Talk:Birdman (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birdman actor.

How come the portrayal of "Birdman" is not credited on the page? Actor Benjamin Kanes physically portrayed Birdman on set and has some heavy scenes with Michael Keaton. I believe he should at least be added to the wikipedia page as "Young Birdman (uncredited)" at the bottom. Doesn't seem right to not credit the guy at least on here for the hard work he put in. 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If the role is uncredited, we'll need a source. If the role is significant, it's rather surprising that it is uncredited and pretty much beyond belief that it would be uncredited and not discussed in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this Slate review and this Hitfix article, the IP editor's facts check out. I'm inclined to support the addition of this. Sock (tock talk) 13:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Are Riggan's powers imaginary?

I believe Riggan's superpowers are just in his head. Here's the evidence as I recall it:

• When Riggan is smashing his room up with telekinesis, he is discovered by Jake, who sees it just as a guy smashing his room up the old-fashioned way.
• You'd think Riggan flying through NYC with fireballs crashing around him would be noticed by someone.
• When Riggan arrives at the theatre after flying through NYC, the taxi driver complains that he hasn't paid his fare, implying that he was in the taxi the whole time.

However, I respect that this is all subject to interpretation, and I appreciate constructions like "we see Riggan apparently using telekinesis" or "we are shown Riggan using telekinesis" try to keep interpretation out of it. The problem with those constructions is they involve or imply an audience - "we are shown", "we see", "Riggan is shown (to the audience)" etc - and to my mind this is not a proper description of the plot; the audience is being shown things is not part of the plot. Is there a better way to do this? Popcornduff (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the page be changed to Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)?

I'm not sure if it should be; after all that is its full title. The Academy Awards are calling it by its full title as are many other ceremonies. Should it be changed? Skm989898 11:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is practically identical to Dr. Strangelove, which has maintaned the shortened title due to WP:SUBTITLE. Though technically under the naming conventions for books, we use this to apply to other mediums such as films as well. You can open a requested move if you like, but I suspect others will present the same argument. Sock (tock talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot section (open ending)

An user revert my edit, saying that what I wrote was not important; actually, I think is important to fully understand the movie ending or at least to try to explain it, because before in the movie Birdman talk about "screeching", saying to Riggan: "And the next time you screech...it'll explode into millions of eardrums". So, when i wrote "She looks down at the street, then, hearing a bird of prey screeching, up at the sky, and smiles", my purpose was to point out that "sounding hint" and support who think daughter sees her father flying in the sky, for real or in a symbolic way doesn't matter. Sorry about my english, thanks. --95.236.18.49 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Post-production / Special Effects

I noticed this page has no section on post-production or special effects. Here's a good article to use to start this section. - Richiekim (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Birdman (Hanna-Barbera)

Nothing said about "Birdman," the cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoon superhero (besides a "See Also" link -- Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio). Cartoon Network made a big deal about Birdman in the late 1990s, as they did "Space Ghost" and other dated, generic heroes of that same television era. If there's a connection between Keaton's character and the original Birdman it would be nice to know. Also, if there's a trademark dispute or out-of-court settlement regarding the character(s), we should know about it. If not, this otherwise fine film is insulting to those of us who actually care about the superhero genre -- especially "forgotten" ones from the past. 74.192.165.180 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no connection and nothing to report in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Alejandro González Iñárritu's Name

The full name of the movie's director is Alejandro González Iñárritu. González is his father's last name and the family name. Iñárritu is his mother's name. González is not his middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.189.185 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What???

"After Sam visits Riggan, he dismisses Birdman and sees birds then climbs onto the window ledge."

Sam "dismisses" Birdman? What does that mean?

Sam sees birds? What? Pigeons on the windowsill?

Sam climbs out onto the window ledge? Doesn't seem likely, especially since he comes back in in the next sentence.

Does Sam flip off Riggan AKA Birdman? Does Riggan/Birdman see things? Does he hallucinate birds?

Context indicates that Riggan probably is the one who climbs onto the window ledge and it sounds like he turns into Birdman and flies away.

Not havng seen the movie I can't even begin to guess how to straighten this would-be sentence out.P0M (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam is a she. It's Riggan who dismisses Birdman by saying "Fuck you" to him. After that Riggan sees birds flying close by. He opens the window and climbs onto the windowsill. --URunICon (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Conception and writing

I saw User:Neuroxic reverted my copy edit of the Production section, saying I had "butchered" it. I beg to differ - I only removed stuff that didn't need to be there. The standing version is overwritten.

Case in point - there is no advantage to using this paragraph:

"The film's ending was also changed halfway through filming. González Iñárritu strongly disliked the original ending, and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after it came to him in a dream. When questioned about the original ending however, he explained he would never describe it because it was "so embarrassing." Dinelaris later leaked the ending though, noting it was set in the theatre instead of the hospital, and involved Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room. They would not have been able to shoot this version anyway, since Depp wasn't available."

When this paragraph covers all the relevant points in fewer words:

"The film's ending was changed halfway through filming; the original ending would have involved actor Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room. González Iñárritu found this ending "embarrassing" and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after a new ending came to him in a dream."

(If you think some of the details I removed here are necessary, they can be easily re-added without bloating it.)

There are other weird points in the standing text. Three examples grabbed at random:

• "he did not want to approach a subject tragically again". This means Iñárritu was tragic, not that he approached the film as a tragedy.
• "González Iñárritu strongly disliked the original ending, and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after 'it' came to him in a dream." - the second "it" in this sentence refers to "the original ending", which obviously isn't the intention.
• missing citations - eg the quote '"What this film talks about, I have been through. I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."'

Yes, I saw the peer review of this section before I edited it, but a positive peer review doesn't mean an article can't still be improved. The research and organisation of the information is fantastic, but the copy can be better. Popcornduff (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and no one replied to this, so I've restored my edit. Popcornduff (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Yeah my bad, although I'm busy now I should have at least checked it since then. I still think that as removing a topic sentence from a paragraph in the name of redundancy is laughable, and asking for citations even though all the relevant citations are there (perhaps you didn't read through the interviews yourself but if you did, you'd see that after any quote, the subsequent citation cites the quote) is silly, but there's also a bunch of subtle points that you've edited out completely. This said, the fact that you misinterpreted some of the lines indicates that it's not as precise as it could be. When a have a couple of free days I'll rewrite the section (factoring in you're edits), so hopefully we can come to an agreement. But seriously, there's no need to delete topic sentences. Please don't. Neuroxic (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO it isn't obvious where certain claims come from; the reader shouldn't have to check through sources to find them. The section would benefit from more explicit citations, because there are bits where it's like "I don't see what source this particular claim is from".

Which topic sentences are you talking about? Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, yes, there details I edited out completely. For example, I removed the information in the example paragraph about how Depp wouldn't have been able to film the scene anyway as he wasn't available. This information is irrelevant, because once they've scrapped the ending conceptually, it doesn't matter that Depp wasn't available. (Edit: that's not to say some details can't be re-added, of course; I could have made the wrong call on some of them.) Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Birdman (film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Birdman (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 3 February 2009.
• From Crash (2004 film): "Crash (2005)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
• From 21 Grams: "21 Grams (2003)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved December 17, 2010.
• From The Deer Hunter: "The Deer Hunter, Box Office Information". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved May 26, 2014.
• From Shakespeare in Love: "Shakespeare in Love (1998)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 2012-02-19.
• From The Grand Budapest Hotel: "mojo". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 15 January 2015.
• From Traffic (2000 film): "Traffic (2000)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 2012-03-03.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

About Michael Keaton

Shouldn't there be a mention of the obvious connection that Keaton played Batman 25 years ago wearing a mask that is almost identical to the one birdman wears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.252.205 (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's obvious, then it shouldn't need mentioning. And let's not forget that stating the obvious (such as "water is wet") is considered original research, and promptly deleted. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Rope

Much comment has been made of the illusion that the film was made in a single shot. Yet no one has remarked that Alfred Hitchcock did this more than 65 years ago. And let's not forget the opening of Touch of Evil. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you find sources comparing the two, feel free to add them. Plenty of people have noted the similarity to Rope, it just isn't especially relevant to this film. Sock (tock talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Classical music in score

This seems to be the details. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Conception and writing 2

@Popcornduff: Finally finding myself with some free time, I looked at your edits.

Let me just say, thank you very much. My first reply went too far, focusing on details you cut out instead of phrases you tidied.

Looking back on my original edits, I'm embarrassed to have written content with phrases such as "starts throwing and breaking everything" when, as you put it, the single word "destroys" describes the situation.

Similarly with "work on the script was done" being replaced with "the script was written", and essentially the same for the majority of edits you made. Like Riggan himself, I can be a prick when it comes to other people and something I'm involved in. I've learnt my lesson. Apologies!

This said, I think I understand why I used the b-word when I first undid your edits. Using the paragraph in the article about the writing process as an example, examine the following forms of information:

• With Iñárritu in Los Angeles, Giacobone and Bo in Buenos Aires, and Dinelaris in New York, the script was written mainly through emails and Skype calls.
• Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were "cracking each other up."
• Incorporating the one-shot feature into the script made the writing process more involved than usual.

AND

With Iñárritu in Los Angeles, Giacobone and Bo in Buenos Aires, and Dinelaris in New York, the script was written mainly through emails and Skype calls. Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were "cracking each other up." Incorporating the one-shot feature into the script made the writing process more involved than usual.

The only difference between these are the dot points, and in my view, I don't distinguish a paragraph and list of dot points by the dot points alone. This is why I originally included (now adjusted) phrases such as "This wasn't necessarily bad however" in the paragraph, to try and give the reader, amongst other things, a smoother experience. Countless times I look at an article and I feel all I'm reading is a list of facts without the dot points, instead of paragraphs, and I think the fear that what I had written was going to become a list of dot points made be give such a vitriolic reply.

Anyway, I hope my latest version of the section is fine with you. If it isn't please let me know! I agree with the majority of phrasing changes you made, but conjecture that the largest point of contention you may have with my latest edit is the amount of detail on the film's ending.

