Talk:Fight Club/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Cast list in infobox

I propose removing the names recently added to the cast list in the infobox. It seems clear to me from looking at the poster that Pitt, Norton, and Carter are the stars of the film. I would like to hear other opinions on this, though. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film clearly states that the billing block is what should be used for listing actors in the infobox. It isn't a matter of opinion; in this case, it's a matter of policy. If you want to make a notion to change that policy, that's completely fine, but here isn't the place to do it. Go to the template talk page and try starting the discussion there. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not policy; policy is a page like WP:NOT. What exists at the template's page is a set of guidelines, and the billing block rule-of-thumb is not necessarily applicable for every film. I find the top three names sufficient as the "Starring" actors, and I agree with TheOldJacobite about removing the other names. We need to be careful about treating such guidelines as absolute law. Erik (talk | contribs) 05:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of having the guidelines if they can just be disregarded, though? It's much simpler to just abide to the guidelines to avoid any conflicts. I personally don't see why it's an issue to include more cast members in an infobox. For example, a discussion recently happened over at the talk page of Moonrise Kingdom where some editors wanted to add the two lead actors to the infobox, despite their names not appearing on the poster. Jacobite himself said "The rule [of using the poster] was created precisely to avoid these kinds of debates." Yet here he is saying that we should disregard it because it "seems clear [...] that Pitt, Norton and Carter are the stars of the film." So, having a debate over the guideline here will defeat the purpose of it, much like it did at Moonrise Kingdom. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the original goal of the billing block guideline was to better resolve disputes when we are dealing with 6-10 names. For this film, we have the three main actors that I think are readily defined as "Starring". Meat Loaf and Jared Leto are very much secondary compared to the top three, and it seems acceptable to focus on these three. Erik (talk | contribs) 06:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
In addition, the broader guidelines at WP:IBX state "to summarize key facts of the page's subject". I think the billing block helps provide a good cutoff point for a lot of names, but like I said, in this case, the three are "obvious" in having key roles in the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 06:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I feel like I've made my stance on the issue clear. I've always thought that it makes the most sense to just follow the guidelines and not worry about garnering consensus for who should be included. That's why the guidelines are there, in my mind. But hey, if consensus is reached to remove Meat Loaf and Leto, I won't challenge it. Corvoe (speak to me) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To add on again, I think that Moonrise Kingdom is a good example of why the billing block guideline should be treated as a rule of thumb. It is a case where the main characters are played by unknowns, but the secondary characters are played by well-known actors. I agree with Alfietucker that it is strange not to mention these two at all. The infobox is not required to reflect "official" reporting. If reliable sources say a screenwriter wrote a film even though he was not credited due to legal issues, we'd identify that screenwriter in the infobox. It is just that by and large, the infobox will match official credits. I think with a case like Moonrise Kingdom or Mud, we need to pay more attention to secondary sources (e.g., reviews) to see what actors are commonly recognized. For example. Time here identifies the two actors and Bruce Willis as the main actors. Variety here mentions the two actors in their list. So I find Moonrise Kingdom a great example of why the billing block by itself doesn't work. Erik (talk | contribs) 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue that the billing block by itself doesn't work, because I actually agree that it doesn't. However, I think it needs to be addressed on the template's guidelines first. I agree with both of you. I think consensus should be fine in changing the actors listing, and that the billing block and/or the names at the top of the poster should work fine. However, the guidelines just saying "base it on the billing block" seems fairly concrete to me, so I follow that guideline. Corvoe (speak to me) 06:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Note in plot summary

I added a note right above the plot summary that identifies the three main characters of the film before the reader begins reading the summary. This is a new approach because one unspoken issue is that on Wikipedia, the cast list comes after the plot summary. I would normally advocate for a cast list right next to the plot summary, but unfortunately the film infobox gets in the way of that. I think this note is a reasonable alternative to inserting actors' names in parentheses (especially just the surnames). If other editors see it differently, let me know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Specificity for clarity's sake is a good thing, but using parentheses seems like the better option to me. While they may accomplish the same goal, adding a note at the top seems like it would be confusing to a reader who hadn't already seen the movie and thus wouldn't understand why it would be there vs. every other movie's article. More importantly, maybe, it sticks out in terms of the stylistic uniformity the manual of style typically strives for. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to think of a way for readers to be able to link roles to the actors in the same area as the plot summary. While we've uniformly had the cast list after the plot summary, it does not mean it is a good practice. If it was not for the film infobox, I would have petitioned for the cast list to be in a table next to the plot summary long ago. One experimental approach I've taken elsewhere is Surf Ninjas because it does not have much casting information. This meant a section with extraneous white space as seen here. The note was a way to keep the main actors to one line instead of three as seen at Surf Ninjas. Alternately, I may pursue a "Cast" section since it is not obvious that there is a table in the "Casting" subsection. If I did that, I would probably do something similar to Panic Room. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to comment about using parentheses. I want to explore other approaches because I think it can be awkward for an actor's name to pop up in parentheses in the middle of the summary. Basically, some way to have the plot and cast content side-by-side without having to cross into the other's territory. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Safe building" ?

