Talk:Creep (Radiohead song)

"self-destructive sexual attraction"?

Doesn't this statement go a little too far into the realm of fantasy? Is it NECESSARY in this article and at its very beginning? In 70 years of life, recalling my loves from kindergarten to the present, I think I know what a 'crush' is and, frankly, a 'sexual attraction' can always be - to varying degrees - the basis of even any 'true and romantic love' (as in the 1939 Love affair 'self-covered' film by Leo McCarey in 1957 'A story to remember' which could not be superficially described as 'sexual attraction'. In this case then, the cited example could also confirm how 'self-destructive' can be (it is in fact in both of these cases) the defeat, the hurt from the pain that reveals this to be an 'impossible love' (in my humble opinion, precisely the greatest love stories are the successful 'impossible love stories', those that need courage and immense effort to overcome obstacles of all kinds, see the 'Epistolae duorum amantium' between Peter Abelard and Héloïse). So I see no connection between an overrated 'sexual attraction' and 'self-destruction' in this song (his is, if anything, an 'already destroyed personality' and that is why he does not even attempt to 'conquer' her). In short, I suggest deleting this misleading statement. GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

All that aside, I have deleted it for the simple reason that it is not covered or sourced in the article body. Popcornfud (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In fiction (use in films, e.g. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3)

A section I had added was deleted and then "merged" (i.e. more or less erased) by another user (see their talk page and page history) despite the fact that it did follow guidelines (to which the very same user directed me) and seemed to bring something to the page and the reader's understanding of the song. I will leave this matter to other users' judgment. This would be the section:

In fiction

The song's acoustic version plays in the opening scene of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. The choice of Creep associated with the theme of loneliness and the topic of animal cruelty has been noted as an important shift in the franchise, exploring the darker undertones of trauma conveyed by the song.(added afterwards) In a review subtitled ’ I don’t belong here.’, The Detroit News states: "An acoustic version of Radiohead's lovelorn Gen-X alienation anthem "Creep" plays over the opening credit sequence of "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3," and as far as telegraphing the mood of the third film in the "Guardians" franchise, it would be hard to find a more surface-level, obvious choice." According to a review dedicated to this very choice, the song’s themes may epitomize the character of Rocket and the narrative lines of the film.

And it can be expanded more.

________________-------------_____________________

It obviously would help showing the importance of Creep and also what the song is about and what is has come to mean. And such a section can of course be expanded. Also, the current phrasing (reduced to its simplest form in the Covers section) is quite inaccurate: the version of the song appearing in the film is not a cover but Radiohead’s acoustic version. Rocket/Cooper sings/hums along. Hopefully, this will be resolved for the benefit of the page. — MY, OH, MY! 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on the sources presented so far, I don't see any need to cover this in more than a sentence or two — more than that seems WP:UNDUE. The discussion of how it's used, in terms of characters and so on, seems to be more about Guardians of the Galaxy than Creep. Anything especially important about that would be better covered in the GoG 3 article. That could obviously change if more sources say other, more relevant stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's perfect, because two sentences is exactly what you erased in your edit. So, yes, that means we agree they can be restored. Allow me to do it. Cheers. — MY, OH, MY! 20:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean it is not deserving of more than the sentence we already have, let alone a dedicated subsection. Popcornfud (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your last sentence is not clear. And it does not seem to mean what you had said before. At all. And you did revert my edits again??? I am flabbergasted. Please restore the version you just reverted as your reverting cannot be justified unless something else is at stake. You cannot change your mind every time and contradict yourself just for the pleasure of reverting a version that seems better than yours, whether you like it or not. On top of that, I repeat, your current phrasing is not accurate. It is not a cover version that is played in the film. A dedicated section with two sentences seems perfectly all right, as you had concurred above and as guidelines state in a perfectly clear way. It is bringing positive input and present relevant facts to the understanding of the song. If this is a practical joke, please stop and resrore my edit.. If not,, well, look at what you said since your first revert, assess it with an open mind, and, all the same. please restore the better version and the dedicated section. Thank you, — MY, OH, MY! 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a typo in my last comment — I've corrected it. Apologies for the confusion. However, I sense my typo is not really the root of your objection here. Popcornfud (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't really create an entire section just for one sentence. I understand your point about it maybe not fitting in the Covers section, but the GQ source says the song is performed by Bradley Cooper in the film, so it seems like the best fit to me in terms of placement right now. Popcornfud (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said before, the version that is played in the film is Radiohead’s acoustic version and the character hums and sing along. If you think the GQ version (ambiguously or erroneously) states that it’s a cover, good news, the article version you last reverted did not use that source but 3 other links that are perfectly clear about that. Or just read note 5 above, for instance.