Honestly, I laughed out loud (and I still burst into chuckles to this day) when I found out about the film's original ending, (btw, in that moment the film also instantly became even more awesome in my books) and I certainly feel that others who didn't know about it would have a similar reaction. And if this isn't a way to engage a reader then I don't know what is. Also, the meaning behind the film's ending was heavily discussed, which I think increases it's importance.

Neuroxic (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked at your talk page. I think the reason I really identified with Riggan is because I'm a prick. You know what you're doing with regards to editing, don't be discouraged by my previous comments: ignore them. It was just a case of someone making a bunch of assumptions and not taking the proper amount of time to consider feedback. Neuroxic (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about my user page, I didn't write that because of our disagreement, so don't feel bad. Believe me, you're not the first person to revert my copy edits, and you're not even the first person to use the word "butcher". I thought that if I wrote that, it might encourage embittered Wikipedia editors to take a deep breath before blindly reverting.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to consider my version properly! I really do appreciate it, and I wish more editors took your coolheaded approach. No one likes being edited.

I understand your desire to connect up individual facts into nice readable prose. That's definitely a good thing, and I might have damaged that in my edit, because I wasn't the guy trying to stitch them into a narrative in the first place. (It's the kind of thing that gets lost in translation.)

... but I still see a lot of things in your new version that I don't think are necessary. Sorry. :(

"The screenwriters were concerned about the one-shot nature of the film however, and their first reaction was to tell him the movie couldn't work."

Most of the first part of the sentence is implied by the second part. You could simplify this just as "The screenwriters' first reaction was to tell him the continuous-shot premise could not work." that way we know they're concerned about the premise.

"Other people objected too; according to Dinelaris and Giacobone "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,"

Again, the first part is implied by the second. Maybe these are what you meant by "topic sentences" before, but really the topic is introduced elegantly enough just by removing everything before the semicolon.

"The screenwriters didn't regard this style of groupwork as bad however:"

There is nothing here to suggest that the screenwriters might have disliked this writing style, or to suggest it would be bad. You certainly don't need to say it when you follow it with "Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were 'cracking each other up'" which shows that the writing process was obviously productive and enjoyable.

"As a result, it took about a year and a half to complete the final draft"

No information is added by "as a result" - it follows from the previous information.

About the original ending idea: it's not important that the director said he'd never reveal the ending when it was then almost immediately revealed by his cowriter - what's important is that he found it embarrassing and didn't like it. Likewise, when we describe the ending itself, we don't need to say it was set in the theatre and not the hospital when we also say it was set in Riggan's dressing room, which is obviously in the theatre and not the hospital.

Anyway, I'll leave you to take what you want from my suggestions, and maybe one day I'll come back to it again, who knows. Remember, Wikipedia makes dicks of us all. Popcornduff (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems we disagree on a few things. This is good!

I've tried to incorporate what you said into the section, but there are some bits I don't want to budge on. This said, you're more experienced in this area, so even after this rationale if you think you're in the right, go ahead and make the changes.

You'll notice for several edits (especially your first suggestion) I essentially turned the sentence around. I strangely feel it's less repetitive this way. But maybe I'm just in that middle stage of that fabulous passage from Roth's The Ghost Writer where the writer Lonoff describes his job:

"I turn sentences around. That's my life. I write a sentence and then I turn it around. I look at it and then I turn it around again. Then I have lunch. Then I come back in and write another sentence. Then I have tea and turn the new sentence around. Then I read the two sentences over and turn them both around. Then I lie down on my sofa and think. Then I get up and throw them out and start from the beginning."

As for the phrase "As a result" I feel it should be kept in. Without it, to me the line just feels like an appended fact. I think it's smoother with a few words before it, but as I said, if you think the writing is better without it, please edit it out.

I included the "theatre instead of the hospital" line because I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the setting had changed, and make sure the reader understood the original ending didn't include the theater and the hospital too. Again, if you think this is going to be obvious to most people, please change it.

Neuroxic (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing classical music pieces

Hi Metalsand. As noted on the page history, I reverted your edit.

It's a tough one though. Your point is good, in that the actual pieces are not mentioned anywhere on the page. The page did include them previously: before I wrote the music section, the page was essentially just a list of them. Clearly, this was in violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but more than that, the old version of the music section was ignoring the largest part of the score, Sánchez's drumming.

The reason I reverted your edit was because the name of a piece looks out of place. When I was wrote the section, I continuously debated with myself whether I should include the names of the pieces or not. In the end, I came to the conclusion that if I was to name one piece, I would have to name them all, and there were simply too many classical music pieces to do this for. There certainly isn't information on the web as to why each was chosen - indeed, as G. Iñárritu said, the particular choice of them wasn't important. (But personally I'm sceptial on this point. For example, surely the fact that music featuring pizzicato was used in the scene where Sam and Mike make out to directly coinside with the imagery of ropes in the background, but I digress.)

This isn't to say that the list of the pieces shouldn't be found on Wikipedia at all, I just feel it isn't suitable to list them here.

The place to put them would be a separate article of the soundtrack of the film. Many FA articles on films have them, see for instance Prometheus and Sense and Sensibility. (The classical music pieces would be included, by default, under the Track listing section.)

Of course, it will take more than a few hours to flesh out the page (I'd estimate ~ 15h including research for the production and reception sections, but you could easily make a minimial page in ~5 h.), but if you really feel our article needs it, I say go and make Birdman (soundtrack)

Neuroxic (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Micro peer review

Good job on the article, particularly the critical reception section, however, the plot is poorly written. Could someone step up and rewrite it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Popcornduff (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with it. Let me reiterate: I like this article, and I respect the work people have put into it. But the plot section really fails the reader. To start with, it avoids and glosses over the central conflict between Riggan, his ex-wife, his daughter, and his girlfriend, or in other words, his failure as a husband, a father, and a lover, and how this connects with the plot. That's just to start. I haven't even addressed the repetitive prose style in the first paragraph which makes me want to stop reading. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Hello. I know it's been a while since you posted this, but I tend to agree. It's not great prose by any means; we've seen better (for instance see the plot sections of Ruby2010's articles (eg Pride & Prejudice), I consider these to be quite good), but note even in these there is no discussion of themes.

The plot section isn't really the place for the discussion of these kinds of things: most well-written articles discuss such aspects in a separate themes and analysis section. I do plan to write one, but only after I've improved existing aspects of the article, with the exception of the plot. (I've found for film articles the section that gets the most attention is precisely the plot, (see for instance The Grand Budapest Hotel) so am happy to let other people fuss over it while I write sections that wouldn't otherwise get attention.) Regardless, keep in mind that the scope of such a themes section won't be on the scale of, say, the Romeo and Juliet article, simply because it hasn't been studied as much. This said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least something written or discussed about Riggan's flaws. It's just a matter of digging it up.

So, while the plot discussion does not discuss a character's traits and the connection with the plot, it doesn't mean it won't be included: it'll just appear in a different place. As regards to the repetitiveness, well, I've already said the plot is the last section of the article I'll work on, (only when the rest of the article is up to FA standard will I take a look) but if you think you can rewrite it in an interesting and informative manner, (while of course adhering to MOS:FILM) I say go ahead. Neuroxic (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birdman (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've spent the past few days observing this article and can't really find anything wrong with it without nitpicking (only major one being seeing visual effects is only one sentence, may as well merge it with another section).

Final verdict: pass. Rusted AutoParts 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Rusted AutoParts: If you think the article passed the GAN, you need to finalized the decision and close it according to the GA review criteria. If the article has any issues, please let me know and I'll address those. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Pass/Fail: Rusted AutoParts 12:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Keaton

There's the obvious connection between the main character and the actor cast for the role that many reviews mention. Both once have played a superhero in films and have ever since tried to get away from it, with little success (to a point that many say their career has died). Hence, it would certainly add to the article if more of Keaton's own opinions regarding his role and that of all people he has been cast in it could be sourced and added, maybe even what he thinks on whether the role is a good or accurate reflection of his own career, how he perceives it and how he feels about it (i. e., does he feel about it in a similar way as does the character). Only a short blurb on behalf of the director that Keaton was a late choice but once he was considered was the obvious choice, and that Keaton asked him whether he was "making fun of him", just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

Also, now that a single-shot film has won the Academy Award for Best Picture, I think it's about time for a Wikipedia list (maybe also a WP category) of feature films that are or appear to be made in a single shot. So far, all we have is single shot cinematography, which is but a re-direct to long take, where single-shot films are only mentioned in passing. --80.187.106.216 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The ending writing process

Comments on an old revision:

Additional text:

Following the Academy Award win for the film, the director and writers presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release.[12] The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting Johnny Depp as filming yet another installment of the Pirates of the Carribean franchise. Iñárritu grew to strongly dislike the original ending, calling it "so embarrassing", and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after a new ending came to him in a dream.[13][14] Iñárritu was reluctant to describe the original ending but it was leaked by Dinelaris. He said the original ending was set in the theatre instead of the hospital, and involved Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room.[15]

As stated by co-author Dinelaris, the old ending was to "... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that.”[16] The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film.[13][17][18]

My comments:

"Following the Academy Award win for the film," - the film won multiple Academy Awards, not one. Are you referring to a specific one?

"...presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release." - some repetition: if an ending was replaced, then by definition the new one will be included in the film. Also "...ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed" is incorrect; the ending didn't change from the film's premier in Venice to release in the US.

"The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting..." - this is too long. A shorter statement like "The original ending intended to parody Riggan's Birdman films by depicting..." would be better, but what follows is incorrect anyway. In the original ending Depp wasn't actually filming A Pirates of the Carribean film, but rather finding himself at the same position in life that Riggan was.

"As stated by co-author Dinelaris" - anyone whose read through the section this far knows Dinelaris is a co-author. The phrase "As stated by Dinelaris" is fine.

"... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that." - this is quite long. Are you sure it's essential to include this quote, and not simply explain it in words?