I just watched the first sequence in the movie several times, going frame by frame at points. The camera clearly pans down to the basement of the SAME BUILDING they are in and shows a van with explosives and an LED timer. An instant before the shot cuts away, the timer changes. Later on in the movie, after the narrator disables the timer, you can see Tyler fiddling with it again.

So, um, I don't really feel like dealing with the wrath of a thousand dorks in basements laboriously explaining to me the definition of Original Research, so I think I will just add a citation needed or a dubious tag to the claim in the plot section that the building they are in is a "safe" one. -- 104.156.240.140 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Good observation! I revised the wording accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't the first one to notice this--someone pointed it out to me a long time ago. He also claimed that if you timed it, the point at which the bomb went off was the moment when the gun went off (the shot that "killed" Tyler), though I haven't verified that. This movie came out what, 15 years ago? Surely this stuff must have been thoroughly discussed *somewhere* on the internet??(Googling has so far revealed nothing.) --104.156.240.167 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing that particular theorizing, but I would not be surprised if it was somewhere. There are a lot of articles about Fight Club in all kinds of academic publications. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing note

Hi all. Sorry if this is out of form but I don't ususally edit wiki pages so I don't know the ins and outs of what's acceptable for these talk pages. Anyways in the Notes section, note 110 doesn't exist anymore. The current link is an archived version but the archived version doesn't exist anymore either. If anyone is inclined, then perhaps you might want to remove that link and the mention to it, or maybe find a working archival of it. Thanks y'all.68.113.8.120 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange—when I click the archive link, it shows me the quote for about 10 seconds and then it resolves into a "not found" page. Not ideal behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving to Fight Club (film)

This page certainly must be moved to correct name (mentioned above). Original novel has to be replaced for the 'Fight Club'.Wikimostafa (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimostafa, the articles for the novel and the film have been moved a few times based on discussions that formed consensus. The last discussion can be seen here. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Erik II for the link; I'm late, but support victor falk's comments on the earlier discussion. Even if redirects is decided to be based on 'popularity' here, I think the 'name's must change according to originality and normality (Fight Club (film) for the film and Fight Club for the novel). returning the 'fight club' title to novel is the minimum act we can do to apologize from it:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimostafa (talk • contribs) 09:46, July 12, 2015‎
Since the last RM discussion was years ago, you could start a new one if you feel strongly about it. After all, consensus can change. Directions can be found at WP:RM. I don't have any strong feelings myself; I doubt that readers struggle to find either article. It's more about posterity. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
My English isn't good at all to discuss in detail, so I hope someone else start a new one. Wikimostafa (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, the film is more well-known than the novel. On the other hand, without the novel there would be no film. This is why i think that best would be to replace the disambiguation page Fight Club (disambiguation) by 'Fight Club' and this one by 'Fight Club' (film) (and no change for Fight Club (novel)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.145.75.40 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree:::::
You should read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for how these things are decided. It doesn't matter that the film was spawned from the novel. Having the name 'first' is not a factor. --SubSeven (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Fight Club (film), just like Watchmen (film), since the film has the graphic novel and the graphic novel's page is just simply Watchmen. I guess, Fight Club must be like that too (JackHood) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are different cases. Read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --SubSeven (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Rosalind Apartments

Laser brain, Jamesluckard, it seems to make sense that "Rosalind" is a typo. The reference does say "Rosalind", but I cannot find it mentioned again elsewhere (and remember having the same problem before and assuming that the place was obscure). I can't find any reliable source that mentions "Rosslyn" with Fight Club. Should we just drop the detail? Adjust with an editor's note? Try to find a print source? (It was a 1999 film, after all.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There are no Rosalind Apartments in LA and I don't think there ever have been. The Hotel Rosslyn is an old hotel on Skid Row in LA that's very famous, it has been in a bunch of movies, and it was an SRO hotel/apartment building, serving low-income long-term tenants, at the time the movie was made, so it makes sense that the writer meant it. Also, I know for certain that the entire John Doe apartment chase sequence in SE7EN was shot only two blocks away from the Rosslyn at the Alexandria Hotel, another decaying early 20th Century hotel that was serving as SRO housing at the time. Jamesluckard 5:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)]]

