Talk:Inside (2023 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Belgian cinema task force.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incorrect plot

I saw this movie last night. The current plot synopsis is incorrect in many important ways, unless there are multiple versions of the film being screened. Bruceekirk (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruceekirk, feel free to edit the plot section, but seeing as this will create a discrepancy with the original plot writeup (this was only added yesterday, btw), it might be a good idea to be able to verify this, perhaps by seeking input from another editor who has seen the film? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and modified the previous summary for accuracy and added some details. Bruceekirk (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot contains an Incorrect ending

@Revirvlkodlaku

You reverted the edit I made to the "Inside" article's plot section. Before I made my changes I carefully watched the film. I paid particular attention to the final scenes of the film, I reran it several times to make sure I understood what had occurred. I thought I had missed something as the film ended ambiguously. I didn't miss anything, the film ending simply with a still view of the scaffold and the skylight, that is all. There was no other information. I do agree with you that that my comment about maybe he escaped and maybe he didn't escape was not appropriate. However, leaving the narrative that Nemo did things that did not appear in the film is incorrect.

Currently the plot summary concludes with the following narrative:

He concludes the apology by saying that he has saved three pieces of art, before climbing the scaffold, removing the skylight, and disappearing from view.

The narrative "climbing the scaffold, removing the skylight, and disappearing from view" characterize events that do not appear in the film. Per MOS:PLOT, a plot summary that includes this narrative is incorrect for the following reasons:

A plot summary is an abridged or shortened précis of the events that occur within a work of fiction

The plot is intended to describe the fiction. The plot narrative is confined and limited to what is contained in the fiction; not what the viewer thinks it might have contained or should have contained.

A plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent. In cases where a true narrative is not immediately obvious, this can be avoided by the use of out-of-universe language to describe the context of how the events are presented.

Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.

It involves a POV intuiting what possibly occurred

It was the result of "Original Research" which is not permitted.

Wikipedia guidance concerning what is contained in a Plot is: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material".

What occurred in the final scene of the film after Nemo makes his apology is simply a view of the enormous scaffolding and the skylight. No action, simply a still shot of the "possible escape route". There is no information beyond that.

The appropriate conclusion for the Plot Summary is:

Nemo concludes the apology by saying that he has saved three pieces of art. The final scene is a still view of the enormous scaffolding and the skylight.

Appropriately, I will make this edit to the Plot Summary.

Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 19:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Osomite, thank you for the thorough explanation. Honestly, you didn't have to go into Wiki guidance and all that; you could have just mentioned that you saw the film, and that the ending in the plot section was inaccurate 😋

The truth is that I haven't seen the film, so I must defer to you. I mainly reverted because you had changed the plot summary without appropriately explaining why. Anyway, it's all good now, cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film did show the pane of glass finally falling (after him working to get it loose for much of the film". Merely describing the final shot as being of the scaffold and skylight, omits the key detail that the skylight is no longer enclosed, but now open. This allows the wiki article's reader to embrace the implication that is very clear in the film, the barrier is removed, the goal of leaving is possible. When a character is focused on opening a door for most of the film and finally opens it, and the final shot is the now-opened door, the implications are clear. So... all that to say that the unobstructed daylight coming down the now-open skylight should be mentioned in the final sentence of the Plot description. 216.238.173.42 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)dude[reply]