"The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film." - this seems to suggest that the main reason they changed the ending was to leave it highly ambiguous, but this was not true. The writers came up with another ending, and realized the original they had was silly.

Just remember, writing is hard work! When I was writing the post-production section I spent on average two days writing each paragraph, research time included. Writing's something you get better at it with time though, so don't let my comments dissuade you from contributing. MusicAngels (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Neuroxic (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article you have written was delisted because of defects enumerated at the last review of your article and your issues with poor research WP:OR. But don't worry as other editors at Wikipedia might be able collectively to repair the WP:OR issues in your writing which have been enumerated by the previous reviewing editor concerning these identified issues in your writing. MusicAngels (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:Please note: I was one of the people who requested it to be delisted! As far as I'm concerned, it should have never been nominated for GA status, since as I mentioned there's still several sections of the article that are underdeveloped.

As regard to the WP:OR, I take offense that you claim that my research was poor. As I wrote in the GA reassessment,

"I think it fair to say that anyone who is researching a topic will have come across conflicting sources at some stage, and Birdman is no different."

The reason people were having trouble with the reliability of the sources is that several said different things about some facts, mainly because the authors of some of the sources weren't precise about the details. Just because a source isn't precise about a single claim doesn't mean it should be discounted altogether, just that it should only be cited for claims that it is precise and reliable about.

People (just looking at a few sources that were imprecise about filming dates) were then confused as to why the article said something different. (Although, notice that the citation I used for the claim "St. James Theatre was used for two weeks; it was the location for the stage scenes" says that they filmed at St. James Theatre on 44th Street for two weeks! Bizarrely, some of the other people commenting in the reassessment didn't seem to realize this, but just assumed overall the article was poorly cited.)

If you're still concerned about the accuracy of my citations, the easiest way to verify this would be to read, in full, the twenty or so sources dealing with the writing AND rehearsal and filming; you'll note that whenever there's an interview with the director or someone closely involved the details are sometimes different to the general claims made by other publications.

But please, don't jump to conclusions before you've read the article and verify the citations, otherwise you're wasting your time and mine. Neuroxic (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate Talk discussion of writing quality -- do not remove

No, this is not appropriate at all. Click to see some really poor behavior. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Really bad pronoun use here on this page. Some of the writing is really really bad. I don't like cutting things but now I see here that others are noticing how godawful this is. Can someone help cut out all the subjective stuff and perhaps change "he" and "they" to proper nouns? This is really bad. 67.135.188.9 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC) IP-editor: If you are an editor with an account as you state on your IP-account Talk page, then you need to identify yourself promptly by simply typing in your user account name manually at this time. No further edits are to be made until you identify your account name which you have identified yourself as having on your IP-account Talk page, and identify it prior to further edits on this article. MusicAngels (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Look -- the quality of my edits have nothing to do with whether I have identified or not! Look at the quality of my edits please. There is such bad writing here -- unclear pronouns, the reader doesn't know what the paragraph is claiming, the reader doesn't know the source of a subjective claim of Keaton's knowledge, et cetera. Who I am has nothing to do with the quality of the critique I'm offering here. 67.135.188.9 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC) @User:MusicAngels I am reading all the work above and it seems that I am not alone in thinking that this page is a mess and that you need some writing training. Please do your training here and don't subject your bad writing to Wikipedia readers!!!67.135.188.9 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC) You are required by Wikipedia policy and procedures to identify yourself with your sign-in name prior to further edits here and to follow well established Talk page procedures. You need to identify your sign-in account name without further procrastination. MusicAngels (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC) MusicAngels I see from reading above that you aren't aware of how bad your writing is and how disruptive unclear writing is for Wikipedia users and readers. We are offering important work for the public and I take the mission of good, clear, encyclopedic writing very seriously. You don't seem to care about confusing readers!!67.135.188.9 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC) MusicAngels Seriously please stop and consider that your writing might be the problem here. I am trying to engage with you to tell you that you can't just assert what is going on in a person's head as if it is a fact. You cannot offer paragraphs that begin with "he" and "they" and expect Wikipedia readers to follow long meandering prose. Your writing is provoking a lot of opposition!!!!!67.135.188.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC) You appear to be causing disruptive edits to the article and to this Talk page. You are required to sign-in to your account prior to further edits on this article. MusicAngels (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) I think you need to start attending to the quality of edits and the poor quality of your writing, whoever you are. Seriously. You are one crappy writer.67.135.188.9 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC) You can't erase history! What happens on a talk page needs to stay on the talk page. 128.90.39.238 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Help to keep MusicAngels from removing this section as he did last night. It is important contribution to the talk about the Birdman page. User:Neuroxic User:AvianObserver User:Kailash29792 User:Drmies This paper does not memorialize disruption but in fact any real attempt to get MusicAngels to allow others to edit bad writing. There is demonstrable bad pronoun use unclear sentences.128.90.95.63 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC) IP 67/128, you are clearly not a native speaker of English. Your usage of articles (and your usage of "use", where you mean "usage") and your syntax is, well, awful. Since you call MA's writing crappy, I think you are the kind of person who appreciates honesty. I would like for you to consider this wonderful proverb, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones." This is not to say MA's writing is the best thing since sliced bread; it's not, but it's better than yours. In addition, both of you seem to be unaware of the rules here. For example, MusicAngels, no one is required to announce their identity. On the other hand, IP, you kinda look like a complete jerk, and this using various IPs makes it only worse. If it is true that you have a registered account here, and you're editing as an IP as well, then you may well be violating policy. Then, see WP:TPA: not everything stays. For instance, I am an administrator and that gives me certain powers. If there's material on a talk page that's disruptive and does nothing to improve the article, such as this entire bullshit conversation, I can remove it--and I think I will. And, IP, you're really testing my patience here: I have no problem semi-protecting this talk page and anything else you touch if you keep up this disruptive, disrespectful, and unhelpful editing behavior. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Preparations for GA renomination

The current version of the article has been delisted at the last GA review due to issues with the writing and issues with WP:OR which have been listed in the review. There are also several sections and oversights which appear to be missing in the current delisted article which should be addressed by editors prior to renomination of the page for peer review.

(1) A separate section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending is strongly indicated based on the sheer number of articles written in the press covering themes related to the highly ambiguous ending of the film. The previous author of this article has apparently negative feelings about this important issue. First the author suggested integrating the material into the Writing section, then the author seemed to want to delete it for personal reasons. Which one is it? The material as covered in the press is both interesting and informative to read. It should be included in the article if the article is to be renominated for peer review.

(2) The discussion in the press of the Resolution of the ambiguous ending has gone into dozens of articles in the press and is not covered at all in the current delisted version of the article. There are at least 10-12 different theories which have been discussed in press articles and press reviews of the film, including comments from the director and the writers, which are not covered at all in the current article. To name just two or three of these theories, there is the debate as to whether Riggan dies at the end or survives; another theory suggests that he turns into Birdman; yet another theory suggests that the final scene is set in a dreamscape and has no tangible reality outside of imagination. The author of the delisted version of this article has not included a section covering any of these theories. The author of the delisted article has apparently selected only one of the plot lines for personal reasons and incorporated only this one plot line into the Plot summary contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is WP:OR and the article was delisted because of this. The ambiguities in the plot were intentionally written into the plot by the director and the writers of the film as they have maintained over and over again.

(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.

(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.

(5) The current ending of the Plot makes a WP:OR assertion that there is some relationship with the birds outside of the hospital room. This is not the ending of the film and it is really a push to present this as important enough to claim as the conclusion. The conclusion involves Samantha looking out the window at the horizon. No embellishement is needed here. The original research in the delisted version should be removed.

(6) The prologue to the film is completely missing. There is a very clear and prominent prologue to the film which has been completely ignored by the previous author of this section. It starts with a quotation of Carver which sets the mood of the film, and then cuts to a dramatic shot apparently in the upper atmosphere of an atmospheric disturbance. Some reviewers have commented prominently about this prologue, though the current Plot section ignores it fully.

(7) Virtually everyone associated with the film from the director, to the writers, to the main cast, and to the supporting cast, seem to have given interviews on Talk shows and multiple video link interviews on the internet stating that the film is about the downward spiral of the emotional and mental health of Riggan leading to his end. Neither the emotional decline nor the mental health decline of Riggan is covered in this Wikipedia article with the degree of coverage which has been given to this topic in the press and in Talk show interviews. The material should be covered in the current article with more importance, with more promienence.

(8) A complete rewrite of the plot section should be undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the GAR review which delisted this article in its current form. Several sections appear to be missing such as a section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending, as well as a section covering extensive discussion in the press and criticism of the Interpretations of the ambiguous ending.

Addressing these issues should help to start preparing the article for renomination to GA peer review status. MusicAngels (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels: First, note that I have nothing to do with the plot section: I've only written the production section. I really don't care about what the plot says at this stage (except if some part of it stands out for the wrong reasons, as your addition did); only when it's time for FA assessment will I rewrite it myself. I don't actually think the plot section is engaging at all, as I've said before on this page.

As regard to your point (3) above, the plot section would not be an appropriate place to do this. If you haven't already read WP:FILMPLOT, please do. Similarly, it would be grossly inappropriate to carry out your point (4). Instead, create a new section entitled 'Themes and Analysis' to include your discussion of the father and daughter relationship, the unresolved plot lines, the ending, the significance of the prologue, etc.

