Jump to content

Talk:Gone Girl (film)/Archive 1

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

Music

The film features various songs besides those on the Reznor/Atticus score, including (Don't Fear) The Reaper, and more. What Song says Gone Girl had 15 credited songs. Obviously when the Bluray is out this will be easily verified but if I can find sources I want to add some of them to the Music section, as readers might get the false impression that the score was the only music. -- 109.76.226.202 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary

The previous plot summary, at 704 words, is too long and contains unnecessary detail and some very wordy sentences. I've rewritten it, removing around 300 words, but this has twice been reverted by 109.78.198.5, who says my edits "remove all context". I've now restored my edit.

I maintain that no necessary context is missing. I'll provide a few examples to demonstrate my reasoning.

"...the disintegration of their once-happy marriage" Most marriages were happy at least once; that's why people get married. It's enough to simply state the marriage disintegrates.

"Hastily mopped-up blood on the floor, traces of blood splatter in the surrounding area, and a crushed coffee table all were arranged by Amy on the day of her disappearance to suggest that Nick killed her during a struggle" can simply become, for the purposes of a plot summary, "poorly concealed evidence of a struggle". No further information is required to understand the plot.

"Just as it appears that her plan has succeeded..." stick to the facts. Tell us what happens in the story, not what doesn't happen.

"Left with only her car and no place to stay..." We know from the previous sentence - the character having lost all the money she planned to use to start a new life - that she has lost everything. Likewise, we don't need to be told that she is "frantic" in the next sentence.

"Amy plans her escape, taking advantage of the security cameras to act as if Desi had raped her, as well as penetrating herself with a wine bottle to simulate forced entry..." we don't need to know all the intimate details of how she faked the rape; this is incidental to the plot. We only need to know that she falsely claims Dessi raped her.

"Nick reacts violently, slamming her against the wall," can just become "Nick reacts violently", or "Nick slams her against the wall". To describe both is redundant. You don't need to tell us that this violent act (slamming her against the wall) is violent.

