Jump to content

Talk:500 Days of Summer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introducing the Queen Mary University London editing team

[edit]

Hi everyone, we have been assigned this article as part of our university research project. Please assume good faith on our behalf whilst we edit this article. Our usernames are: LilliSch, Maristewart, IvanaOn, Evenallthenamesweretakenwastaken, and Luckrej. (Lillisch (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Title stylization

[edit]

Isn't there a convention on Wikipedia that characters that aren't pronounced be left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.148.147 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his review Ebert pointedly ignores the spurious punctuation and praises another reviewer for doing so as well. From his review it seems this affectation not added until after Sundance. Either Wikipedia will still need to have an article and a redirect for one title or the other, be it 500 Days of Summer or (500) Days of Summer but I'll have a look and see if I can't find that guideline discouraging non pronounceable characters in article names. (Might take a while if I can find it at all.) -- Horkana (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Note: The movie’s poster insists the title is "(500) Days of Summer." Led by Variety, every single film critic whose review I could find has simply ignored that punctuation. Good for them." [1] -- 109.79.171.15 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External fansite

[edit]

While the article is still quite underdeveloped, (there's not a whole lot of information about 500 Days of Summer,) I think this link is a good resource for information about the film. Adding a note here, as the site doesn't seem to be official. Mrtea (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:External Links. Fan sites are not usually included. -- Horkana (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews

[edit]

Early interviews of both Joe and Zooey are here. Should be a good source for why they wanted to do it and some other insight. --Peppagetlk 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site has an interview with the writers here that would be great to add. Peppagetlk 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopsis

[edit]
Resolved

The last words in the plot synopsis are "Tom's new beau." Beau means boyfriend, and Autumn looked pretty female to me. I changed it to the gender-neutral "crush." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.208.186 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belle would have been the gender appropriate adjective but best to keep it simple. While we have a section on plot synopsis I don't get why the plot summary was marked as too long, it seems like it would be hard to cover the story with much less. Whoever marked it should have explained here or just tried to shorten it. -- Horkana (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you are so confused. MOSFILM states that plot summaries need to be 400-700 words. This ain't Citizen Kane or Pulp Fiction. The tag stays until the plot is shortened. Understand? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren is pretty much the man. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you COM. If you like this plot shortening then you may like this. I've seen the film twice, and downloaded the soundtrack yesterday, which includes the opening speech, which give Jan 8 as day 1. Feel free to add Wikilinks, and I cannot remember where it is set, I think San Diego. But change "the city" for the actual city. And let's try not to have the thing bloat up again. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job shortening. :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Erik. From someone like yourself that means a lot. The challenge is keeping it to a reasonable length. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do want a full summary, with all the counters then go here. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is set in Los AngelesEbw7 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting date

[edit]

If Day 500 was May 23, then Day 1 was January 9. (Try it in excel...Enter May 23 in one cell, and then make another cell equal to the first cell minus 499.) I assume it was on Day 1 that they met, right?76.173.211.252 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening music on the CD (Boy meets Girl) says they met on January 8th. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 500 days of summer are from January 8 (this date is mentioned in the film) to May 22. Tom meets Autumn on Wednesday, May 23 (also mentioned in the film) which would be the first day of Autumn. Rillian (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, if May 23 is a Wednesday, then January 8 a year earlier would be a Sunday. This means the staff of New Hampshire Greetings was working on a Sunday when Tom met Summer for the first time. Rillian (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film specifically mentions Jan 8 and Wednesday May 23, so those are the only date which need to be identified, even if they don't fit within a calendar. Day 488 and 290 are not given as dates, so adding them would be original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Pixie Dream Girl

[edit]

Is Summer a Manic Depressive Dream Girl? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.216.225 (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 12.130.119.12 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC) what does that even mean? 12.130.119.12 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and no. It would be OR to add it. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could express the same sentiment in other ways but I would strongly discourage you from trying to promote the term Manic Depressive Dream Girl. Reviews have commented on the shallow character development for Summer, and mentioned films like Garden State.
The term "Manic Depressive Dream Girl" seems like a terrible neologism to me and unlikely to catch on. Journalists make up new categories all the time to give themselves something to write about (music journalists, especially so). -- Horkana (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's a surprise, an editor not only found a journalist who used the term but also a direct quote from the Director using the words and admitting that was the archetype he was going for. I still hope the phrase doesn't catch on, it's not very catching and will probably mostly be shortened into the acronym requiring further uninteresting explanation. -- Horkana (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences

[edit]