At the end of the day, if you do decide to add extra content:

• just make sure you're adding it to the appropriate sections (that means reading the MOS descriptions for each section, and checking out other FAs on film) if you're unsure,
• and when you do add content write it to the best of your ability. Neuroxic (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Neuroxic: You appear to not be following the Wikipedia process for Talk page discussion and refraining from editing the article page until you have established consensus for your position on the Talk page. You appear to be serially reverting text which is in agreement with the delisting editor who identified issues with your writing and issues with your research WP:OR. If you have miscounted, then note that you have been informed that you have serially reverted text three times at this point, and that you do not appear to be making any constructive refinements to the text. You ought to be following BRD guidelines the same as all other editors at Wikipedia and not be making serial reverts. MusicAngels (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The article still reads "Following the Academy Award win for the film". Since Birdman won multiple awards, this is incorrect, as I outlined in my comments above. I say again, please read them. If you don't agree with a suggested change please discuss it with me. Neuroxic (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixing typo to plural "wins". MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

After adding the section break in Plot it again occurred to me that the prologue to the film is still entirely missing. My first thought was to include the full Carver quote and make very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance shot before Riggan's levitation scene, both of which were important to the director. My second thought was that maybe a short summary of the Carver quote would be enough with a very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance. If you have strong feelings for the one option or the other then you might try to place your version of the prologue to the film in the Plot section. I do not think that it should be ignored in the Plot section which currently excludes it since it was important to the director. MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Items three and four

(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.

(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.

As regard to your point (3) above, the plot section would not be an appropriate place to do this. If you haven't already read WP:FILMPLOT, please do. Similarly, it would be grossly inappropriate to carry out your point (4). Instead, create a new section entitled 'Themes and Analysis' to include your discussion of the father and daughter relationship, the unresolved plot lines, the ending, the significance of the prologue, etc. (Reposting reply by Neuro).

My comment was to encourage the inclusion of some descriptive narrative of the father-daughter relationship as it appears and is shown in the film. The previous version of the Plot did not mention the encounter with the cell phone video replay at all. If you have a new version of the Plot section, this might be a good time to bring it forward. The discussion of the meaning or interpretation of the father-daughter relationship as discussed in the press would appear in the type of section which you titled 'Themes and Analysis' above. MusicAngels (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally, you're saying something that's making sense! I totally agree. Unfortuately, as I have said previously, I won't concern myself with the quality of the plot section until it's time for FA assessment time, (which is quite a while away) but please note that your paragraph is about 2.5 times as large as the others in the plot section, so it looks out of place. I'd suggest breaking it up.

Adding paragraph break. MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the other edits made to the Conception and writing section, I still stand by my view that your additions are poorly written, BUT (as I hoped you noticed when I first started reverting your edits) I have suggested changes to make them better. Please, please, please look at these. If I spent time writing them for you, I'd appreciate it if you looked at them.

If you have a tweak then suggest it here. The quote from the writer is important though, since he broke with the director about releasing this information to the public. Keep in mind that the current article is "B"-class and still needs basic road work to be done. Revising editors generally know that eventually going for GA renom can be a heavy revision editing process. For the moment, the attention being devoted is doing the preliminary road work on the "B"-class article which usually pays off in the long run when the GA renom edits will then start to take place. MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:Grrrrr, I prefer it if you knew how to scroll up or use a search function on your browser, but for your benefit I'll repeat my comments here anyway. I've crossed out and ticked the fixes so far.

• "Following the Academy Award win for the film," - the film won multiple Academy Awards, not one. Are you referring to a specific one? Y

• "...presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release." - some repetition: if an ending was replaced, then by definition the new one will be included in the film. Also "...ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed" is incorrect; the ending didn't change from the film's premier in Venice to release in the US. Y

Text shortened. MusicAngels (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Further shortened. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting..." - this is too long. A shorter statement like "The original ending intended to parody Riggan's Birdman films by depicting..." would be better, but what follows is incorrect anyway. In the original ending Depp wasn't actually filming A Pirates of the Carribean film, but rather finding himself at the same position in life that Riggan was. Y

Text shortened. MusicAngels (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Further shortened, and corrected details according the source cited for the sentence. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "As stated by co-author Dinelaris" - anyone whose read through the section this far knows Dinelaris is a co-author. The phrase "As stated by Dinelaris" is fine. Y

Your wording now. MusicAngels (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• "... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that." - this is quite long. Are you sure it's essential to include this quote, and not simply explain it in words?

Its kind of important that the director and writer differed on making this story of the ending go public. If there was no difference between them then maybe your thought would work. The quote itself is actually not that bad. MusicAngels (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I thought the first part of the quote didn't need to be in quote form, so I put this in words. I left the main part quoted though. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film." - this seems to suggest that the main reason they changed the ending was to leave it highly ambiguous, but this was not true. The writers came up with another ending, and realized the original they had was silly.

One of the ambiguities which the director wanted to preserve was did Riggan live or die. Another ambiguity was whether his daughter had any affection left for him at the end. The director said he disliked the original ending and it makes sense to take him at his word. A comedic ending was completely ruled out. MusicAngels (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote what you said in my own words; obviously if you think it's missing something add as necessary. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope these comments help in improving the additions. Neuroxic (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your comments make sense, and discussion is a plus. MusicAngels (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read them! I've gone through and edited them some more, but overall I'm happy with them now. Note that because of the repetition in two of the paragraphs, it made sense to take out the repetitious details and combine them. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we are going with your current version. By the way, you may want to double check them since some IP-editors have been active the last day or two and you can make sure your edits are as you left them. It occured to me also that the references in the Bibliography were last confirmed last February and it might be nice if you could re-verify them and bring any of the new references into your preferred format. I see nothing wrong with your preferred format for the references and it should likely be used as setting the norm for the article. If you have more items for discussion then keep putting them here and I'll make periodic checks. The article looks like it is moving forward to meeting the previous GAR reviewer issues. MusicAngels (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're happy about the changes. As for the recent IP-editors... bloody trolls. It's going to take a while to seed out the stuff they've changed. Those comments below... grrrr. I still don't understand why people take pleasure out of aggravating others and wasting their time. It must be a fundamental flaw in the human race... but this is no place for pontificating. Anyway I'll now go and change anything that needs immediate attention, but it'll be two months or so before I can finish writing the critical response section. I still haven't read all the 260 Rotten Tomatoes critic reviews of the film to do this, but I'll get around to it in my own time.

As for the references, if want to see whether the links are expired... feel free to do this yourself if you want to push it to GA soon! I will recheck them myself,... but probably during the same free period that I'll use to rewrite the critical reception section... which is in a couple of months. Neuroxic (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Preparations for GA renomination 2

@MusicAngels: just some more comments on general tidying. Just be aware that for your plot summary, at 785 words it exceeds the 400-700 word limit, but since in terms of structure, Birdman take linearity to the extreme, it's unconventional, so I don't have a problem with it. (In fact, I think it's far more engaging than what was there previously.) Just wanted to let you know that someone may flag it.

Also, it'd be good to apply the cite template to your references in the analysis section, just because the reference formatting in these currently seems odd compared to the rest. Neuroxic (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For the soundtrack section, seriously consider creating a separate page for the soundtrack, like Ruby did with Sense and Sensibility. There's been discussion about this before, I'd suggest reading my more detailed discussion there. Neuroxic (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Neuroxic: Good to see you drop by. First a very general comment. The page is currently on page protection and it might be nice if you could somehow allocate your contribution time, if its possible to do this, to make the most of this. It was protected in order to provide a semi-protected environment for the GA renomination preparation and expires early next month. I understand your comment about wanting to do your FA editing later at year's end; still getting the article into GA shape would give you a good leg up on that. Anyway, its your contribution time, so use it as best you can. A little bit of GA preparation time now could save alot of FA preparation time later. Right now the GA renomination preparations seem much closer to hand than last week. Current issues follow:

(1) Regarding your soundtrack comments, I did the current version to fully support your section on the "disqualification" of the Academy Award for soundtrack. The version I placed here is to support the narrative of 'why' the solo jazz percussion parts were disqualified for original score. Note that the references I included are the éxtended list of all the classical pieces found throughout the film; this is not the ASCAP listing for the CD release which only included 4-5 of the classical tracks grouped at the end of the CD soundtrack. The Academy disqualification was justified because of this version of the extended list, and not because of the CD release version. You are right though, that if someone does want to do the CD soundtrack version, then they likely will need the exact ASCAP version. The version I wrote, however, was to support the narrative of the Disqualification reasons in this article, which was because of sufficiently excessive use of classical music written by other composers which blocked the original soundtrack nomination at the Academy.

@MusicAngels: Sure, this was something I hadn't considered before. It still feels a little too excessive for me though, but it'd be good to get an outside opinion. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if this content was in a separate article on the Music of Birdman, as Rhain did with The Music of Grand Theft Auto V though. It just seems a list like this seems a bit too detailed. (Although admittedly the soundtrack, like the rest of the film, was innovative.) Neuroxic (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The section was expanded a little this morning to emphasize the Acamedy disqualification. It occurred to me that the Ravel piece is not mentioned until the fifth item in the list, and if you like, the first four items in the list could be abridged or elided to shorten the section if you prefer. MusicAngels (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(2) Lead section genre discussion. The genre designation has been bouncing back-and-forth too many times over the last month. Two of the film writers are now extremely upset that any notion of comedy be used to describe the film script. If you haven't watched the Huffington video interview, then it needs to be watched to see the writers' harsh rebuff of the interviewer for any suggestion of comedy otherwise. I have linked the video interview it in the new "Analysis and themes" section in the second paragraph there. Also, I think a "two-citation" rule should now be used for anyone who wishes to suggest changes to the film's gendre in order to avoid inevitable WP:OR issues with the planned GAr review committee. (Link here also: [1])

I'd have to disagree here, simply because I've read and seen countless other interviews where the writers have talked about the comedy in Birdman. The video isn't loading for me, but I'd guess that their response was because Birdman is not just a comedy, just like it's not just a drama. Regardless, I have a real issue with citations in the lead, see WP:WHYCITE, and the first sentence is not appropriate, so I've shifted the description to the second line. I am certain I'm correct on this point. (See the third point from the bottom at WP:BEGIN) Neuroxic (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Going with your version at this time.