I should (but won’t, as a token of good will) just revert it myself now, as your current version is inaccurate. Just read the other sources...

And no, please, I don’t mean to "create a section just for 1 sentence!" You are the one reducing a section that can have 2, 3 4 sentences to just one sentence! And when I show you how it can be expanded, you ask it to be limited to 1-2! Etc.

So please, let’s stop this once and for all and allow me again to ask you to kindly restore the accurate and better version. I will restore it myself later if you don’t, because your arguments are self-contradictory and the current phrasing inaccurate. Thank you. — MY, OH, MY! 21:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

So, done it myself in a section that also mentions notable uses in other films. — MY, OH, MY! 06:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think this is a good solution. The relevance of some of these film uses are iffy — there some of the problems described by WP:INPOPCULTURE. The description of Rocket Raccoon "humming and singing along" is not in the source provided. And the section is poorly written.

I think it's fine to mention Guardians of the Galaxy based on the coverage in sources, but there doesn't seem to be enough relevant content or coverage about it, or the song's use in other films, to expand it into a bigger section like you have done here.

You need to get consensus before making contested changes. You might want to go and ask for further opinions at WP:ALBUMS or another source. Popcornfud (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

All attempts to address issues tackled above at length have been reverted by the same user despite my repeated efforts to comply with their requirements (their last revert deleting the whole section that included newly added sources they just had required, among other things...). The guideline on such sections states: "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and their sources should establish their significance." (WP:SONGS may be the most appropriate project for this page, rather than WP:ALBUMS, but never mind). Requesting comment.— MY, OH, MY! 11:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on In Films Section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was that there can be such a section, but with mentions of significant uses covered by reliable sources. — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 11:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the page contain a section In Films with sourced notable uses of "Creep" in films?— MY, OH, MY! 11:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, per WP:POPCULTURE. There isn't enough enough notable coverage in reliable secondary sources to create a dedicated section for this. Popcornfud (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Striking this after better sources provided below. Popcornfud (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: See section above please and material erased, for a better assessment/understanding of this assertion. — MY, OH, MY! 11:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - if it's covered in reliable sources, and verifiable, a section is warranted. I prefer guidelines and policies over essays. And actually, this just seems to be a case by case for song articles, some have this type of section -- Go All the Way, Fox on the Run, Lake Shore Drive, The Chain, Father and Son -- while others don't. I found these too with a simple internet search, Book of Life, Book of Life, and also used in trailers, Reinfield, The Social Network, The Social Network. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  If these sources provide enough good info on other film usage, then I don't oppose a section. Stuff we had before, like "The song appears in X film" or "The song appears in Y film in Z scene" don't cut it. Popcornfud (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at that last source, about the use of "Creep" in the Social Network trailer and how that influenced later film trailers, is great material and the kind of thing I am looking for. Popcornfud (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've created an "In film" section using the coverage provided above. Popcornfud (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but only if there is something of substance to their usage. Saying that a song appeared in another piece of media is cruft. Guardians of the Galaxy's mention would fail that criteria; The Social Network and The Book of Life are not clear cut, as they'd better fit on the movies' respective articles imo. SWinxy (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest, this what I'm now leanings towards again. Popcornfud (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes but only if it's covered by a reliable source, Generally if a song is in a film but no reliable sources exist then no it shouldn't (because it could be a made up claim). –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you were summoned here by Yapperbot to participate in an Rfc, it expired long ago and you were summoned here in error. Thanks for participating in FRS.   Mathglot (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.— MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 11:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In film section

Hello, I still disagree with the way this section has been dealt with since we managed to create it. I have been trying to add sourced content concerning use of the song in film. This content has been repeatedly deleted by Popcornfud. Just the simple fact of adding this section, rather standard in Songs articles, took immense efforts. I had to go on a user TP, and then here and then open an RFC (section above). But insertion of new material is always difficult, to say the least. After 2 massive reverts in May I opened a section at ANI but as another user recommended, we'll try to resolve this here. Here is the text that was removed in May and that I think could be inserted without problem (amended, improved of course):