The film is supposed to include a cameo by Star Wars character stop reading if you don't want to know. I'm wondering if the Sundance screening or other previews included this scene. I've also read the film was called "500 days of summer" and only after Sundance did they adopt the convention of writing it as (500) which Ebert and pointedly ignores. There was something else about the title card showing the numbers having been added later, which I thought I had read in one of the articles referenced here but have been unable to find again. I've been trying to find sources for these and add them, particularly the appearance of Harrison Ford is either an interesting cameo worth mentioning or in terms of the production difficulty in getting permission to license the clip. Will tackle it later if I can. -- Horkana (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really a cameo, Tom uses a car window as a mirror and instead of himself looking back its a clip of Han Solo. Can't remember exactly when it was, but i think it was just after the mass dancing in the park scene. (assuming this is what you mean) Uksam88 (talk)
it's right at the beginning of the dance sequence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.11 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, now I remember, just slipped my mind. Tom looks in the car window and sees Harrison Ford (as Han Solo) winking back instead of seeing his own reflection. Now I've gone and lost the source article where the director said getting that clip was one of the hardest things they had to do when trying to get the film made. Oh well. -- Horkana (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

[edit]

What's with the change of poster? At the time of writing it has a poster featuring full length pictures of the two leads leaning in towards each other, previously it had a collage poster. I thought film articles were supposed to stick to the theatrical release poster and this article had that until recently. Is there some particular reason for the change? Am I incorrect in my belief that we have to stick with the theatrical release poster? -- Horkana (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the poster image should be reverted to the original. See [3] (scroll 2/3 down to Image): "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." (SEC (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Peter Travers' review

[edit]

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three and a half stars out of four. He wrote, "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl. It's been done to emo death. That's why the sublimely smart-sexy-joyful-sad (500) Days of Summer hits you like a blast of pure romantic oxygen" and concludes: "(500) Days is otherwise a different kind of love story: an honest one that takes a piece out of you."

Travers, Peter. "(500) Days of Summer: Review". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2010-01-08.[dead link‍]

The link is dead and I can't find it anywhere, it can be moved back to the article when a source has been found. --Peppagetlk 21:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

404 PAGE NOT FOUND. Only it was never really gone but it moved to another page.
There was no need to removed it either, even the old page could be found with the help of the Web Archive. -- 109.79.168.251 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter

[edit]

A comment in the wikicode at the end of the plot summary says "Do not add references to 'the counter'". Is there any consensus for this, or is it just one editor's view? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed when the film came out, and a number of editors had removed the "reset to 1" estabishing a consensus. The counter is not part of the plot, in so much as it is an element like subtitles giving time and place in Contagion, it is there for the viewer but not something acknowledged by the characters, therefore should be left out. The note at the beginning of the text about the non linear story is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consensus can change; and we certainly don't enforce an old version of it by the use of comments. I find the statement "the counter is not part of the plot" to be more of an opinion than a fact. I intend to restore/ add it to the article, unless there is a convincing reason not to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The counter is part of the story structure. Other films use flashbacks and flash forwards as part of their story structure, some films have title cards and cue cards between scenes, they don't often get mentioned either. It is the wordcount limitations of WP:FILMPLOT that puts pressure on editors to leave things out. The desire to cover more interesting and relevant details of the plot and story rather than the structural elements, is the reason there was a consensus to leave out the details about the counter. It makes sense to omit the counter which adds a lot of bloat to the word count for not much insight in return. I'd have discussed the count in another section but it didn't get much mention from reviewers or in interviews with the director. (The article doesn't even mention the "Han Solo" reflection/cameo before the musical number or how difficult it was for the director to get licensing for it.) Similarly the article doesn't mention the musical number within the Plot section but it gets a mention elsewhere. -- 109.77.244.255 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(500) Days of Summer → 500 Days of Summer – Per MOS:FOLLOW, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words." The parentheses in this title are included purely for decoration. The guideline mentions Seven (1995 film) and Alien 3 as two films that are stylized in promotional materials, but on this encyclopedia, they are simplified to what is commonly uttered or written. The same rationale should apply here. (Nymphomaniac (film) was similarly resolved where it has been stylized Nymph()maniac.) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild oppose. In this particular instance the parentheses do not appear to be purely for decoration, invoking the non-linear chronology of the film in which each segment is prefaced by a particular number of days at that point and were also intended to imbue the title with an 80's pop songs character (as apparently stated by one of the film's co-writers, per a note at IMDb).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that the reason for the stylization of the film title is important enough to emphasize it in the article title. Even the official website does not bother to use them in the heading. The reasoning behind the stylization in promotional materials can be discussed in the article without having to make it the article title. Like MOS:TM says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners... When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose ... the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." In other words, we have an easy way to make this simple. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. While this has a surface appearance of fitting the standard mold seen in the examples above, it's actually in a different class because parentheses around a word are standard English text formatting and are common in standard English, quite unlike placing opening and closing parentheses in the middle of a word with nothing in between as a stand in for "o" ("Nymph()maniac'"), replacing a word with a character as a stand in for a common English word ("I ♥ Huckabees"), or some non-standard English gimmick like replacing a letter with something else not normally seen for effect ("Se7en"). By contrast, the parentheses' use here is exactly to interject an explanatory or qualifying tone to the central part of the title following, i.e., what parentheses are for and how they're used in everyday writing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current examples do not match this topic exactly, but MOS:FOLLOW does state, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced". For what it's worth, I am not trying to conceal the stylization in the article. I'm supportive of stating in the opening sentence that it was stylized with parentheses, and of having something in the article to explain their use. Just that in common parlance, it would be named in this standard way, and it would be used this way in the article body anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I stated is as a "mild" oppose. It's definitely not a big deal either way (and looks like consensus is against me anyway, though you're all wrong, wrong, wrong!;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support the idea. The parenthesis are not pronounced, and even the web site of the distributing company do not use them in the title ([4]), and as far as I see, most sources cited in the article spell it without parenthesis. So, we can say that the title without parenthesis is the common English name, as per wp:COMMONNAME. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast to my statements above regarding the applicability of MOS:TM, I would cross out my oppose and support if reliable sources indicated without parentheses was more common. Looking through Google books and news archive results, however, shows about a 40/60 split favoring parentheses.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Critics