(3) Your "birds in the end scene" comment/addition in the Plot section. At this point, I have gone through the ending of the film at least three times and its just not there on the DVD. The closest I could find is prior to the final take of Samantha is when she is still out of the room and (a) Riggan seems to hear birds chirping in the park below his hospital window. Then (b) the Rachmaninov film soundtrack takes over as Samantha returns to the room and forget about hearing anything else but the Rachmaninov. Then (c) the solo jazz percussion returns while we are looking at Samantha and then (d) the film cuts to the end credits. I'm giving all this detail (and I have linked the film script now at the end of the article) for you to indicate precisely where you are finding your "birds in the end scene". Is it between a-b, or is it between b-c, or is it between c-d, etc.

Part d. You seriously need to hear the birdcry. It's so good! I had to play the last few seconds of the film ten times in a row, but when I realized what I was hearing it blew my mind! So, assuming you have the blu-ray version, as soon as the film "smashes to black" turn the volume right up. You'll hear Stone's laughter, and then just as it starts to fade out..... (get ready to crack the biggest smile)

In all seriousness though, I'm not too concerned if this isn't in there. I just thought it's another subtle thing in the film that's unbelievably good. Neuroxic (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link for the short version of the Huffington report which might be a interest if you have time to watch: [2]. MusicAngels (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(4) If you can find the time for doing some of the GA preparations (leaving the FA part for later this year as you stated), then you might give the article a top-to-bottom reading. As you said, there is now a new section for "Analysis" and a separate one for "Soundtrack", as well as many changes to "Critical response". Anything you put on the table only expedites discussion. MusicAngels (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but it'd be great if the references in the analysis section were fixed first though... Neuroxic (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will try to get to the references format later today or tomorrow (I think they are now up to date), or you are welcome to tweak them into your favorite format. If you would like to give the article a top to bottom read with comments/critiques, then just let me know what you feel is needed for renomination at this point. MusicAngels (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:Thanks for changing the references! It's extremely tedious and boring, but important work nonetheless. I also watched the full interview. It's really good! It's great to watch an interview where no one's rushed for time and the interviewer asks intelligent questions. I loved some of the phrases they said as well. (Alex saying that Keaton was "infinitely likable", Nico's comments on the writing process in general as "swimming through a sea of bull-" and Alex's comments on critics getting caught up with the depiction of the critic: "Are critics a little sensitive about this? Yes. Does anyone care? No.") So great. So great.

On a more serious note, they did mention that they were writing a comedy several times, but now I understand more what you meant about the ambiguous ending. I completely agree with the writers that had they provided closure, the ending would not have been as good; I'm finding it hard to express in words why though... I'll sleep on this one. But main point, thanks for alerting me to a great interview! It was a half-hour well spent.

As for the whole article, I'll read through it tomorrow, though since (I'm assuming) you may still want to add some stuff to the analysis and themes section, I won't rearrange stuff there as I may that in the production and release sections. Also if you haven't checked out the production notes I linked at the top of this talk page, please do. I was planning on enriching the article with these after rewriting the critical reception section, but as this is a while away... Just letting you know there's some stuff in there that will improve the article. Neuroxic (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to be online for your last message. That interview was really an exception to the rule these days with a 30-minute interview without commercial breaks. One short point to make on your review which you mention you are planning for tomorrow has to do in the narrative flow in the Critical reception section. I have started to follow the generally accepted priority given to the separate Academy Award wins to outline the narrative flow of the section as a whole. That is, reviews centering of "Best film" award come before reviews which highlighted the other awards, etc. The priority is well established at the Academy and following it looked helpful. I look forward to your comments/critiques in the coming days when you get to them. MusicAngels (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently in a bit of crunch time at the moment, but I'll be free in a week's time. Neuroxic (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2015

I just wanted to say is someone put up that Birdman is satirical drama although technically it's a black comedy-drama. just wanted to put that out there. 108.7.233.48 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we are discussing this in the review, so you are bit too quick on the draw. Please come back in a week. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birdman (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: have all of the previous concerns been addressed? Please answer as best as you can. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is ready for GA assessment. This article was previously a GA article which was delisted during the summer because of WP:OR issues with the Plot section. I was in complete agreement with the delisting editor and felt that the Plot section needed to be substantially rewritten. The current Plot section offers a rewrite of each one of the five paragraphs in the Plot section (all of them), which was needed to restore the intentionally ambiguous parts of the Plot as intended by the director. In addition, while reworking the Plot section, two additional new Sections were added which appeared to be missing in the previous version of the article; an Analysis and themes section was added, as well as a new Soundtrack section which are both added here. The current version of the article has been expanded in these ways to address the previous concerns. MusicAngels (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this being referenced at all, especially for a huge quote block? Surely there are much more authoritative critics to be referencing instead. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Erik II: The review you refer to received a very positive response from the interwiki GA review of this same article at the Serbian version of this article. You can find it in its translated version by going to the article page here, and then linking on the Serbian interwiki link in the left column of the screen. The translation of that review was quoted in full at the end of that article, which I thought was much too long, so I adbridged it by cutting it in half and included it as a useful block quote here in the Critical reception section. It is a direct reinforcement of the Barabara S. review from Germany which is also included in that section next to it. MusicAngels (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have a few issues and comments regarding this article, which I'll admit is excellent. First of all, the genre is classified as a "satirical drama"; however, "satirical" links to "black comedy", so I don't understand the change from the latter to the former. Also, on the first paragraph, it says the film "comments on the present state of the film industry." Not only is this misplaced in a part about crew, it is also arguable as to whether the unifying theme of the film is its industry or Art and criticism in general. Finally, the last line of the last paragraph states that the film press compared the film to those of Godard, Hitchcock, Fellini and Sokurov. However, I didn't see many comparisons to Godard if not negative ones by Richard Brody, and Hitchcock and Sokurov are not thematic but technical comparisons (Rope and Russian Ark), and citing those two references makes it a stretch to say that 'the press' made those comparisons. It's okay to feature those in the Critical response section, but not in the lede, which should state a critical consensus among the majority of critics. I'm not there. Message me! 13:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two parts to this issue and comment from Katastai's (User:I'm not there) careful reading of Brody. First, the "satirical drama film" part. This issue has come up with many critics of the film and is worth discussing since after the Oscars the preference among commentators has been to recognize that "Satire" is the inclusive category in literary theory and in film theory, while "Black comedy" is a special type designiation within Satire, not the other way around. Therefor, "satirical drama film" was chosen as the main description, following the reviews by Barbara S. and Matthew P. in the Reception section, with "Black comedy" placed on the link from "Satire" as designating the appropriate subclass of literary sub-genre. (Answer to second part under "Äddendum" immediately below this entry.) MusicAngels (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Katastasi. Message me! 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Brody's review of Birdman is overall negative, since he mostly says the film is unoriginal and familiar, compares it unfavorably to Godard's films and the review's title states that it "never achieves flight". One could argue it's a mixed review, but certainly not a positive one. I'm not there. Message me! 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This review by Brody was of interest to many readers because of the very high level comparisons it employed to make its point. The comparisons which Brody makes in order to make his point are really the gold standard of film theory as it is understood today. For example, if you have to criticize a new drama or tragedy in the 21st century by stating that its not as good as Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello, then so much the better for the new 21st century author for being compared on such lofty ground. Brody comparing Birdman to the best of Godard is standing on the high ground of criticism. I am on the fence in terms of placing the Fellini criticism paragraph before the Brody criticism paragraph in the Reception section, but when Brody compares Birdman to the best of Godard, then he is conceding a great deal of ground to Birdman as an exceptional film. MusicAngels (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the comparisons are a great resource employed by Brody, but the review is still very critical in tone, and he states it himself that "it's not good for anyone to get in the ring with Mr. Godard" but by comparing Iñárritu's film with Godard's films, he could have been presenting some form of praise for Birdman, I guess. Nevertheless, I found the review to be quite negative, and I think his review would be summed up more accurately as overall mixed. Even the Rotten Tomatoes page classifies it as "rotten". See here: [3]. Well, thanks for the explanation anyway! Cheers, Katastasi. Message me! 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The film opens with a quotation from Raymond Carver stating that the main fulfillment in life is related to having once been loved, then cuts to a dramatic atmospheric disturbance resembling a meteor descending in flames." I think this will better fit in "Themes" rather than the plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for the "telekenesis" link. The issue of the Prologue to the film being included in the Plot section is because the director has told us that it is integral to the Plot. Since the Prologue is part of the film itself, it belongs to the Plot section rather than another section discussing the meaning or themes about the film. The Raymond Carver theme is integral to the Plot of the film as well and is revisited at least 27 times in the film by direct references to the Carver play being staged throughout the film from start to finish. MusicAngels (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• satirical drama (adapting lead section to reflect "dark satirical drama film" per resolved above earlier today and two cited examples given here below yesterday.) MusicAngels (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced by the above arguments regarding this genre classification. Please present explicit, notable and reliable film critics who have described this genre in English. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • In addition to the reviews by Barbara S. and Matthew P., the Birdman as Satire has received extensive press coverage. I am hatting the top ten sources with their links here for ready reference: MusicAngels (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, that pretty much illustrates the problem at hand. What you consider "top ten sources" is at odds with WP:RS and what they actually say. Please start by deleting sources such as "geeksaresexy.net" which talks about the satire of Sesame Street, not this film, and is not even a RS. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Birdman as Satire film
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Birdman serious or a satire? - Quora[4] Birdman is indeed a satire on the show industry, as well as satirizing the actors. For example, Edward Norton is known for being brash and “Birdman”: Michael Keaton heads an all-star cast in a crackling ...[5] Oct 16, 2014 ... In some ways “Birdman” seems like a major departure for Iñárritu, the ... It's an overtly comic film, an exaggerated backstage satire made 'Birdman' is the First Modern Showbiz Satire - Indiewire[6] Aug 31, 2014 ... Michael Keaton nabs the role of a lifetime in Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu's wonderfully strange look at an aging actor fighting to stay relevant. Birdman Review - CINEMABLEND[7] No one is exempt from this smart and hilarious satire, not artists, fans, or critics. Birdman plants us in the St. James theater where Riggan's show will play, and 'Birdman' review: Inarritu's fine showbiz satire of ex-superhero[8] Oct 23, 2014 ... Any conversation about “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” must begin with a description of how it was filmed. It was shot in Film review: Birdman - Michael Keaton soars in showbiz satire[9]Jan 22, 2015 ... BIRDMAN Starring: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu Category: IIB. Let us first The Hollywood Satire That Secretly Loves Hollywood - Esquire[10] Oct 9, 2014 ... R. Kelly's name is used as an insult partway through Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), which is ironic, given that Alejandro Dark, satirical 'Birdman' soars - | The Michigan Daily[11] Nov 2, 2014 ... The camera in Alejandro González Iñárritu's “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Innocence)” never stops moving, even to pause on the Sesame Street Does Brilliant 'Birdman' SatireGeeks are Sexy[12] Feb 21, 2015 ... Sesame Street has really upped their game over the last few years. Adding pure satire and parody that is clearly aimed at parents more than Actors endorse showbiz satire 'Birdman' in march toward Oscars[13]