I'm not saying my edit can't be improved upon, and there are likely other important details or things that can be inserted, but the previous version of the plot summary is badly written and overlong. You might find Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary useful for this. Popcornduff (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This might be useful too: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Style_guidelines/Copy-editing_essentials#Don.27t_lose_the_plot Popcornduff (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the IP that WP:FILMPLOT does not require that we be that strict with the plot. However, because I am avoiding reading what you have cut, since I have yet to watch the film and don't want to be spoiled, I cannot yet formulate a well-informed opinion on what you have cut. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that WP:FILMPLOT requires us to be that strict with the wordcount. However, the fact that the previous version exceeded the recommended wordcount does suggest the summary was overlong. And, regardless of recommended wordcounts, it was too long - once you've seen the movie, read my argument for the evidence. ;P Popcornduff (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
[Edit conflict while posting first reply. Will read comments and reply further if necessary]
Thank you for explaining your edits. The initial edit was a big change, and those changes were not explained with an edit summary. I object to people deleting things without explaining and the rules do recommend making smaller edits.
The plot summary was badly written, I badly wrote lots of it because there was no plot summary (saw the film at a Thursday preview, cut down the wikipedia summary of Gone Girl (novel) and started with about 400 words). Others incrementally improved it, changing small pieces, explaining their changes. (Others repeatedly added speculatively opinions about the character motivations that had to be removed.) WP:FILMPLOT guidelines recommend 400 - 700, and I don't think 704 words is anything to worry about, and cutting it down as far as 400 is not an imperative, it's only a guideline. It would be bad faith for me to allow small incremental gradual improvements by many editors to be lost, for the sake of a few big unexplained changes by one user.
Yes, the plot summary was a little verbose in places, you mention some very sensible examples that could be rephrased. The opening line about the 5th wedding anniversary was borrowed/paraphrased from publicity, this opening context I thought was particularly important to establishing the story, it was not just any other day. We skip over the whole treasure hunt and detective story of the first half of the film, mentioning that it was their wedding anniversary at least seemed necessary. The phrasing was poor but since we barely mention detective Boney I thought edits people made adding explanation of the detective story (spatter, smashed coffee table, staged scene etc) about the first half of the film was worthwhile. I've seen seen the film but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and I hope the Plot summary includes enough for someone who wants to know what happens but has chosen not to watch the film.
"Just as it appears that her plan has succeeded..." okay that was terrible writing, or at least badly failing to take the brevity recommendations of WP:FILMPLOT into account. I don't really disagree with your latter edits to the second half of the plot, more that you made them as one bulk edit with little explanation. The wording was not ideal but the violence from Nick in the film felt important and shocking, it shows that the earlier account of Nick hitting Amy (possibly accidental) might have had more truth to it than it we thought, causing us to re-evaluate the story. It seemed like a turning point of the film, for several reasons. There is still plenty of space to rephrase though.
Frankly I've seen many film articles that are far longer than 700 words and while I'm not convinced the word count is important at all, I don't seem any excuse for this article to go as far as 800 words, but conversely I don't see compelling reasons to strip it down to the bare bones either. Even if I wanted to keep the plot at 400 words others would bloat it back up again, so I try to trust the small incremental changes that left us with ~704 words and what lots of different editors thought were the important points and details worth mentioning. -- 109.78.198.5 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm unhappy with some of the "in flashbacks" and POV phrasing. Aside from being an awkward throwback to the book, if brevity is desired this type of overly prescriptive writing reads particularly like unnecessary verbiage, only slightly less awful than "the film begins" or "at the end of the film" that you see far too often in Wikipedia articles. I didn't try and correct it because it was at least a terse way of saying "according to Amy's dairy" and it didn't require explaining how the clues that lead to Amy's diary.
So I'm not saying the plot summary is great but more that there was some value to the changes, and consideration was taken as the changes happened gradually over the last week and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- 109.78.198.5 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reasoned reply.