In that case, barring a reliable source, I'd rather drop the detail. --Laser brain (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I just dropped "Rosalind" from the sentence, keeping the rest. It is not like we have a relevant Wikipedia article to link to (not to mention that this detail has been overlooked all this time, showing its irrelevance). Any problem with keeping the sentence without naming the place? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Marla gives him her phone number

I just rewatched the film and I noticed that it's actually The Narrator who gives Marla his phone number so that if he wants to, he can switch his support groups but the plot says that it's Marla who gives him her phone number. Can anyone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregFelix (talk • contribs) 07:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information in Critical Response section.

"In 2008, readers of Empire ranked Tyler Durden first on a list of the 100 Greatest Movie Characters."

The reference itself links to an article that lists Tyler Durden as ranked eighth greatest movie character, with Indiana Jones actually referenced as first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfox01 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Adamfox01, thanks for pointing this out! It was likely vandalism. I've corrected it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Genre?

What should be the film genre for Fight Club? Is it a dark comedy? A psychological drama? A psychological thriller or crime drama? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kade Klodt (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That uncertainty is exactly why we have not included a specific one in the opening sentence. :) People have added one or the other, but none are really the predominant label among sources. We are better off articulating the premise of the film in more words after the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! there are sources where genres are termed as "thriller" too [1], [2], [3]. Also, IMDB states it is only a "drama" film whereas the film is termed as a satirical film too. Anyways, film focuses on anti-corporate theme which includes mass terrorism theme as Project Mayhem plans to destroy corporate organizations through bombings (As mentioned in plot). So, considering Fight Club only as a drama film is not that efficient as keeping reliable sources on it. Drama films are considered where there are tragical moments like disasters, family issues, emotional intensity. So i kept my word and rest this case. Ping soon. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 07:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted your additions to the lede for precisely the reasons stated above by Erik: the film's genre is simply not easily defined, so it is best not to list one at all. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite but the sources states that it is a "thriller" film. Neverthless, it is even not a plain "Drama" film too. Anyways, i respect that edit revert you have made up. But the sources were not reliable? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
D'SuperHero, it's not that the sources are not reliable. It is that even reliable sources report different genres. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we want to go with the "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". There is not one genre or sub-genre that is agreed upon by most sources. We do not want to mash up different genres either because that is original research (since the result is a term that does not exist anywhere else outside that Wikipedia article). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Erik Well i agree. Thanks for the time. Way to go. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
D'SuperHero, what gives? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Erik, brother at least the genre "Drama" should be in lede. And the categories too added as American Drama Films. So shuld even adding "Drama" is wrong? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And foremost thing IMDB at least denoted it as "drama" (which is really not actually). So mere edits of drama shouldn't be refrained. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
D'SuperHero, the editors' consensus here is to not to specify a genre. Categories are going to overlap yet be distinct, especially since film genres are subjective and depend on the film. Some films are clearly only one genre, others may mix it up with many genres (like this one does). We cannot do the overlapping approach in the lead section's opening sentence because it is essentially a label not seen elsewhere. Nor can we claim one predominant genre for this film since there is no consensus among sources for us to follow. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If I can chime in this conversation, I believe the genres for the film is neo-noir psychological thriller. I read on the comment above that it's a dark comedy, there were no humorous parts in the movie from what I remember. I could be wrong. Film Minister (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Strike comments made by block-evading account --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it has been called a neo-noir film, a psychological thriller, and many other things besides. Yes, including black comedy. :) I'm surprised you don't see the humor in it; it has been discussed in sources. In any case, there is no consensus among sources for what genre the film belongs in. So we cannot mash up several genres into something that has never been seen before. We are better off discussing elements of the film later in the lead section (as well as the article body). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Casting section/actors list.

