. As for the external links, there is a different criteria for inclusion. IMDb is not solely about user ratings; if it was, it certainly would not be an external link. Coming back to the film's cultural impact, how about we find other references to use? I've been doing new research on the film recently, and I've seen in a couple of academic journals that it is popular for college students to study. That's a hint of the demographic that the film appeals to. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your work with other editors is not included in the film guide and is not denoted as such. Again, you are being subjective. You say that IMDB.com as an external link is allowable for other reasons, but it is not cited in the guide? It is subjective that an IMDB, AllRovi and others are allowed. Did they pay to be included? If not, why are they allowed and others aren't?Heartiscontentious (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, I am not making assumptions because I worked with other editors of film articles to shape these very guidelines. User ratings are intended to be excluded fully. User ratings are subject to the same difficulties wherever they are placed. As for the external links, there is a different criteria for inclusion. IMDb is not solely about user ratings; if it was, it certainly would not be an external link. Coming back to the film's cultural impact, how about we find other references to use? I've been doing new research on the film recently, and I've seen in a couple of academic journals that it is popular for college students to study. That's a hint of the demographic that the film appeals to. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- But you are making assumptions that guidelines (keep in mind that these are guidelines and as the article states, there can be exceptions) apply to ALL sections of a film page. No where in the guide does it state that "if a guideline appears in a section, it applies through out the guide." In addition - if you say you can't use IMDB.com for ratings, why is it linked as an external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was talking about two separate examples of why IMDb is faulty. As for the guidelines, I am not making assumptions. You are saying that because that passage is in the "Critical response" section means it is okay to use user ratings as long as they are not in that section in the article. It is fine to present a film as popular among a particular demographic, but that cannot be done with user ratings. It's not a "fair" poll of everyone who saw the film. It is a purportedly universal poll that is skewed by a particular demographic. These guidelines are driven by editorial consensus; we do not include user ratings from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, FilmCrave, or anywhere else. You can start a discussion to change the guidelines, but in my experience, many editors are fine with excluding user ratings. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- For one, IMDB will never have movies that are not released in its top movies of all time. Their algorithm doesn't allow it. And two, the comment about fanbases that tend to have "unrealistically high ratings" is cultural. Critics are not culture, critics are professional movie reviewers. As far as the MOS:FILM#Reception related to cultural and critical uses, you are making assumptions once again. And finally, the page still links to allrovi, imdb, rottentomaotes and BoxOffice mojo in the bottom links section. It would seem logical (using your logic above) that it could be linked to FilmCrave's main movie page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The "Critical response" section is just a place to put the guidelines. They're not important enough to have their own section on that page. The same logic still applies about using them in the first place. As for Rotten Tomatoes, we do not include its user ratings, but we include the score based on the website's collection of non-user reviews. Same with Metacritic. (See WP:RTMC about how their use is permitted.) The "Cultural impact" section already uses several references about the film's legacy that come from publications that have control over ranking films and their characters. IMDb is not controlled; I've seen Transformers end up in the Top 250 films of all time, and many films with fanbases tend to have unrealistically high ratings even before they are released. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Erik, Thanks for the comments. I understand what you are saying, but again you are referencing the critical response section of MOS:FILM#Reception, which is not related to cultural response. Also MetaCritic and RottenTomatoes are both referenced. Seems to be double standards and subjective opinions when it comes to these types of things. I think that IMDB is a much more reputable source than MetaCritic and even FilmCrave has its place, specifically when it comes to cultural impact, not critical consensus. Thanks Heartiscontentious (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- But the section was talking about cultural impact, not critical response. Real people make up the cultural impact. I could understand your argument if you were referring to the critical reception, but this section is not for critical reception - this is cultural impact. I think we need to reinstate the imdb and filmcrave references. Again...forgot to sign Heartiscontentious (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Because IMDb is user edited. This for example (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1083271/) says Megan Fox is "rumoured" to be in a film called Luna while this interview with Megan Fox (http://collider.com/megan-fox-friends-with-kids-dictator-transformers-3-interview/114856/) says that is a lie. I myself have added trivia to IMDb and thus it is not trustworthy to a fault and that makes it pretty much entirely untrustworthy. Even so, this has little to do with user ratings. For instance here at A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, the user ratings for the page offer up FIFTY reviews and a near perfect score. This despite the fact the article is barely more than a cast list and a brief synopsis. It's being skewed by people who like the film rather than the article. Again, I Have voted for things on IMDb that I sometimes haven't even seen just because I think it looks good. That is not a trustworthy system. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- So why is the film page linking to IMDB and other sources if it is not reliable to reference? Heartiscontentious (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- In what? The external links? That is not a reference, its just an external link concerning the film. External links are not for reference, they're there so people would stop adding trivia sections to wikipedia articles and can go do it at IMDb instead Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said, the criteria for including a website as an external link is different from the criteria for including it as a reference. See Wikipedia:External links. In particular, one reason IMDb is normally linked is because of the amount of detail in the movie or television credits that it has. In film articles on Wikipedia, we do not list every person that appears in the film, nor every person who worked on the film, so that is one particular reason why IMDb is included, for that kind of access. It is a multi-faceted website, so there are some elements like user ratings (and trivia, as Blake explained above) that we do not trust, but we cannot control that. We're not going to let these bad apples of user ratings and trivia spoil what is an otherwise acceptable external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- So why can't we add an external link to FilmCrave?Heartiscontentious (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is no objection to add a link to the FilmCrave fight club page so I will proceed in adding it. Thank you Heartiscontentious (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- FilmCrave is not acceptable as an external link. See WP:ELNO #10 and #11. If you are affiliated with the website, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is no objection to add a link to the FilmCrave fight club page so I will proceed in adding it. Thank you Heartiscontentious (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- So why can't we add an external link to FilmCrave?Heartiscontentious (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- So why is the film page linking to IMDB and other sources if it is not reliable to reference? Heartiscontentious (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