[edit]

I think the critics from World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) as well as Racket Magazine (RM) should be removed from the article. Neither of these sources is aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes and they don't seem particularly notable critics. The comments from WSWS are also redundant, Peter Bradshaw has already effectively made the point about the film failing to take Summer's view. RM is similarly redundant. -- 109.77.24.57 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WSWS critic removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=500_Days_of_Summer&diff=911577730&oldid=911576719 -- 109.79.188.34 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrobe

[edit]

Could you say something about their wardrobe? I am not qualified but he often wears a tie and a knitted vest and she imitates Jackie O-era attire. Is that intended to place them in a certain demographic or urban tribe? --Error (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion, but of course only if we have reliable sources, and I think we might be in luck:
Summer only wears blue, and only Summer wears blue (except for a particular scene)
"Tom looks every bit the self-effacing creative type" which the author describes as "shades-of-prep-hipster"

Also found a nice set of pictures from 5DoS from the website of Hope Hanafin, but I'm fairly sure we can't use them. There might be enough for a Proudction subsection about Costumes. If anyone is interested enough to add it then please do, if not I'll probably come back to it eventually. -- 109.79.188.34 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the above mentioned Mtv interview alongside with one from ELLE, I added some info on wardrobe as requested. Hope it's up to par Evenallthenamesweretakenwastaken (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I made some very small adjustments but very good work. -- 109.76.197.66 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far too many reviews

[edit]

I would cut the amount of reviews in the section "Critical response", right? Typically in film articles they have much less, and besides the half say basically the same things. I would leave just a selection, including the negative review for a contrast. --Samer.hc (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review try to address different criticisms but some of the Critics added were a little strange (see comment above about WSWS). Took me a little longer than planned to come back and remove it. -- 109.79.188.34 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, as the critical response section was too long and wordy, I took the liberty to cut it down and edit it substantially to include mostly relevant reviews from established publications. The quotes repeating the same information or similar sentiments have been reduced or removed. The structure of the reviews was amended to flow more coherently from positive US reviews to mixed, to negative ones, followed by the British publications' reception. Some reviews' evaluation misquoted as positive was corrected to reflect its mixed views.IvanaOn (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD I reverted the bold edits to the status quo and I'm more than willing to discuss changes, especially smaller more gradual changes. The changes were made in one large single edit that also removed many line breaks and spaces making it much more difficult to see what you had actually changed. It also was not clear why some sources were removed and not others.
I did not agree with the assertion that there were too many reviews, and I still don't. There might be potential for the reviews to be better organised. (The section had two big groups, American critics and British critics, and two smaller groups, positive and negative within those groups.) It is more difficult to do but the best film articles order the critical response section, not by individual critics but instead by the themes being analyzed or the parts of the film being praised, eg cinematography, screen play, actors performances, and so on.
If any critics should be deleted I think last in should be first out, because I'm not sure why a review from "Racket Magazine" was ever added [5]. It seems like a good faith but misguided late addition of an entirely non-notable critic. -- 109.76.197.66 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Racketmag.com as a non-notable critic. If a critic isn't listed on Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes it is probably better not to use it. (There might be exceptions such as regional critics but Racketmag does not to seem to have any particular notability). -- 109.76.197.66 (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another review removed (not by me). One less review because people don't even trust the Daily Mail to review a film without telling lies. -- 109.78.197.202 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary

[edit]

Ten years later ... I'll be adding some sources here (or trying to). Maybe I'll be able to use them to add something to the article later. -- 109.79.188.34 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR1 pm

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristianeMor (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ChristianeMor (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:500_Days_of_Summer&oldid=1202596720"