The infobox in the Cast section is incomplete, imo. The main infobox should only have Pitt, Norton, and Bonham Carter, because they are the 3 principal actors of the cast. But the Casting section should still have Meat Loaf and Jared Leto, as well as a few other tertiary characters' actors: Zach Grenier, Eion Bailey, and Holt McCallany. (Granted, McCallany is debatable I suppose. But even small roles by known actors are worthy of inclusion in cast lists, and have been across various films' cast lists. Even well-known actors making cameo appearances, oftentimes in no name roles, warrant a mention of some sort. It's a bit inconsistent, but even as a standalone article, I don't see what harm there is in mentioning a few extra names. Again, they're actors with significant bodies of work who had minor but crucial contribution to the overall film. Tertiary characters are still characters in the film and ought to be included as part of an encyclopedic article about said film.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fight Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fight Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fight Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Economist article

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Genres

The film's genre are always officially known to be psychological action comedy thriller drama film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.65.175 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no primary genre to be established. See WP:FILMLEAD. I've thought that there could be a "Genre classifications" section since it's not possible to categorize this film neatly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Germany

Recently, 77Survivor removed "American" from the lead based on the fact that the infobox lists "Germany" as a country for the film. It cites two sources that indeed list "Germany" as a country for the film without any explanation why. I reverted this edit and at the same time removed Germany from the infobox. My reasons are primarily that there is NO discussion in the article at all about Germany or why it's relevant to the film. We don't know why IMDB and BFI list Germany either. Things are not supposed to be in the infobox that are not written about in the article prose. However, has elected not to follow WP:BRD, so I'm bringing the discussion here for other opinions. Pinging Erik as the editor who brought this through FAC, at which time I see Germany was not listed in the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I removed American because as per WP:FILMLEAD, multiple nationalities can't be mentioned in the leading section. And you're the only one who's doubting the credibility of BFI's country classifications since they're normally accurate and used widely in many articles. I'm not saying it isn't an American film. It is, but if it's also German, we can't mention the two together.

In case both BFI and IMDb are incorrect, keep it American only. But still, I went through the history and found this. You might wanna check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fight_Club&oldid=647408551

This user is the one who added Germany and it's been intact since 2015. No one but you raised objection regarding how it's "relevant to the film". Seriously? That's a new one.(77Survivor (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

Let me know if you have any arguments that actually address what I wrote. --Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Some databases (such as the BFI) include countries that helped to finance the film, but weren't necessarily involved in producing it. It is often useful to double-check the country at the Lumiere databases which tends to filter out countries that were not involved in the actual production of the film. Fight Club is essentially a Fox picture, made by Americans in the United States and as such it is a stretch to consider it as anything other than American. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that the Lumiere database is any more reliable than what's cited, but Germany isn't listed there. I've removed Germany from the infobox again because it's still an MoS violation and degrading the article from FA standard. If editors continue to push these changes, the article will have to to go WP:FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The extent of Germany's involvement with this film has bothered me with the lack of clarity. It's not just BFI that mentions both US and Germany. AFI's page for Fight Club also mentions both. Having done a lot of research, I've never found anything conclusive, so it is hard to do more than speculate that the film probably had enough German financing in part to warrant that country being mentioned. The way the guidelines are written, the countries in the lead section and the countries in the infobox are locked together, and we don't really have anything to make exceptions. Germany has a role worth mentioning for database purposes, but it does not have a role worth mentioning for prose purposes. But the infobox countries are often looked to to determine whether or not a film has a singular nationality. If both AFI and BFI say US and Germany, it's hard to claim that singular nature. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, an MoS violation has again been introduced to the article. There is not supposed to be anything in the infobox that's not written about in the article. There is no mention of Germany in the article prose or its relevance to the subject. This is getting frustrating as it seems the blind reliance on the word "Germany" being present in an AFI database is going to trump our content guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes it an MoS violation? We have many film articles whose infoboxes name people that are never brought up in the article body. The runtime is never mentioned in the article body. The British Film Institute and the American Film Institute are the best quality reliable sources we can have. From a database perspective, it is needed to mention Germany. It does not have to be mentioned beyond that. If anything, to reference AFI and BFI to include US and yet exclude Germany would be a deceptive editing practice. One solution to consider is to have a "Notes" section that indicates that databases name the countries involved with Fight Club as US and Germany, but that Germany had no direct involvement.
Actually, I looked at Google Books again. This may solve the mystery. The production company Regency Enterprises is run by Arnon Milchan. He raised $900 million, "including a reported $270 million from LSC (Williams 1991) along with investment from German partners Scriba & Deyhle." See results here. May be worth looking into more, and we could have a "Notes" section that finally explains the German connection. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, in particular "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". This illustrates my biggest beef with infoboxes in particular. WikiProjects adopt usage standards that allow information to be present in the infobox ("Germany") that's not explained in the article. The infobox becomes a magnet for factoids (happens a lot with genres in music articles) that aren't discussed in the prose and thus violate the guidance for the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. That is why I have advocated for crew lists (in addition to cast lists) in the past. It also says, "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." This does not necessarily mean we can't figure out a way to include it even in brief. The problem is, searching for Fight Club in Google books, "US/Germany" shows up repeatedly in multiple reliable sources. It should be recognized in this article and tackled in some way. One consideration is to have only "United States" and have a note tag that can state in the "Notes" section that US and Germany are often stated (in which we cite AFI and BFI) and that international funding defines the nature of Germany's involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Any feedback on the "Notes" section attempt? Should we explain more about Regency Enterprises? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable solution. What I want to avoid, and this goes for any factoid that ends up in an infobox, is the reader seeing "Germany" and being unable to find any substantive information. And then of course we have the side-problem of the editor coming in and saying it's not an American film because of that being in the infobox, which is of course absurd. --Laser brain (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Landmark and Fight Club