I did in fact include an edit summary when I copy edited the overlong plot section: it was "Plot: copy edit", which I think was pretty self-explanatory. I don't think cutting down this one section (even significantly) was too big a change to do in one edit, particularly because the nature of this kind of work means you can't really do it in smaller chunks. What's the alternative? ("Copy edit first paragraph"; "copy edit second paragraph"...) You'd still be left with one big edit which you then would have reverted.
I agree that the wordcount is only a guideline. The problem was not really that it was over 700 words and more that it was full of unimportant waffle (as longer wordcounts do tend to suggest).
Your point about the treasure hunt is good and the stuff about her clues should be added. Popcornduff (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably better that we discussed it longform on the talk page. Discussion by edit summary probably would have been less efficient, but you can be much more verbose in your edit summaries, it's not Twitter.
"Copy edit" is sufficient for copy editing. Wikipedia editors know what copy editing is and it doesn't need any further explanation. Be thankful I didn't just write "CE", as many editors routinely abbreviate it to. Popcornduff (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
For me the best plot summaries have a first paragraph that people can read and then stop. I think, I hope we've actually managed to do that, and if Flyer could read only the first paragraph alone it wouldn't spoil the second act of the film. At least we aren't telling any plot out of order and the summary does cover the three acts, even if we do emphasize the end of the story.
I very much liked the story and how the very things that made Nick look guilty, like the picture still standing on the shelf, later also reflected badly on Amy. There are nuances about the relationship and marriage, and things like Nick wanting kids her not that work as counterpoints in the story and could possibly be weaved (foreshadowed) into a better plot summary.
None of this sounds like plot summary material to me: it's foreshadowing and nuance, in your own words. This section isn't about covering theme but plot. Also, I know this isn't really what you meant, but it isn't our job to include things in the plot summary that we personally enjoyed. Popcornduff (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Other themes, particularly the media satire are difficult to address in the plot summary and probably better left to the critical response. I did try to incorporate how the lawyer left the story but it was difficult to express succinctly that Nick was on his own. Margo is a very important character but for brevity I think we are okay saying so little about her.
Keep tweaking the plot. Maybe with this more verbose version we can insert some details back in. Try to keep cutting out any wild speculation about character thoughts and motivations, editors seem to love adding that shit in. -- 109.76.56.249 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The best plot summaries do more than than the bare minimum, without it being bloat. Better writers than me can add that nuance. -- 109.76.56.249 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The best plot summaries summarise the plot. Popcornduff (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
He is suspected of killing his wife. She framed him. The end. :P
Anything else is extra. -- 109.79.164.98 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Whether you want to summarise a plot in in 10 words or 1000, theme is not plot. If you want to discuss themes, add a Themes section - as in, for example, the American Beauty (1999 film) article. Popcornduff (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As noted with this edit, I just finished watching the film for the first time. Briefly analyzing the Plot section, I saw that it was cut to 451 words; there is no need at all for the Plot section to be that short, especially given the length of this film. Furthermore, as seen with this, this and this edit, WP:FILMPLOT no longer recommends 400-700 words; it recommends 700 words or fewer. Looking at the Plot section in question, I immediately noticed that adequate context of how Amy framed Desi was missing from the section, so I added that context, noting that she used the surveillance cameras to her advantage. I did this before reading some of what has been stated above; I had no idea that "surveillance cameras to her advantage" wording had been in the Plot section before. But, obviously, in my opinion, it should be there; the surveillance cameras were a big aspect that helped aid Amy in framing Desi. The previous Plot section before my edit made it seem as though all she did was state that Desi kidnapped and raped her, and was simply believed. No, that information should have the appropriate context. So I disagree with Popcornduff stating that the "Amy plans her escape, taking advantage of the security cameras to act as if Desi had raped her, as well as penetrating herself with a wine bottle to simulate forced entry..." information is not needed. The forced entry aspect should be added as well. I'm also thinking that clues aspect should be added, since that was another big factor in the story.