There's lots of problems with the use and interpretation of sources in the above. Try to look at the most reliable, in-depth film sources on the subject. There's a lot, but few of those above qualify. Here's a few: Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Birdman as comedy drama, satire, black comedy, and fantasy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alter, Ethan (October 13, 2014). Film Review: Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)". Film Journal International. Corliss, Richard (August 27, 2014). "Birdman at Venice: Can an Ex-Superhero Still Fly? Time. "...Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s new comedy-fantasy...inside-showbiz satire..." Fear, David (November/December 2014). "A Wing and a Prayer". Film Comment. "Birdman...is many things: a backstage farce, a satire of media ubiquity, a portrait of career resurrection that’s enabled its star and director to effect their own professional resuscitations, a drama about squandered potential." McGrath, Declan (Summer 2015). "Birdman." Cineaste. 40 (3): 67-69. "Iñárritu’s arch black comedy, winner of the Academy Award for 2014’s Best Picture of the Year, satirizes both the commercial world of Hollywood movies (which Thomson has forsaken) and the supposedly purer and more artistic world of the theater (where he now hopes to gain renewed recognition)...Despite all its satirical jabs at the expense of actors, Birdman is ultimately a celebration of their craft...At film’s end, Thomson is praised by the theater critic for creating a new form—“super-realism,” where reality and drama intersect. Is this also what Iñárritu is doing? Perhaps, but at that stage Birdman has made so many comments about our modern culture that the audience would be forgiven for wondering if the film is actually thereby saying anything truly critical or if it is finally as fatuous and superficial as the culture it criticizes." Smith, Paul Julian (January 2015). "Flight of Fancy". Sight & Sound. 25 (1): 28-31.

• • That's a persuasive list of reviews. I can see that they could be read as suggesting the description of "dark satire drama film" as an amplification on the current "satirical drama film". If you have strong feelings the one way or the other, then this might be a good time to indicate which one might be the more useful for readers of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I have no strong views or feelings on this topic. I'm merely showing that based on the above discussion and the page history, there is a disagreement about the genre in the lead (and the article). That disagreement should be represented in the review. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • On this issue, there appear to be two different viewpoints. The writers of the film have, after the release of the film, indicated directly that the film is not a comedy and should not be evaluated as a comedy, in spite of the fact that they did include some scenes for comic relief. The difficulty was that prior to the production of the film, the director did indicate (before production even began) that he was considering making a comedy for his next film. Those very early, pre-production plans were dropped and the plot was subsequently re-adapted to cover the final emotional tail spin of a troubled has-been actor. However, many of the early reviews written by those who knew of the director's pre-production plans still refered to the film as a comedy. This trend appeared to go away after the Academy Award wins, but the early misnomers from many 2014 reviews are still out there as part of the old historical record. The majority weight now after the Academy Award wins is that the film is a Satiric drama film, which could be amplified to dark satiric drama film, if you feel it will help readers of the Wikipedia article. MusicAngels (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Three things: 1) What I "feel" is irrelevant. There is clearly an independent dispute about the genres given the talk page and article history that has nothing to do with me as the reviewer. I have no clue if it has been resolved or not, and your reply helps inform the discussion, but does not conclude it. 2) You've made it clear up above that the people behind the film do not consider it a comedy. However, do they consider it a satirical drama? Finally, 3) which of the films in Category:American satirical films is this film similar to in scope? If there is an easy answer showing that at least two members of this category are properly placed, then I will feel more comfortable about its placement. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • The two films from your list of satire films are Natural Born Killers, (a dark satire dealing with homicidal criminals), and Network, (a dark satire dealing with rivalry and competition in the broadcast industry). The association of the film as a comedy of any stripe is disowned by the writers and was a misnomer applied by a number of critics prior to the Academy Awards for the film. The choice still appears to be down to "satiric drama film" or "dark satiric drama film". MusicAngels (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• comments on the present state of the film industry
  • We are writing encyclopedia articles for future readers, so the use of "present state" isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Shorten wording. "Contemporary" film industry covers it. MusicAngels (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• and appears as if filmed in a single shot
  • Link to long take in single shot. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. I think you did this last night. MusicAngels (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Such a technique required an atypical production approach, with many elements of post-production requiring consideration before principal photography
  • Yeah, we know, it's 2015 now, and it's been done before. Shorten this and merge it with the single shot to note the editing in post. There's no need for the lengthy explanation in the lead as it's been explained many times before. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Sentence shortened. MusicAngels (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
      • It's still a bit long. It's 2015 and the single shot technique is old hat. It's generally well-known that it requires an "atypical production approach with many elements of post-production requiring consideration before principal photography", so I really don't think this belongs in the lead. On the other hand, you should say something unique about the single shot sequence used in this film, perhaps a technical point that is only true for this film. It's the difference between knowing when to write in the general or in the particular. For example, you could say that Lubezki believed that the recording time necessary for the long take could not have been made with older technology. Something like that. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Done. Adapting your version and adding emphasis on his win of the Academy Award for cinematography. MusicAngels (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The film has been favorably compared in the press to films by Godard, Fellini, Hitchcock and Sokurov.
  • No need for refs in the lead here and you've got duplicate citations here: source 4 and 92 are the same. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Remove redundant cites in lead section already mentioned in the main body of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Does the lead summarize the main points of the article? I'm not seeing anything about the distinctive soundtrack elements. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. I have added a short comment to summarize the new Soundtrack section and the Disqualification section in the article previous not mentioned in the lead section. MusicAngels (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for trying, but there are several issues with your addition. First, you did not refer to the musician by their full name in the first instance. Second, the only thing important here is to briefly note two things, not represent the entire music and soundtrack sections. Those two, brief points are: 1) jazz drummer Antonio Sánchez composed the score, and 2) the Academy disqualified the score because of reason X. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. His full name has to appear and I am linking it as well. Removing the long quote as well since it is already in the article itself. MusicAngels (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but you've still got way to much information about this point in the lead. Again, we are summarizing the main points which amounts to 1) jazz drummer Antonio Sánchez composed the score, and 2) the Academy disqualified Sánchez from the Academy Award for Best Original Score, because of the large number of classical music segments which were used in the film. That's it. There is no need to mention the date, the full name of the Academy, the name of their longlist, nor a long explanation. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Done. Cut by half, and reduce two sentence version down to one sentence version in lead section. MusicAngels (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The story follows Riggan Thomson (Keaton), a faded Hollywood actor famous for his role as superhero "Birdman"...
  • His role as superhero "Birdman" or his role as the superhero "Birdman"? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. "The superhero" looks better. MusicAngels (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've placed a "resolved" tag at the top for the lead section. It's still too wordy for my tastes, but you've gone above and beyond to address my concerns. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that someone has yesterday reverted your "resolved" without Talk page discussion. MusicAngels (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot

Resolved

 – See recommendation about viral video link

• Plot length is 740 words. It should be between 400 and 700. I think it can be trimmed further, particularly in the first and last paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Further shorten Plot section. Enhance narrative flow. MusicAngels (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• amateur videos of the incident go viral...Riggan bumps into Sam and she shows him a video of him walking through Times Square in his underwear
  • You've linked to viral video in the first instance, but wouldn't it work better in the second as "she shows him the viral video", since you already established its existence? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Adding your recommendation as a link to "viral video". MusicAngels (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cast

Resolved

• Any particular reason the themes comes before the cast section? Surely the reader would want to know who is in the film before reading about the themes? Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Plot-Cast-Analysis order makes sense. MusicAngels (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: even though I have marked this resolved, please take a look at Erik's suggestions for white space and image usage.[14] Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Include image of Emma Stone for white space. Please note that page protect is expiring in 5 days and its a holiday weekend coming up. Might be nice to make to most use of the page protect until Friday and no problem if you would like to double up on the overnight "to do" edits. MusicAngels (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my revert of the image & caption was because it emphasizes a supporting actor and the reception to their performance (WP:UNDUE). Meanwhile, I'd added div col to decrease white space. Lapadite (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas; I'll leave this one up to you if you prefer the two column list, or, the graphic of Emma Stone concerning Lapadite. This week-end is a long holiday week-end for Columbus day and everyone is likely to be away until later next week. You may want to check with Neuroxic about any edits you might want if needed and if he is done with his exams, etc. Otherwise, this is the last over-night assignments which you might want to assign for me to do before the page protect here expires this week-end. MusicAngels (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Production

• The prose in this section needs a lot of work. I'll have more to say, but there are problems. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • See comment below in your Concept comment. MusicAngels (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Development

• Except for some of the first paragraph, this section reads backwards. Why would you wait until the end of the section to discuss the basic points? Structurally, this is reversed. Introduce the reader to the basic points first, then explore the more technical issues. You've got this the other way around. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Reorganize paragraphs in section and rewrite to cover general issues before technical decisions and difficulties. Previous version reversed these. MusicAngels (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Iñárritu's own experiences influenced many of Birdman's themes, and said "What this film talks about, I have been through. I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."