An illustrated essay on thefincheranalyst.com, published late in 2019 argues convincingly that, probably more than anything, Fight Club is about Chuck Palahniuk's involvement with est, the Forum, and Landmark (which is well-documented) - controversial personal development trainings, which occasionally result in psychological casualties, whose members are known to volunteer their free time to perform menial tasks for the leaders, and who were investigated by the American Psychological Association (a task force led by Dr Margaret Singer) for the tactics used. When considered in total, the parallels between this training industry and Fight Club are unmistakable. Google "LGATs and Fight Club: Dissecting a Delusion" to access the essay. Jagter80 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Morumbi Shopping shooting

I've reverted again an editor's attempt to add a "Morumbi Shopping shooting" section to this article, as seen here. In my original revert, I stated, "Not finding that this warrants a whole section in the article body. Also not sure if it's worth including in 'See also' since I have not seen this brought up in any of the film's coverage that I've read." This shooting seems to have little relation to this particular film. Other editors are welcome to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Only tangentially connected to the film. I don't think it needs its own section. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Genre

I don't mind if I can add "Psychological drama" genre in Fight Club, because there's a list. Fortunewriter (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Homoerotic interpretation

The section discussing homoerotic interpretation of the film has only two sources, neither of which go into the level of detail as the wiki article. What appears on the wiki page look largely like the views of the contributor. Suggest that if no further sources are available (preferably something more academic than listicles) the section is removed or at least substantially reworked. Archimedes von Snuggleboots (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the content is out of place. First, the "Themes" section has generally been what the filmmakers intended, and the Interpretations of Fight Club (woefully underdeveloped, I admit) sub-article is intended for independent takes that would be academic in nature. (Especially considering that there are non-academic takes like the film being compared to Calvin and Hobbes.) I think analysis of homoeroticism in the film can be included at the interpretations sub-article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To follow up about this, editor Bi-on-ic is attempting to shoehorn the exact same content here and at Interpretations of Fight Club, with the content's sources being Q News Six wildly homoerotic moments from classic movies and Out 10 Bro Movies with Homoerotic Undertones, neither which are authoritative sources about interpretations. There are much, much better sources to use, as evidenced by Google Scholar, but this content is sloppy in terms of sourcing and writing and also WP:UNDUE weight. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Cast pictures

The cast section has pictures of Pitt and Norton from the 2010s. Are there any suitably licensed pictures from around the time of the film that could be substituted? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we even need these pictures? The film poster image shows both of them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Probably not. But the photos on the poster are small. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There isn't much difference between how the characters look and how the actors look in this case, but in general I do think it is good to have pictures of key personell when reasonably good quality images are available. I would however suggest a different image where Pitt's face is not obscured by sunglasses, perhaps instead a photo of him from 2012 File:Brad_Pitt_2012.jpg where his face is more clearly shown. -- 109.76.197.11 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Starring