TEXT A-Would be placed (was) at the beginning of the section

"Creep" appears in the 1995 film Cyclo, a Vietnamese-French coproduction, in a long sequence set in a nightclub: the presence of the song in the soundtrack contributed greatly to Radiohead's notoriety in France. In 2010 Greenwood would compose the original soundtrack for another film by the same director, Norwegian Wood. The song is also heard in Happily Ever After (2004), when the two characters played by Charlotte Gainsbourg and Johnny Depp happen to buy Radiohead's single at the same time in a record store.

TEXT B

the current version mentions this use of the song but I find that these sources are better (the current version uses one IMdB link) and that it needs to be more precise:

The acoustic version of "Creep" is used in the opening sequence of the 2023 film Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, with the character Rocket (played by Bradley Cooper) humming along to it, a review of the film noting that "it would be hard to find a more surface-level, obvious choice [than] this lovelorn Gen-X alienation anthem".

SOURCES, for example

Although I don't think that we should have to discuss every insertion of material, specially when it does respect the obvious consensus of the RFC above, I will try to clarify things here. I therefore hope other users can share they thought on this and help improve that section and the article about the song in general. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

As I feared before, the "Use in film" section is in danger of becoming an indiscriminate list of stuff.

See MOS:POPCULT: A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item [...] When not effectively curated, such material can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies.

These additions are trivial and poorly sourced (we don't use fansites on Wikipedia). Additionally, Jonny Greenwood composing for the film Norwegian Wood is irrelevant here. Popcornfud (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is your opinion, which I think I understood. I respectfully disagree. The fansite you mention quotes an interview (unless you call the NYT, The Detroit News fansites) and the rest is clearly reliable. I think this material is relevant and not trivial and rather well sourced. It can be improved but there is no reason to delete it. So I don’t think the quotation of the guidleline above applies here. Please allow other users to express their views. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The fansite you mention quotes an interview Yes, but it doesn't matter because we can't use fansites. I'm not convinced that vodkaster.telerama.fr and the Vietnamese Studies journal are high-quality sources either. Popcornfud (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Creep (Radiohead song) → Creep (song) – The Radiohead song is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It meets the criteria of high usage and long-term significance. See article traffic statistics for comparison with similar terms; also see WikiNav and Google results. Happily888 (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think this would be helpful, given Creep by TLC has 117 million YouTube views, and was a #1 song. Thus, there is no reason to make this change when clearly there is another Creep song that is pretty notable. It is not like this is a primary topic case anyway, we are not gaining much by just having Creep (song) as opposed to Creep (Radiohead song). --Quiz shows 15:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Although the Radiohead song has 900 million YouTube views and is shown to be significantly more likely to be searched for than the TLC song, more likely to be searched than all other potential PDAB targets put together. Happily888 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. This isn't a likely candidate for WP:PDAB because of the TLC song. O.N.R. ^(talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the cultural significance of Creep (TLC song). Dekimasuよ! 00:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as Creep (TLC song) was a significant song. –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: A little TLC, anyone? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose domination is less than 10 to 1 which is surely far too low for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The Creep (song) redirect had 100 hits so far this year (including 10 because of this RM), an average of zero per day.[1] At worst, this affects fewer than 0.05% of people looking for the Readiohead song, so it's really pretty unimportant where Creep (song) points. Station1 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition to what's mentioned above, the Stone Temple Pilots song apparently reached #2 on the Billboard Mainstream Rock chart. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lyrics Inspiration

The source for Thom Yorke inspiration behind Creep is not enough - it has been stated as a fact despite there is no other evidence or sources to back up this besides Jonny's comments. Also should specifiy if it is Jonny or Colin Greenwood who made those comments. 161.29.228.93 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't state it as a fact. It says: Greenwood said the lyrics were inspired by a woman who Yorke had "followed for a couple of days", and who unexpectedly attended a Radiohead performance. ie, it says Greenwood says this.

Colin Greenwood isn't mentioned in the article, so it should hopefully be obvious that when we say "Greenwood" we're talking about the Jonny Greenwood mentioned previously. Popcornfud (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)