• Please fix this sentence or split it up. I prefer something like

• Iñárritu's own experiences influenced many of Birdman's themes. "What this film talks about, I have been through," Iñárritu recalled. "I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."

• There are many different ways to clean it up. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. That works well. I think that the director's quote here is useful to readers. MusicAngels (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: "Conception and writing" is usually called "Development" in film articles. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Going with one word version. MusicAngels (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: please fix this: "Because of this it was important to the director that Carver's story be the subject of the play, so found using his work "terrifying" in case the rights to it were rejected, but no issues arose." Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Rewrite of sentence was the easiest way to get this right, since the Carver use rights were amicably resolved. MusicAngels (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: please try again. You might try splitting it into two separate sentences. Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Divide into two sentences. If this is still difficult for readers, then consider simply ellision of these two sentences as optional. No difficulty for you to just delete the two sentences if you still are finding them unreadble. MusicAngels (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: Any particular reason this is left unsourced? "The film's ending also changed, the final version being written halfway through filming." Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. At least I think its done. Each one of the 4 footnotes in the paragraph (#9-10-11-12) has this information. I imagine you could add another reference after the first sentence, though the paragraph itself has 4 references which support the first sentence fully. If you want to add another footnote (#9-10-11-12) after the first sentence that's fine too. MusicAngels (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: it is important that all of the content is supported by the cited sources. If I look again and find that it is not, I may have to fail this review. So, go back and make sure the sources cited support the content. Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. @Viriditas: I am going with footnote #10 which gives the following quotation:

  What was the writing process like for the final scene? Did it have a different ending? "No, it had a different ending but in the middle of shooting, I knew it was a piece of shit. I felt it and the film began to breathe by itself, and the characters began to grow. I went in and wrote it with Alexander [Dinelaris] and Nico [Giacobone], and I am so happy that I changed it. Now I feel very good about the ending. It feels very fair."

  That is the quote I am going with. (P.s. It is now re-sequenced as the first footnote in that paragraph and the old #10 footnote is now re-sequenced. I should be on-line for another hour or so tonight if that's of use.) MusicAngels (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis and themes

• In interviews...Discussions in the press...Recurrent references in separate reviews in the press...In an interview of two of the co-writers with Huffington Post in November 2014....
  • Mostly unnecessary framing, context, and attribution that is best deleted. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Removing prefatory framing for direct wording and shorten. MusicAngels (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• This section could be moved below production, which is given more importance here. See for an example the structure of Inception. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Makes sense to put it after Production section. MusicAngels (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• When the writers were asked about the meaning of the ambiguous ending they indicated that they would only comment on what it was not intended to convey. They indicated that any superficial or mediocre conclusion to the film was not a possibility for them, and that a comedic ending was completely ruled out. The writers indicated that reflections about the conclusion to the film were better directed at interpreting the effects of the plot upon the lives of the surviving characters portrayed in the film rather than with any simple minded or ready-made finishes to the plot.
  • @MusicAngels: please try to clean this up. You repeat the word "indicated" three times here, which is unnecessary. Also, it's not entirely clear what is being discussed. For example, what does "they indicated that any superficial or mediocre conclusion to the film was not a possibility for them" actually mean? If it's not important and to the point, please just remove it. I would say the same for "The writers indicated that reflections about the conclusion to the film were better directed at interpreting the effects of the plot upon the lives of the surviving characters portrayed in the film rather than with any simple minded or ready-made finishes to the plot." Both of those sentences would be best deleted as they are gobbledygook. Of course, if you can find a way to revisit the sources, capture the essence of the point, and rephrase it briefly, that would be fine. Otherwise delete. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Shorten and rewrite. State the leaked information from the writer's interview which the director was refusing to comment upon. @Viriditas, on a separate note I am noticing that the page protection has about seven days left here, and it might be nice to get the most advantage out of having it for this assessment. If you would like to double up on the over-night tasks, then that's fine. MusicAngels (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: is everything that comes before citation 71 supported by this source? Please take a look. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: Both footnotes 70 and 71 support each other, and there is no reason not to double up on the references for citation 71 to double cites 70, 71 if that looks better to readers of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: I don't think you understood my question. (Due to recent edits, source 71 is now 72). I don't see how all of the content preceding 72 is supported by that source. This is a problem if you want to pass GA. For example, the following content:

Many aspects of film theory were debated concerning the film by critical reviews which included, among other subjects, (a) film genre; (b) intended and unresolved ambiguities of plot; and (c) the complex interaction of Riggan's personal life with his professional life as an actor. A short list of the diverse forms of film genre associated with the film has included it being referred to alternatively as a black-humor film, a mental health film, a realism/surrealism/magical realism film, a dark-humor parody film, a film of psychological realism, a failed domestic reconciliation drama, or a film concerning theatrical realism and naturalism. Inarritu has maintained his penchant, well-known to followers of his previous films, for deliberately including multiple plot lines in this film which are intentionally left unresolved at the ending.

This content appears to be supported by this source (currently footnote 72, previously 71). Yet, most of this content is not in that source. If my spot-checking of source verification fails, then I can't pass the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• As others have already noted above, the long quote from Pejkovici is untenable. Assuming for the sake of argument that Pejkovici is a notable critic (there is no such evidence at the moment), then the content itself can be reduced to a quarter of its current size and paraphrased appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Shorten long Petrovic quote from ten lines to two line quote to cover Fellini. MusicAngels (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Music and soundtrack

Resolved

 – Split has reduced the length of the parent. I recommend no further expansion of this section, but obviously it can still be improved in terms of focus and importance.

• We don't need a separate section. Please merge the most important points into the music section (which also needs summarizing) and consider splitting out a new article on the soundtrack. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Section is deleted/adjusted/moved with pertinent material re-ascribed within the Disqualification section above. MusicAngels (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @MusicAngels: Ideally, we only need one music section, summary style. Soundtrack content should be split out into its own article. The entire topic is at 112,822 bytes, which demands summary style, splitting out, and condensing. I fully understand the interest in subsections, writing long paragraphs, etc., but we have guidelines to help us insure readability. Aim for one single music section with no subsections as you split the soundtrack content out into a new article. To see an example of how this is done, see Jaws (film)#Music. Remove everything that doesn't look like David. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. I am merging the relevant material into the "Disqualification" section and updating it with only the essential details. The classical music subsection is now deleted. (I didn't quite follow the code message here: "...Doesn't look loike David"). MusicAngels (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
        • @MusicAngels: there's still a lot of work to do. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. You should create a new article on the soundtrack so you can merge non-essential content to that subtopic. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Viriditas: Clarification. That was not the soundtrack listing in the sense of being the soundtrack listing of the CD as it was released. That listing given here is of the classical musical accompaniment as it appeared in the actual film for the classical music compositions which were used in the film but were Not composed by the solo drummer composer. The only reason I put this version there in the first place was to support the "Disqualification" section as it was originally written for the previous GA nomination. Sadly the actual cd Soundtrack release mostly ignored the classical music segments, and only used 3-4 of them grouped together almost as an after-thought at the end of the CD. That does not support a fuller view of the Disqualification section, which is however supported when the reader sees the complete list used by the disqualification committee (which includes many pieces which are never heard on the CD Soundtrack release.) There are two options it seems. One option could consider moving the enumeration to the Accolades section, since the disqualification has to do with the Oscar accolade for Original Music. The other option is to go with the old version of the old GA article which did not discuss the enumeration at all but only named the top two or three composers. It would be really useful to hear which direction you feel is more suitable for readers of the article. Go with the new plan of including the enumeration list, or, keep the old plan and not include the list? MusicAngels (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
            • @MusicAngels: I'm really busy with work, so I will try to be brief: don't get lost in the details. What matters here is splitting content out into a new article, and it can be about the music, the score and the soundtrack. We have articles like Vertigo (film score), and Gravity: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack as examples. Start by moving everything you've written (before you deleted any content) to a new article about the film score. Then you can pick the most important points and add them to this aricle, in one or two paragraphs. Focus on splitting out the content and summarizing here. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Done. Music section condensed by half, adding one new cite. New version down to three short paragraphs. MusicAngels (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Good, but why haven't you split out the material into a new article per the summary style guideline? Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