An IP editor thinks that the film infobox's "Starring" field should include Meat Loaf and Jared Leto with Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter, based on the infobox template's documentation. The documentation is neither identified as policy or guideline, and even if it were considered as a guideline, films vary too much to enforce using every name in the billing block no matter what. For Fight Club specifically, Pitt, Norton, and Carter all appear in the billing block before the title, and The New York Times here says, "Major stars sometimes appear before the title," which is what happens here. Based on reliable sources in the article body, there is a clear delineation between these three and Meat Loaf and Jared Leto. Meat Loaf is mentioned in only a couple of dress-up details, and Leto isn't even mentioned at all. In contrast, Pitt, Norton, and Carter are mentioned multiple times. For this film, these three names make sense as "Starring" together, both in the opening sentences and in the infobox. It's unnecessary to shoehorn two less-represented names into that grouping. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree with you and I've undone the addition of those two pending this discussion. Calidum 15:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    To add on, this says, "...the lead actor(s) will get an above-the-title credit. Often this is expressed as 'above or before' the title because in print advertising and on posters they have a billing block, which includes all the credits." We are not required by the documentation to be in lockstep to use every actors' name in the billing block no matter what. It is reasonable to vary the approach depending on the film's circumstances. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't start this but I did restore/add names because the wiki source contained a comment saying that the names listed were "per billing block" so I listed the names that were actually in the billing block (the block of small print at the bottom of the poster). It did not make any sense to remove names and leave that misleading contradictory comment. It does no harm to list 5 names rather than 3 in the Infobox but I don't feel strongly about it. If editors agree on a local consensus to list only the top actors billed above the line, and the misleading warning comment has been removed, that's fine too. Just don't say one thing and do another. -- 109.76.197.11 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the "Starring" field in Template:Infobox film. The discussion can be seen here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert?

@Ïvana: I'm confused, why did you revert these edits [4]? Are these not proper citations? Armegon (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Genre

Hello, i want to add the genres to the film page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Luthor16 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, see the discussion above. The film has been called many different things, and we can't combine them into something that has never been uttered outside Wikipedia. We have to avoid this original research, and failing an obvious genre to attach, we should use the rest of the lead section to frame the film for readers. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's satire-drama with some neo-noir and film noir elements. I don't really know. Many has described it as drama and action/adventure, or thriller. JesseLawl (talk) 8:09 PM —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the genre description should be a satirical neo-noir psychological thriller. That probably sums up the movie best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.158.139 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lex Luthor16 I believe it could be called a "black comedy psychological thriller". Because in the beginning it starts off as a black comedy on consumerism and contains elements of satire but nearing the end devolves into a psychological drama. 2001:8F8:1737:FACD:384D:22B:CD09:F6A9 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Genre

I know it’s a psychological thriller and dark comedy. But I don’t know if it’s an action movie. Should I add any genres? 174.251.240.56 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– The book came first. This is the only instance I can think of where the original property has the parenthetical title. The only conceivable reason I can think of for why the film gets to have the page name without parentheses is because people enjoy it more, but both projects are equally notable. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: a proposal at Talk:Fight Club (novel) has been combined with this this request to centralize discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you give any source that the film is the primary topic despite the novel coming first? If you use page views, I don't think that's a valid statistic, since for 12 years the film has wrongly had the plainer name that people would logically search up for. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon suggested an alternate option; Alternatively, propose that film move along with moving the disambig page for Fight Club, that is, no primarytopic, which would get my support. MikeAllen, how does this option sound? I really don't think the film should be considered the primary topic when it's an adaptation of something already notable. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose The film is clearly the primary topic as per the discussion at the archived AfDs mentioned above. "This is the only instance I can think of where the original property has the parenthetical title." Another example mentioned in one of the discussions is The Godfather. Barry Wom (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I would support no primarytopic, since the book and the movie and several other topics cry out for disambiguation here. Dicklyon (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose moves. I'm leaning film as the primary topic. O.N.R. (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think the film is PRIMARY by page views and long-term significance. There's plenty of cases where something might be PRIMARY over something it's named after, see various buildings or locations named after obscure historical figures or donors.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose – being the original work doesn't mean that it's more notable than any adaptation by default. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose per above. I don't see why the film wouldn't be the primary topic, especially because of it's significance in popular culture (For example, the popular quote "The one rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club" or something similar). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
That quote is actually first in the book though. The movie just took that quote from the book. That being said, I did find out that this isn’t the only situation where the movie adaptation of a book is the primary topic; somebody else mentioned the Godfather, but I found out this also applies to How to Train Your Dragon. I'd still like to keep this discussion open for the time being, but it does turn out that I was wrong about this being the only situation. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the first rule of the Fight Club RM. . . Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Possibly move the DAB page to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just because something is the original work, it does not make it the primary topic (and that is an incredibly weak argument imo). I'd argue that the film is the primary topic in this situation. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fight_Club/Archive_5&oldid=1199017427"