List of actors
shouldn't there be a list of actors who appeared in this film along with their roles? i saw it on here briefly but now it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.217.41 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a table in Fight Club (film)#Casting. I'm not sure if there is anyone else worth noting besides these five. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of argument, I think good cases could be made for including Zach Grenier (Norton's boss, Richard Chesler) and Holt McCallany (The Mechanic). Both are veteran character actors relatively recognizable to the general viewer.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Requested move – 15 December 2011
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Fight Club (film) → Fight Club – WP:COMMONNAME. It seems like there are several articles related to media where the far more likely topic has a disambiguation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME is completely irrelevant to this move, as that policy does not prohibit the use of disambiguators where the common name is ambiguous (as it is here). Assuming, then, that you actually mean WP:PRIMARY... Considering that the film was based on a novel by the same name, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence to support that contention. Powers T 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- And you actually mean WP:PRIMARYTOPIC :) Jenks24 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fight Club (film) is based on Fight Club (novel), not the other way around. It therefore would not make sense to make the film the primary topic using the importance criteria: "one has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The importance criterion is certainly about more than what is based on what. Why would you weigh it so heavily here? The only relevance I can even see is to educate the user of the fact that the film is based on the book. That fact alone doesn't lend much to making the novel "important". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film had 129,000 pageviews last month compared to only 35,000 for the novel and 45,000 for the dab page (which is very high for a dab page). Clearly a lot of readers looking for the film are winding up on a dab page where they don't wish to be. The film should add a hatnote pointing to the novel, so as not to inconvenience those readers, as well as to the dab page for the few other minor usages. Station1 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Station1's comments. Regarding the "importance criteria", I think a good argument could be made that the film is a more significant work than--or is at least as significant as--the source novel. This is not unusual (see, e.g., The Godfather).--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support—The experiment seems to support a move. I am sympathetic to Zzyzx11's argument that "first usage" should factor in to determining primacy, although the guideline doesn't endorse this idea at all. But even if we do consider "first usage", when we consider the other factors—usage (how likely is it to be sought by this term?) and importance (enduring educational value, recentism, etc)—which are in the guideline, the film seems to be the overwhelming primary topic. As far as I know, nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary either here or in the other move discussion demonstrating why the novel is a contender based on usage and importance. "First usage" is an interesting idea, but even if we should consider it, it obviously isn't the only consideration in these discussions. I would encourage anyone who thinks it should be weighed more heavily to start a discussion here: WT:D. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Visual effects video?
In the visual effects section there is an image from the opening sequence of the film referencing the neural pathway stylizing, but to me at least it isn't very clear, most of it is black. WOuld there be any interest in my supplying a few-second long clip of that sequence instead for better illustration? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Existentialism
Why is there not one word in the article about Existentialist themes? Is it only me that saw strong existential themes in the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that there are strong existentialism themes in the film, but we can't say anything in the article that is not sourced. Do you know of sources in which said themes are discussed? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- This from the talk page of Interpretations of Fight Club lists a lot of sources, though none mention existentialism in the titles. Google Scholar Search shows some results, but I suspect "existentialism" is the wrong theme here. Most of the academic interpretations instead relate to the crisis of masculinity. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Does 'existentialism for dummies' count as a source? They definitely talk about it there. Unchartered (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
More examples of cultural influence.
I believe the epilogue of the novel has various other examples of "copycats" that are not mentioned. I recommend their placement in the cultural impact section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.145.180 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is the Wikipedia article about the film. Are you talking about how books or movies have copied the ending? If there has been similar endings, we need to use a reliable source to make note of that. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant were those examples in the epilogue of a more recent edition of the book Fight Club: it mentions fight clubs on BYU campus as well as unnamed persons who approached the author talking about ways they emulated the acts and attitude of the book and the movie. I think that when the author of the story talks about the effects of the story in such an objective way, Wikipedia ought to make mention and maybe quote his words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.74.12 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"fight club"
I've read the article but still have no idea what a "fight club" is. Kelly222 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've tweaked the definition of "fight club" in the lead section and have added something similar in the plot summary. For what it's worth, the last paragraph of "Themes" talks about fight clubs. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erik, you violated the first rule of fight club. --Laser brain (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Home media
I reverted the addition of special features available on the DVD and Blu-ray because it seems promotional, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral POV. The special features are the kind of details one would find at a shopping website. WikiProject Film also has guidelines at MOS:FILM#Home media: "The section may contain a summary of the extras included with the release, though excessive detail is to be avoided." This summary is already provided at the beginning of this article's "Home media" section: "Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging and was one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media. The film was released in two DVD editions. The single-disc edition included a commentary track, while the two-disc special edition included the commentary track, behind-the-scenes clips, deleted scenes, trailers, fake public service announcements, the promotional music video "This is Your Life", Internet spots, still galleries, cast biographies, storyboards, and publicity materials." I ask other editors to comment in case there is an attempt to restore this detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the material is adequately covered in the existing prose. We don't need to duplicate the bullet list of extras one might see on Amazon. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur, as well. The user was blocked (and subsequently unblocked) for it, but seems to be rather adamant about it still. Nymf (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)