Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once

Cut some from Armond White including unnecessary ableism

This article had quoted 109 words directly from Armond White's review, more representation than any other critic has gotten in the article. Additionally, the review represents a minory viewpoint (and is not the only representation of that minority viewpoint) so the long quote was quite clearly UNDUE. Finally, this quote includes some unnecessary ableism. Yes, NOTCENSORED, but it's an unnecessarily long direct quote, so I've substantially shortened the amount quoted including removing the ableism. The quote is now about as long as the next longest quote. Possibly still UNDUE but it's in a better state now. —siroχo 09:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem with that. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Googly eyes

I need someone to add info mentioning googly eyes because there's no mentions of googly eyes in this page. (sorry for bad English) DasKlose (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Done :) MinervaKizyna (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary contains unnecessary analysis

I edited this but it's been reverted, so I guess I'll explain why I edited it (as I disagree with the reversion) - the plot summary contains unnecessary analysis of the themes, e.g. (emphasis mine)

"Evelyn is initially persuaded, and behaves cruelly and nihilistically in her other universes, hurting those around her."

"Evelyn has an existentialist epiphany and decides to follow Waymond's absurdist and humanist advice"

Does labelling of philosophical themes, e.g. nihilism, absurdism, humanism, belong in a summary? I guess the argument can be made for nihilism (which is used colloquially enough in English), but the film doesn't overtly say absurdism or humanism are the philosophies Waymond follows, and it's arguable whether "be kind, even when life does not make sense" is a distinctly absurdist/humanist view (I may as well say "Evelyn decides to follow Waymond's Chinese Buddhist advice"). Whether Waymond is a follower of "humanist existentialism" is analysis of the themes of the film, and not summary of the plot. I think it overcomplicates the plot section and shoehorns European philosophy into it as though it were an explicit part of the film. MinervaKizyna (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that particular philosophical concepts are a central part of the plot, it is helpful to the reader (and other editors have added explicit references in the plot to be accurate about this) to pinpoint key areas in the story where such points come into play. It would be less helpful to leave them out only to be discussed elsewhere (which they already are anyway). The plot is not a word-for-word description of the story, and is does not require the use of the words in the film to describe their effect. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case I can understand how 'absurdist' helps, but I still think 'humanist' is a little too specific - it points to Waymond's worldview as the secular, European belief, where it could equally (in fact, given that this film is about a Chinese family, this may be more likely) be a Taoist, Confucian or Buddhist view. How about something like 'humanitarian' or 'altruistic'? (I'd then also be happy to explain specific takes on that humanitarianism, e.g. the one cited and also some alternative sources I can think of, in the themes.) MinervaKizyna (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the actual consensus version of this which included a reference for humanism (which you had removed). The film is textbook Absurdist and Humanist (and there are many many references to support that, and editors had left refs in the plot to underline that). These are general philosophical terms. Elements of Taoism, Confucianism or Buddism have parts that are Humanist (esp. Confucianism) or Absurdist (i.e. Zen Buddism) etc., but they also contain other things that are not in the film/plot. The philosophical terms are more precise in their meaning. 2001:BB6:5F28:CB00:B11C:F366:F81:4746 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If you look at my edit, you would've seen that I had not removed the reference, I had moved it to the themes (just now edited to fix the duplicate reference you added), alongside other references for alternate interpretations. My point is that humanism refers to a specific Western non-religious belief system, and claiming that the film is explicitly Humanist is excessively specific and Eurocentric.

"Elements of Taoism, Confucianism or Buddism have parts that are Humanist (esp. Confucianism) or Absurdist (i.e. Zen Buddism)"

Again, this is Eurocentric and arguably backwards. They have things in common, but saying that one has 'parts of' the other suggests that one takes inspiration from the other. My edit in fact changed it to the specific part that they do have in common: humanitarianism.

"but they also contain other things that are not in the film/plot."

As does humanism: see from the wiki page "Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.". The entire plot is that the main character understands the world via revelation from a supernatural source, and does not rely on science and reason. The only thing it does have in common with the film is the ethic based on human and natural values, hence why 'humanitarian' may be a better fit.