Popcornduff and the IP both have merits in their arguments above, but I think that Popcornduff often cuts too much when it comes to plot sections. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor who is good at cutting plot summaries without cutting the essentials is Tenebrae. Maybe once Tenebrae has seen this film, he or she will be interested in working on the Plot section for it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, sorry for that spoilerish edit summary. Another bad thing is that I had contemplated on whether or not to be vague with the edit summary, and still went for that clear option. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: The guideline is back to recommending 400-700 words for summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for sourcing this information Flyer22 (talk). I have been working on this page recently, so I will revisit the Plot section in accordance with the guidelines. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Soulparadox, by "sourcing," I take it that you mean referring to WP:FILMPLOT? Also, since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, wasn't "pinging" you. Just making it clear who I was addressing, as is customary on Talk pages. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Box Office

The box office section does not need additional subheadings. The box office section consist of only four paragraphs. WP:MOSFILM does not have any guideline suggest subheadings below box office, but a short section does not need further subdivision, and it adds ugly clutter to the page index.

Take an article with a big box office section, like [Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)#Box_office]] which has a longer box office section than this article and it doesn't need further subsections either, labels are more than enough (and they're overkill too frankly but I leave them). -- 109.79.96.171 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I tolerated the labels (they are a single line of bold text but look much the same as subheadings but don't clutter the index) but I do think it is better that those are gone too. -- 109.79.96.171 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You should get a user account. Popcornduff (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
not unless they make them compulsory and stop claiming to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
also been there done that. i want an encyclopedia not barnstars and pseudo social networking, and people having discussions on user talk pages that belong on the relevant article talk page.
wikipedia annoys me too often (damn deletionists! y u no indent or use punctuation? so much other crap. fixing the same damn mistakes, need more clever bots and a built in spellcheck). not sure why I bother with this most of the time. -- 109.79.96.171 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no downside to it. You can ignore any part a user account you don't want to use. I ask for my own sake; if you're going to be having discussions on talk pages like this one, IP numbers are really hard to read and identify. Popcornduff (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia made user accounts compulsory for editing, why would they stop claiming to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, given that anyone is allowed to create an account? --SubSeven (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not required so stop asking. -- 109.79.187.145 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey man, why don't you get a user account? Popcornduff (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you read my question. Whatever.. --SubSeven (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gone Girl" Oral Sex Scene Raising Eyebrows In Hollywood

I just got through watching the "Gone Girl Oral Sex Scene Raising Eyebrows In Hollywood" video, and I definitely think something about this double standard oral sex matter should be in the Gone Girl (film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the feedback Flyer22 (talk). I will try to look into this topic, including a viewing of the YouTube video, as soon as possible. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender Issues subsection