INTERJECTION Sorry to interject here MusicAngels, but I agree with Viriditas. The paragraphs you cut contained information not in the current version, and extra information on a topic is fine: just move it to a different, more focused article on the subject, as per the summary style-guidelines. For instance, examine the Development section in Rhain's article on the Last of Us. Notice how there's only five paragraphs here, but if you look at the more focused article the section links to, there around thirty paragraphs, an amount far to big for the main page. At one stage I was concerned that the production section I was working on may be too detailed, (but then again, Sense and Sensibility's production section is as generous) so was going to create a new article called "Production of Birdman"; this way the main article can have a section titled "Production", with no subsections, but instead a paragraph summarizing each of the sections in the "Production of..." article. (i.e. one for the writing, rehearsal, filming, music, etc). My suggestion anyway. End of interjection. Neuroxic (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus request. That was a pretty good INTERJECTION. @Viriditas; There are currently two versions of the new Music section, the previous one is with the subsections and the new one which you requested is without the subsections and condensed as the current form. Both @Neuroxic: and @Katastasi: have indicated that they feel that the previous version with all five paragraphs in the Music section plus subsections here [15] was well written and well referenced, and can be defended for being retained and kept as is. The examples cited by Neuroxic are the films The Last of Us and Sense and Sensibility. Both Neuroxic and Katastasi make a well-reasoned point and if we join them, then it would be a four editor consensus to retain the full five paragraph version with subsections. What do you say [16]? MusicAngels (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @MusicAngels: I would like to work towards completion of this review and hopefully, passing it. To fulfill the focused criterion, I have recommended following the summary style procedure for splitting out a new article. If you aren't familiar with how to do this or you need help, please ask. As I said before, there's no need to get lost in the details. Keep your eye on the larger picture. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Viriditas: Splitting out the sibling article is simple. Two other editors, one of whom is the original author, have asked you to comment on the abridgement from 5 paragraphs to 3 paragraphs, with an eye to keeping the original version, as related in my most recent comment above. Which direction is it for going forward? MusicAngels (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @MusicAngels: as a reviewer, I'm going to focus only on issues directly related to resolving the GA criteria. I'm not going to spend time on minor details or disputes that involve counting paragraphs. If that issue arises after the article is split out and it is represented in summary style here, then we will cross that bridge when we come to it, but I want to avoid micromanaging as best as I can. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Viriditas: Sibling page is set up for development. There is no micromanagement here though please deal with the consulting editors above. One of them is also changing the film genre from "dark satirical drama film" which you had indicated as "Resolved". MusicAngels (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
          • @MusicAngels: give me 30 minutes to take a look, as I've got other things going on. Please read Neuroxic's comment again, as I think you may have possibly misinterpreted what he wrote. As the reviewer, I'm the one concerned about micromanagement. As the nominator, you shouldn't have to worry about it. I cannot comment too much on internecine conflict between editors, as that would impact the stability criterion. I can offer you some advice, however, as a reviewer of more than 80 articles: 1) You can try to talk directly with the editor(s) in question and attempt to resolve the dispute, or 2) you can leave the changes in the article, revert them, or modify as a compromise. As a reviewer, I don't want to fail this due to instability, so proceed cautiously. I seem to remember that in similar disputes in the past, some editors made the decision to remove any mention of the genre from the lead. I would recommend considering this option. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)\
            • @Viriditas: Nice of you to be on-line at this time. I think its getting late. I shall follow you on this since we have been at it for a week, and I will leave it as is for now. Let me know which section you wish me to move on to next at this time. MusicAngels (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
              • @Viriditas: After splitting, article is now 104,502 bytes, which is an improvement. I don't think the current music and soundtrack section should grow any larger than it currently is, and if additional information needs to be added, it should be added to the new article or current information in the parent topic should be removed to make way for the new information. I performed a light copyedit.[17] I think this section, in its current form and length, is good to go. I'm sure additional copyedits can further improve readability. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
                • @Viriditas: Your last ping I think was intended for me but was mistyped, but I have it either way. Ready to move forward to next section when you are, let me know. MusicAngels (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Lead: OK

   Plot: OK

   Cast: OK

   Production: unclear prose

   Music and soundtrack: OK

   Reception: long quote could be copyvio, but that's not the only problem

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Structure needs work

   Duplicate music and soundtrack sections not needed. Please merge, summarize, and split out if necessary

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   Spot-checking of themes section failed to find corresponding sources

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   Article is too long and fails to use summary style appropriately

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Previous (ongoing) genre dispute noted

   Resolved

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article is unstable and recent edits attempting to fix problems have been reverted. Could be quick failed, but I'm going to take a closer look. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm failing the review for many reasons, least of all because the nominator can no longer participate. This article was never ready to be renominated after its last delisting. Problems vary from prose to source integrity issues (all listed above). Many of the key sources on this topic, including Film Journal International, Time, Film Comment, Cineaste, and Sight & Sound, to name just a few, aren't even in the article. This tells me that a lot of the key research was never done. I recommend rewriting the entire article, starting with production. The themes and reception section has no narrative continuity and reads as if monkeys randomly placed things here and there (and I did not help that matter by moving a paragraph from reception to themes, so I apologize). I recommend that the lead editor(s) make good use of reference management software to painstakingly check and double-check the source-text integrity. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Drum score

The film used an original drum score (as well as the classical music). The credit in the film reads "Drum score by Antonio Sánchez". That is how it should be listed. The newly added opening sentence of the Music and soundtrack section The film's original music segments consist entirely of solo jazz percussion performances and original music composition by Antonio Sánchez was a bit misleading to the reader. My new version is intended to make clear the score he composed and performed was entirely done as a solo drum performance. (This was already clear later in the section. The opening should not confuse the issue). Also removed his Academy Award disqualification from the article lead section, where it was newly added. It was quite unnecessary there. It is in the Music and soundtrack section, where it is appropriate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception

It seems a spin doctor is at work here (why is the page locked!?) as the new yorker review was not as glowing as the wiki seems to cheer, with a more fitting summary quote i had wished to insert:

“Birdman” trades on facile, casual dichotomies of theatre versus cinema and art versus commerce. It’s a white elephant of a movie that conceals a mouse of timid wisdom, a mighty and churning machine of virtuosity that delivers a work of utterly familiar and unoriginal drama. Of such things, too, can Oscar buzz be made."

Yes this. The film is a waste of time

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.86.3 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.11 Arlington (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back to "universal acclaim" because that is the standard statement on Wikipedia for a film that has received the same level of reception. Yes, of course it has received a couple of bad reviews. Every film in history has. But as you said yourself, those reviews are in the minority and the precedent in this case is to say "universal acclaim". I won't object to you changing it to "near universal acclaim", but personally I don't think that is necessary. However, if you want to take out "universal" all together, you would have to go to WP:FILM because you're talking about something that goes beyond just this article. JDDJS (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see it, but I will when the chance comes, and make my own mind up. However, what I'm picking up on social media, if that's anything to go by, is extreme polarisation of the audience. Really extreme. At one end are huge numbers of comments such as "the worst movie ever made", "I walked out half way through", "completely incomprehensible and boring", "utter trash", and so on. At the other end are things like "brilliant", "loved it", "fantastic", and so on. The negative comments are easily outweighing the positive ones, at least in my own personal overview. I'm suspecting it will be a critical success but a commercial flop. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Should there be something added for the 2 notable negative reviews? I'm thinking especially of Scott Tobias' review for The Dissolve, where he called Iñaritú a "pretentious fraud". CVance1 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement that Rotten Tomatoes gives a rating of 93% appears to be incorrect and also confusing, given that another statement gives an average rating from them of 8.5/10. The 93% is actually the TOMATOMETER ( the percent of critics who have given a positive review), which is clearly not a rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.126.255 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to begin again?

An editor who was formerly active on this page has now been blocked indefinitely, and those of us who decided it was safest to stop editing so as not to get into fights can now edit safely again. Unfortunately, as User:Viriditas has been reporting in recent days, it seems that the blocked editor wrote some things that simply weren't correct - statements with source footnotes, but with content that wasn't supported by the footnotes. That means, basically, that a lot of edits will have to be checked and confirmed. User:Neuroxic, you used to be a lot more active on this page. Any chance you'll come back? || AvianObserver (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@AvianObserver: Probably early December as it's crunch time at the moment for me. As per reverts, I'd say take the production section back to my last large additions to it (i.e. when I wrote the Post-production and visual effects, (though note this also included adding some info to other bits). As per the integrity of the research, I know that what I put in was correctly sourced, though other editors have since added their versions of things... with their own "sources". I tried as much as I could to use tertiary sources for my parts, but in the event of any discrepancy feel free to look up the actual production notes I linked to at the top of this talk page. (Historically some people were confused about the length of time it took to shoot at the St. James, unsurprisingly it's spelled out in the notes.) I'm glad the review failed though. As I've said time and time again, and as I'll say now, articles aren't 'fixed' to GA quality overnight, and at the moment this article simply isn't ready. Neuroxic (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Neuroxic: You're by far the best person to take on this job. I tried working out a bold edit that went back a few weeks but incorporated corrections from other editors afterwards, but it was too complicated to sort out in any reliable way, and I was pretty sure to get too many things wrong. It's good news that you're back! || AvianObserver (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Begin again from the August 15th revision, before the mess started?

Everyone who used to contribute to this page seems to have abandoned it, and who can blame them? Six weeks of editing by one editor (now blocked indefinitely) has pretty much wrecked the page beyond repair. Here's one idea for starting again:

Could someone in authority (maybe User:Viriditas) simply restore the page to the last version before that blocked editor started to work on it: [18]. That was on August 15th.

This would mean going back and adding all the worthwhile things that other editors added after August 15th, but at least we could be confident that nothing truly awful remained on the page. And maybe someone would be willing to work on it again, for example User:Neuroxic.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this? || AvianObserver (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an admin to restore a previous version. If there's support for this, you can restore it yourself by clicking "restore this version" in the diff. Lapadite (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I would not support restoring that version. It would put since-corrected issues regarding name and credits back in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, there's clearly not going to be unanimous support for this, so please ignore my suggestion! || AvianObserver (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

AvianObserver, only two editors have commented, and consensus does not mean unanimity. My view is if a previous version is or facilitates a better article, then it should be restored and all fixes implemented. However, i'm not familiar with this article's history, and if implementing fixes to an earlier version is more overwhelming than fixing the current version, then I'd disagree with restoring it. You can always make a bold edit restoring it and implement all fixes asap (I'd strongly suggest you draft the desired version with fixes before restoring). If you wish you can ask for more input on WT:FILM. Lapadite (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77, as I said to Neuroxic up above, I tried working out a bold edit, but it was too much for me. I hope to contribute to the work of other editors when it gets started, and I apologize for suggesting something that I couldn't follow through on--though I really did try! || AvianObserver (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Superhero film?

I would question Birdman being described as a superhero film in the lead section – it isn't one in any conventional sense. Although we occasionally see Riggan Thomson demonstrating superpowers and Birdman himself appears, these are generally interpreted as being in Thomson's imagination rather than anything in the film's "reality". Unless there are reliable sources describing it as a "superhero film" per se, I'd prefer to see this changed. Jellyman (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly concur. This is not a superhero film at all. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birdman (film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209064959/http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/segments/13766 to http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/segments/13766

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Character?

The article links a couple of times to Birdman and the Galaxy Trio, a Hanna-Barbera cartoon featuring a character called Birdman. Is the Birdman of this film supposed to be based on that character? If not, these links should probably be removed. 2603:8090:2400:79:E8F4:ABE9:82B4:44F7 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Good call. I've removed the links. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Plot

The plot seems to be overly detailed and probably needs to be shortened. The intro, however, is really good — so kudos are in order. And I haven't gotten to the rest of the article yet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)