I can agree that absurdism and nihilism are general descriptive philosophical terms, but Humanism is a much more loaded term, almost always referring to an entire modern Western non-religious belief system. Calling the film and its plot/characters (the cast section also refers to Waymond's worldview as 'humanist existentialism') explicitly Humanist eliminates the Chinese/Eastern perspectives that are incredibly important to the film. MinervaKizyna (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It does come off as a bit much in the text of the body to analyze and assign specific philosophies to each person; a plot section should aim to be descriptive, and it’s a bit of a small jump and a bit unwieldy to list off schools of thought at once. Some of these philosophies also aren’t necessarily in the film; there’s a very strong secularist, anti-religious element to humanism that isn’t reflected well in the film. I do think you both have points that it’s a bit reductive to name i.e. Taoism but also Humanism. I think more description, like humanitarian, and elaborating more on philosophy in the Themes section than in the descriptive-only plot section would be better. GlassBee (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the plot/cast should be descriptive rather than prescribing a specific school of philosophy to the characters. I've moved discussion of humanism and other perspectives to the themes section, and chosen less 'weighty' words to describe the characters elsewhere. If anyone has more citations to talk about the film as humanist in more detail I'd love to see them added to the themes section! MinervaKizyna (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@MinervaKizyna using sock puppets again I see. 31.187.2.40 (talk) 31.187.2.40 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Big Nose" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Big Nose has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 2 § Big Nose until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Evelyn Quan Wang character article

I noticed that this article was split/copied off from this article on March 7, seemingly without any prior notice or consensus that is often required per WP:SPLIT unless making a bold split. I don't think anything found there wouldn't be found here, so I'm confused on the splitter's reasoning that was not properly given in the edit summaries aside from the text being contributed to this page. @ICOTEYE, would you like to give your reasoning here?

I'd also like to gather some opinions on if this article should be kept separately from the article or not. Personally, I think this fails WP:FICT since most of the sources I found relates to the film or the actress more than the character, but I might be wrong. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The reception section looks strong, but... the other parts are kind of weak. So maybe borderline keep? Historyday01 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The reception section was copied off from this article with a few changes FYI. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It can be okay to have a standalone article about a fictional character (even if they appear in only one film) if coverage of that character would be too excessive in the film's own article. Generally speaking, supporting characters sometimes get standalone articles if they are noteworthy themselves. This does not necessarily mean they have to be the full focus of a reliable source's coverage. If they get WP:SIGCOV, that is enough. It is more about figuring out scopes and redundancy. A film-centric article cannot cover every single detail about a film. A character-centric article can focus more on details about that character than the film-centric article would. Think of film series articles; we are not going to include all the box office and critical reception details for all films in a series-centric article. We keep the details high-level.

So here with this film-centric article , there should be a light level of detail about the character, saving the fuller detail for the character-centric article. For example, the "Critical reception" here could focus more about the film's general qualities, where the character-centric article could focus more on what critics said about the character and the actor's performance of that character. The challenge with coverage of a film and its main character (as opposed to supporting) is that there is more overlap than with a supporting character. I do agree that the actual splitting and copying is messy, and content in both articles should be appropriately balanced in scope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that the character is independently notable outside the film, which is required for notability. All the information currently in the character article right now can also be found here, because it is merely an article copy-pasted from the film article with no or barely any additional information. Unless individual notability can be shown, I think it should be redirected back to the film article. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Significant coverage for establishing notability does not mean that the potentially-notable topic needs to be the main topic. Most films' articles will cover its main characters sufficiently, and I think characters and related performances that win awards wind up having a greater level of detail. In general, this character definitely has significant coverage to warrant a standalone article, but the current execution of it is poor. This film's article could have a more general "Casting" scope (meaning that Yeoh-specific content could be in the character's article) and a more general "Critical reception" scope. If anything, the "Critical reception" is a little too Yeoh-focused with not even Quan mentioned despite his own set of awards. I don't care to get my hands dirty with cleaning up this split, but I do believe a character article is definitely possible. For example, I found this that focuses a lot on Evelyn, including a full-focus section in that chapter as seen here. It takes some intentionality and grit to make a good article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Kishotenketsu?

I believe the directors said something about using this story structure, I swear there was a quote... and if so, shouldn't it be added to the article as something notable about the development?--KimYunmi (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)