Due to the prolific nature of the gender-related discourse that has emerged since the release of the film, I have added a "Gender Issues" subsection to the "Response" section, but it is by no means complete; however, I have attempted to cover the matter as comprehensively as possible. So, I will leave it up to consensus to decide upon the future of the content that I have added. I have not viewed the double standard, oral sex-related YouTube video in the above Talk topic, but this subsection may be an appropriate area to include such content. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice job, Soulparadox. And, yes, the Gender issues section you created is a good place for the oral sex double standard content (mentioned above) to go in. I was thinking that soon after I saw that you created a Gender issues section and expanded the Critical reception material. There are WP:Reliable sources out there for the aforementioned oral sex double standard aspect, which is why I noted that aspect in the section above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


The section has grown well beyond the guidelines detailed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Controversies, clearly. Obviously this section does not " fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" but instead represents a very specific ideological point of view while completely ignoring any counter arguments. By definition there can't be an entry that "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" when no contrary POV's are included. Certainly some entry regarding what some consider to be controversies should be included. As the article stand now, it quite clearly violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance. Just labeling the section "Gender Issues" is a blatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view violation and indication that any controversy (what the section is suppose to be labeled, as with any movie) has been used as a means for advocacy. This has become quite blatant in fact. This is an article about a movie, not a school of thought's take on a movie. We certainly need an objective review by an editor/editors who do not a personal ideological view on the issue. Maxxx12345 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Maxxx12345's understanding of Wikipedia's rules is incorrect. See here for why I will be ignoring Maxxx12345. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this issue has been addressed in numerous movie entries, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Secretary_(2002_film) and very directly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kids_(film) and very thoroughly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brokeback_Mountain. Quite obviously the deviation from the rules is this article, and not all the others. This is an issue that is not a misunderstanding on my part, as can obviously be seen in all of the linked articles. This is a problem with an editor that needs to be addressed. Maxxx12345 (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If by "a problem with an editor" you mean Flyer22, then I think he/she is doing a fine job. I don't think you've made your objection to this article very clear, despite linking to a lot of policy articles, and your edit history suggests you've chased Flyer22 to this article over a dispute somewhere else. Popcornduff (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I see the article was changed to meet Wiki standards, great. Maxxx12345 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


The objection is several fold. The section should be entitled controversies, as is the standard for film entries, as discussed in the links provided. The undue weight issue was also addressed, and resolved in the links provided. The neutral POV issue was also addressed, and settled in the links provided. This article is in contrast to those determinations. I am a professional philosopher who does a great deal of work in this field. You might have noticed, for example, that I was the one who basically wrote the analytical feminism article here on Wikipedia. This article, clearly, deviates from the rules as applied to these sorts of entries. We can clearly see this from the links provided. Instead of a balanced, neutral, representation of issues surrounding this film, the entry is blatantly a representation of a specific school of thought. It, literally, only even has one school of thought's POV in the article. That is, by definition, an undue weight and POV violation. Again, I point to the links provided where this has already been settled. Maxxx12345 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mystery

I removed the references to the film being a mystery. While the film is set up to be a mystery, by the middle of the movie, the audience knows exactly what happened to Amy, and there is no other mystery in the film. Due to that, the film is clearly just a thriller. JDDJS (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I second you!! DtwipzBTalk 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
or a PG raating...as in 'Pathetic Garbage'. The plot has so many whole in it... esp, her triumphant return..!! Nick should hav had his bags packed and outta there. And what became of the yng girl/the student?.. just gone!!! theres your sequel!! hahaa. aactually MUUUCCH better ending.. the hospital scene w/ wheelchair Amy, the FBI and Boney -gets more than a gut feeling- bugs Nick/Amy house.. and voila!! 2600:1700:A760:C10:E984:3E5:481C:4028 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Page Split

I think that the Gone Girl needs a page split. And a new page containing the list of accolades received by the film needs to exist. DtwipzBTalk 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, based on WP:SIZESPLIT. As it stands, the prose size is 28kb, a good bit under the bare minimum of 40kb recommended by that page. If we expand the page further (which will certainly happen after the Blu-ray release and some more sources-digging), by all means, the accolades can and should be split. But the article size does not warrant it yet. Sock (tock talk) 14:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
TBH, I would have just been bold and split it. But then again, I am a bastard. Happy New Year! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Then, @Sock:. We have to wait for the right time. Happy Editing. DtwipzBTalk 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dibyendutwipzbiswas: I suppose we will. I already planned to help expand the core article once the Blu-ray shows up at my house (I pre-ordered it) and I'd be happy to help with the list once/if we get it up to size! Sock (tock talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On a serious note, take a look at the article for Blue Jasmine. A nice sized article, with the awards split out. The awards page is now a Featured List. That can only be a good thing, right? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: You make a pretty good point. I'm realizing now that I've also made a featured list of accolades off of the relatively-small American Hustle. However, there appeared to be a pretty strong consensus against splitting The Grand Budapest Hotel (which is about the same size as this article), so I don't know. Sock (tock talk) 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really understand the rationale NOT to split out the awards for TGBH. The list dominates the article. I have no objection to those sort of splits. If the film isn't that well known, then there usually isn't any objections to do it. As I said, I'm bold in just splitting out the awards and if anyone isn't happy, then for them to bring up good reasons not to do it! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this page isn't TGBH, and I actually agree that it's dominant over the actual article text over there. If someone wants to split the article, I won't oppose. Sock (tock talk) 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of release/reception sections

As seen with this edit, I reverted Josephlalrinhlua786's additions of subheadings to the Reception section, stating, "We don't need all of these subheadings for a little bit of material. Ideally, subheadings should only be created when the section contains decent-sized information; see MOS:Paragraphs." Dibyendutwipzbiswas (DtwipzBTalk) came along and split the section up into semicolons as subheadings, which goes against some aspect of WP:Manual of Style. He also added a very short Release section. So then NinjaRobotPirate came along and turned the semicolons into subheadings. With this edit, I combined the Release and Reception sections, and reiterated what I stated in my revert of Josephlalrinhlua786's formatting. Soulparadox thanked me for that via WP:Echo. With this edit, Dibyendutwipzbiswas split the Release section from the reception material, and soon stated, "Please don't merge the sections, It looks awful. Please help it by expanding." I reverted, commenting, "Dibyendutwipzbiswas, it does not look awful. I already told you on your talk page that MOS:Film allows different styles. And I already told you that needlessly creating a subsection is discouraged by MOS:Paragraphs. I'm taking it to the talk page."

So I have clearly brought this matter to the talk page. I want Josephlalrinhlua786 and Dibyendutwipzbiswas, and anyone else who misunderstands heading matters, to be clear that the Release or Reception section does not have to be a certain order in this case. I also want to be clear that all of reception material is release material, which is why it's common for film articles to have reception information as subsections under a Release heading. See the WP:Good article The Dark Knight (film) as a current example. And I ask that no one changes the format of that article just to suit any argument made in this discussion. Editors need to stop going around to film articles and insisting on a certain format, unless, of course, that format is supported by a guideline or a policy. When I took away the aforementioned headings, it was because I was basing that matter on a guideline. Even in a guideline case, a guideline is simply that -- a guideline. But unless there is a valid WP:Ignore all rules reason not to defer to the guideline, it is generally best to defer to it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I call for WP:IGNORE and insists the same. DtwipzBTalk 01:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
"Wow," as in I know how to make my case on the talk page? "Wow" as in you don't understand what I am stating? "Wow" as in you think it's a WP:Too long; didn't read matter because of your attention span so you'll simply ignore it? Or all three? Whatever the case, your "01:05, 4 January 2015" reply speaks poorly of your collaborative ability and understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You need to stop forcing your styles on film articles. You and Josephlalrinhlua786 need to stop doing that. WP:IGNORE should be invoked for a very good reason. When you are reverted, you should ideally take the matter to the talk page since you are the one challenging the stable text. The WP:Bold guideline and WP:BRD essay are clear on that. Stop WP:Edit warring all the time. Oh, and pings such as this one that you just added to your above post don't work because pings via WP:Echo only work with a new signature. I don't need to be pinged to this talk page anyway since it's clearly on my WP:Watchlist. I pinged you so that others can readily click on your username and find out more about you, and just in case you don't have the article WP:Watchlisted and weren't aware of who reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Using semicolons to bold text is not a matter of stylistic opinion; it's a technical issue that involves making the HTML render properly in your web browser. When people use semicolons improperly, it causes the page to screw up on some browsers and platforms. I'll give my opinion on style and layout if people want it, but it's not particularly important to me what's done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Really?? We are going to argue over this matter during one of the most exciting periods in Earth's history, when reality is always happening, and time passes constantly?? What Flyer22 has done is fine. I have learnt that not every page on Wikipedia needs to be identical, as long as the integrity of Wikipedia is maintained. The page is coherent, encyclopedic and of a high standard. If anyone involved in this discussion is suffering post-holiday mental health issues, or is generally miserable because of control issues, then can I recommend physical activity? AWAY from a high-technology device, that is. Thanks. Regards, --Soulparadox (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I do hate arguing over things that are essentially trivial or will be trivial in the long run. But what do you mean by "one of the most exciting periods in Earth's history"? I can be dense sometimes, so feel free to WP:Trout me for it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2015‎ (UTC)
For the record, if it's not clear from my "00:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)" post above: I'm fine with shortening the "Release and reception" heading to simply "Release." I prefer that it's like that if we are including non-reception release material. I only formatted it as "Release and reception" as a compromise with Dibyendutwipzbiswas, similar to the compromise I made regarding the Avatar (2009 film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
With the confluence of technological and creative developments that are the product of human history—especially the last 70 years—I feel so inspired by the current period in time, that's all. It is amazing to be alive at present—particularly because I have the ability to compare it to the pre-Internet era—and I don't see any benefit in being hampered by mediocrity, insipidness and that which is vapid. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I shortened the heading to "Release," as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, looks fine to me. Thanks for the notice. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There's still disagreement about the format, as seen here and here. Sock introduced a new format. Although, as noted above, all of that material is "release" material, and I usually include the box office material as part of "reception," and I prefer not to have subsections for a single sentence or for otherwise very little material, I can be fine with Sock's version. I want us to come to full agreement or to a compromise on the setup for this content and stick with it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for changing that, I hadn't noticed this discussion. My usual mentality is that when one of the sections gets extremely cluttered, I try to break it apart. I know the home media section is thin at the moment, and I'm hunting for sources to expand it. I'm fine with changing this to whatever it is we all agree on, but I think this article's critical response and accolades sections are thick enough to warrant their own subheading. Also, I'm of the opinion that box office is a part of release, but I can see the other side as well. Sock (tock talk) 13:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize. And as noted above and below in the #Article outline section, I do see box office material as part of "release." Again, it's all "release," no matter how we format it. What I meant by "I usually include the box office material as part of 'reception'" is that when there is a Reception section heading, I will usually include the box office material as a subsection of that, or I'll format the matter that way if not going with "Release" as the master heading and having all of the release material as subsections under it. If there is a Release heading and a Reception heading, it's trickier to me on where the box office material fits best. Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears I was also being unclear. I meant that, in the case of separated sections, I tend to put box office under Release rather than Reception. Sock (tock talk) 14:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I considered that you might be talking about that, given the article at hand and the way you set it up. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am just killing it today. Sock (tock talk) 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Copyright tag on the Plot section

Nusumareta, regarding this, there was no copying from that site regarding the current Plot section. It's that site that copied from this site. As seen above on this talk page, and as seen in the article's edit history, editors have been applying their own wording to the Plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't check the dates. One of these articles is obviously copying from the other -- the other just had the nerve to put a copyright notice on their plagerized content. -- Nusumareta (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If that site stated that we copied them, it is a lie. They copied material that I saw Popcornduff add. The #Plot summary section above has further detail. And, for example, I am the one who added "naming Desi as her captor and rapist," and that site includes that portion as well. I didn't steal that from that site; I came up with it myself. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I love it when this happens. I recently found a Vice article that had lifted almost every word from a Wiki article I wrote single-handedly. Only difference was that guy got paid and I didn't. Popcornduff (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Noting here for the talk page: Nusumareta removed the WP:Copyright tag. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Article outline

As suggested by some editor, let's talk about the article outline in a civilized fashion instead of waging WP:WAR. I suggest that the box office be moved under release section and home media under the release section. What say you ?? DtwipzBTalk 12:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No need for a new discussion section; it would have been better to reply in the existing discussion that is about this very topic: #Order of release/reception sections. And when you start a discussion, it's better not to start it off as if you don't know who the "some editor" is. But, like I stated in that discussion, I clearly prefer having the Box office section and Home media section as subsections of the Release section. This is the format that I prefer; a Release and Reception division is not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
But as for your proposal, the article already currently has the Box office and Home media sections as subsections of the Release section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Interpreted by the media" vs. "misinterpreted by the media" in the Plot section

Mistercontributer and I are in dispute over the following the sentence: "Suspicions arise that Nick murdered her, and his awkward behavior is interpreted by the media as characteristic of a sociopath."

I reverted Mistercontributer's change of "interpreted" to "misinterpreted," stating, "That's not clarity; that's telling readers that they are wrong to think that he is a murderer when they watch those parts." If it's not clear what I mean by that, I mean that to those watching the film...they (usually) do not know for certain if the behavior is misinterpreted; they are in the dark about whether or not Nick is a sociopath as much as characters in the film generally are. This is clear by reviews of the film, which notes its use of Nick's behavior as indicating that he may be a psychopath or a sociopath and murdered his wife partly as a result of that. It is not until a big twist that readers know whether or not Nick is a psychopath or a sociopath. (Notice that, here in this discussion, I'm trying to avoid spoiling the matter for those who have not seen the film, and likely won't want to read the Plot section until they do.) Mistercontributer reverted me, stating, "this is clarity since the media does misinterpret his awkward behavior and this revision provides coherence with rest of plot summary." I think that Mistercontributer is speaking from the viewpoint of a person who has seen the film. Opinions? I will alert WP:Film to this discussion for wider input. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I alerted WP:Film here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that you have reverted many edits to this page. Mistercontributer (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22. There's no advantage to using "misinterpret", and "interpret" doesn't mislead the reader. Popcornduff (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I also find the number of reverts anyone has made to this article completely uninteresting, by the way. Popcornduff (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That does not surprise me since I noticed you have made many reverts to this article also. Both need to allow other editors to edit this page without picking apart every edit. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
What does my or Popcornduff's "many" reverts have to do with what I stated above? You should instead be arguing the validity of your "misinterpreted" wording, if there is any validity to using it in this case. The vast majority of those aforementioned edits of mine are reverts concerning WP:Vandalism or other unconstructive edits anyway. There is no "picking apart every edit" style to anything I do on Wikipedia. Well, unless it's an editor who repeatedly edits inappropriately or otherwise poorly. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 'Flyer22' and 'Popcornduff' on this question and would go with "interpret". My initial thinking was for using "misinterpret"; if it is clear by the end of the movie that Nick is not actually a sociopath then the media was mistaken in that assessment, and "misinterpret" would be the correct word to use. However, on further reflection, I think that "interpret" is better in this context and for the reasons stated above. - Xenxax (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the article to "his awkward behavior is initially interpreted by the media as characteristic of a sociopath." That statement is accurate, so I hope this revision resolve this issue. Mistercontributer (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a very excellent compromise to me. - Xenxax (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Your wording of "initially interpreted" is an improvement, but it is still from the POV of a person who has seen the film (I assume that you have seen the film). "Interpret" leaves the text unbiased. But I can go with "initially interpreted" as a compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"Initially" should be removed because it adds nothing useful. It's not important for the reader's comprehension of the plot, at that point, to know that the media later interprets his actions differently. (edit: I'm really struggling to understand what problem Mistercontributor was trying to fix in the first place.) Popcornduff (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and approve of your removal of it. I was simply trying to compromise since Mistercontributor does not want to budge on informing readers about the state of the interpretation. He feels this way despite the rest of the Plot section being clear on the matter if readers choose to read the whole section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, by the end of the movie, the media is in love with Ben Affleck's character, so this sentence without the word "initially" may cause confusion for the reader when trying to understand the plot summary. But again, it does not surprise me that you would revert my edit without any discussion first after a compromise had already been reached based on your edit history. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I live to destroy. Popcornduff (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Great attitude. I recommend both of you work with other editors to improve this article for the benefit of the readers instead of automatically reverting every edit that you do not make. Wikipedia is not a war as you seem to think. No one gets destroyed. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration among many editors instead of all edits made or reverted by the self designated police of an article. At least this talk page discussion will alert future editors of this article regarding what they can expect when attempting to make improvements to this article. Mistercontributer (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Mistercontributer, Popcornduff was joking with the "02:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)" post, no doubt because you are taking this matter very seriously and act as though reverts are automatically a bad thing. It seems that you go by the WP:Revert only when necessary essay; I do not, since that essay defines what is a "necessary revert" differently than I do. I do not need you to recommend that I work with other editors to improve this article or any article; I worked with you above, despite not agreeing with your edits and rationale on the matter. Popcornduff actively disagreed by removing "initially." You then attempted to bash Popcornduff. You are the one who needs to become better acquainted with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, namely WP:Talk (focus on the content, not the editor) and WP:Civil. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I can see your perspective on that, but we still have not addressed my original concern. I think we can resolve this issue by adding something towards the end of the plot summary that indicates the media has changed their mind about Ben Affleck's character. The fact that the media frenzy changed from strongly negative to overwhelmingly positive during the course of the movie needs more clarification within the plot summary. Mistercontributer (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
References: 1 2
I'd be fine with that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
But the Plot section already states, "Nick appears on a talk show to protest his innocence and apologize for his failures as a husband in the hope of luring Amy. His performance improves his public image and rekindles Amy's feelings for him." Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct. We already cover that. Popcornduff (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have another propose compromise to clarify media interaction with Ben Affleck's character within this movie. Obviously Gone Girl is a media satire per references above. One of the fascinating aspects about this movie is the media's rush to judgment which could have destroyed Ben Affleck's character's reputation within this movie, and then later the media turned Ben Affleck's character into a beloved sought after celebrity. Therefore I recommend we add a new section to this article to address this media satire issue. When I type in "Gone Girl film media satire" within Google I receive 1,130,000 search results, so this is a notable issue. Please let me know your thoughts regarding this proposal. Thanks for your consideration Mistercontributer (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sceptical that you could produce enough material to justify adding an entire section about the issue, but you might be able to wring a couple of sentences out of it and find somewhere to put them. Popcornduff (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Information on that aspect can fit in the Critical response section and/or the Gender issues section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I will write that part within my sandbox and then you can edit as needed before adding to appropriate section within this article. I will let you know when I have something for you to review. Thanks for working with me on this Mistercontributer (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As an update, I selected 8 references which support the media satire angle and began writing this part in my sandbox. Feel free to edit within my sandbox using information from the references. We can work on the wording there before adding this information to the article. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new "Media satire" section

I have created a rough draft of a proposed new "Media satire" section for this article in my sandbox. I believe there is enough information with references to justify creating a new section within this article to address this media satire issue. Please provide feedback regarding this rough draft. Thanks Mistercontributer (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that has gone into this. But it has major problems.
First off, it's way too long. We don't need an entire multi-part section dedicated to analysing the work as a satire; that's a major case of undue weight.
Second, it doesn't sound neutral. ""Gone Girl" is a biting satire of American media and the way it influences how society determines the guilt or innocence of those we only know through television.[1][2] 'Gone Girl' also merciless mocks today’s 24-hour news cycle.[3] " Even though you have citations for these (which I haven't checked yet btw), they're phrased in such a way to give opinion as fact. Calling it a satire is fine if you have good sources, but calling it a "biting satire" or saying it "mercilessly mocks" isn't neutral.
I recommend you cut this back to a single paragraph - four or five sentences at the most. The Ben Affleck quote would be a good thing to keep, for a start. Popcornduff (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I was not sure what to keep and what to delete. Feel free to edit, cut, and paste any part of this information into the article as appropriate. I will leave this information in my sandbox until this discussion has been closed out. Thanks again Mistercontributer (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Due to lack of discussion, I removed this "media satire" information from my sandbox. However, if any editors would like to add any of this information to the article in the future, the information can be found in this version of my sandbox. I believe this "media satire" issue is an important aspect of this film which should be addressed within this article for the benefit of the readers. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Northern autumn deal"

What does the phrase "northern autumn deal" contribute? Why does autumn link to Autumn? I've replaced the phrase with "deal." Jamesdowallen (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gone Girl (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:

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) 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

hunh?

... Gone Girl made history with its start-to-finish 6K workflow.

Could someone familiar with workflow systems doing video recording with hi-res (6 thousand pixel) equipment and software that integrates editing, video special effects, and conforming, make that sentence above ^ mean something to the average non-tech moviegoer such as moi? If you don't know what "6K workflow" means it's gibberish techno-babble. Even though my puzzled mind took some time to look I am still not sure whatisit.-- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Date movie

Some advertisements disingenuously (and hilariously) claimed this was a "date-night movie" https://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/fun-with-pull-quotes-the-part-of-peter-travers-gone-girl-review-you-didnt-see-in-the-ads/ -- 109.79.86.113 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gone_Girl_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1073333153"