Talk:Knives Out

Choose Your Own Adventure

The ninth book in the original Choose Your Own Adventure series was a murder mystery with a very similar plot called “Who Killed Harlowe Thrombey?” The victim’s name in this film is Harlan Thrombey. There is NO WAY that’s a coincidence. 97.116.72.212 (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that too! Bkatcher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers

@LWRH:Spoilers in the plot section are allowed on Wikipeda. Please stop removing content from the page without proper justification.Nemov (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: Incorrect Spoilers in the plot section are not allowed on Wikipeda. Please stop adding unconfirmed and incorrect information.LWRH

@Nemov: At least have the conviction to write you have only seen the movie once and you might have written incorrect spoilersLWRH

@LWRH:To avoid an edit war I'll have to bring in an admin. I didn't write the plot for this page. Many others who have seen the film have put it together and I can confirm it's correct as well. I'm not sure what you're angle here is, but it's a bizarre way to handle it.Nemov (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: Sure bring in the admin. I just want the truth to be on there. Not sure what your angle is if you didn't write this?? LWRH

@LWRH:I've seen the film and the plot section is correct. Why are you deleting plot points that are confirmed by multiple people?Nemov (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: They are not correct. I want to get an admin involved. I don't know who these people are that you keep referring to. Why do you want to ruin this film by stating the wrong information? LWRH

@LWRH:Spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia. Reading a plot for a film doesn't ruin a film if a person has already seen it. If a person hasn't seen the film they shouldn't be reading the plot on Wikipedia.Nemov (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: I am not saying spoilers aren't allowed, I am saying incorrect spoilers aren't allowed so please stop twisting my words. If you want to continue you should state that you have only seen the film once otherwise you are putting out incorrect factual information to the public. I will bring the admin in, I just want the page to be correct. LWRH

@LWRH:As I mentioned before several users have contributed to the plot. I saw the film two days ago and the plot is correct. What specifically is wrong? - Nemov (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: Many of the plot points are conjecture. Walt was not fired, Joni did not steal as such. Harlans mother didn't falsely identify Marta as Ransom, she did see Ransom early that night. I could go on....

@LWRH:Walt is fired by his father in the film. Joni was cut out of the will for stealing. Harlan's mother thought Marta was Ransom because later it is revealed she had already seen Ransom outside that night. Did you watch a different cut of the film? - Nemov (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: Sadly mate you confuse conjecture with fact. You call me unreasonable to the admin but you seem to believe in assuming facts, factoids people call these. Harlan says "we'll talk details in the morning" - Joni was never cut out of the will for stealing? Marta just was given as beneficiary. So what cut of the movie had specifically joni cut out that you saw? Basically I just don't like the way this is written. Part of me liked that the movie wasn't being ruined for other people with assumptions but seems like no one can do anything for 4 days now so I suppose you should be happy. As long as you are happy.

I:::LWRH, if you think there are issues with the plot, then you need to discuss your specific concerns here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless I do not want another Once Upon a Time in Hollywood situation on our hands. cause this was a bit embarrassing. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts:How did I miss this? That is amazing. LOL Nemov (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: LOL (talk)

Comedy Genre

The following discussion 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.

---

Add comedy film to the opening sentence, as this film is a mystery-comedy. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jgwilliams873:I disagree with the change. While the film does have some humorous elements it's not a comedy. It's a mystery whodunit. Is it discribed officially somewhere as a comedy? - Nemov (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please gain consensus for the proposed addition. El_C 20:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

These sites say so. Hopefully this helps.Jgwilliams873 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are reviews offering an opinion. Is it officially being promoted as a comedy? The film is first and foremost a mystery whodunit. It's not in the comedy genre. - Nemov (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How would I find it being promoted as a comedy? Is there a website I need to go to? Do I need to find an image? Jgwilliams873 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jgwilliams873:If you look at the official promotional sites it's not being promoted as a comedy. "KNIVES OUT is a witty and stylish whodunit guaranteed to keep audiences guessing until the very end." It's being promoted as a fun murder mystery. - Nemov (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov:Can you at least add an adjective like "whodunit," "black comedy," "satire," etc.? I would appreciate it.Jgwilliams873 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jgwilliams873:The next line mentions whodunit. I'd be happy with something like "Described as a modern take on the whodunit murder mystery genre, the comedic film follows a family gathering gone horribly awry, after the family patriarch's death leads a master detective to investigate." Would that work for you? - Nemov (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone better educated than me on the WP:FILMLEAD pointed out that thee practice is to stick with the main genre in the lead sentence. That should settle this topic. Mystery is certainly the main genre for this film. - Nemov (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that additional genres should not be added to the lead sentence, but I think it would be useful to have additional details about this in the "reception" section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

They can't because I fully-protected the article. But anything you two jointly agree on, let me know and I'll add it to the protected article. If you happen to resolve your current dispute, as well at any time, the article may be unprotected early. So keep me posted about that, too. El_C 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nemov: Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've been busy with real-world stuff. Yes, that would be perfect. Thank you very much, and I hope we can keep in touch. Cheers. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe this discussion needs to be revisited given critical reception over 4 years. In 2020, most reputable critics' and professional associatons nominated the film and its sequel primarily as a "musical or comedy." Each page for a film nominated in this category includes comedy as a genre in the lead section. The film is also listed among comedy mystery films.

The MOS:FILMGENRE guideline mentions "primary genre or sub-genre." I suggest including the specific sub-genre as "mystery comedy" with links to the pages for Mystery film and Mystery comedy (or, if it is felt that only one be included, the latter) in order to be consistent with critical consensus. Nancy Drew (2007 film) provides an example of this format in the lead section. Doobledoop (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Comedy is not the main genre of the film, so it should not be stated in the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to MOS:FILMGENRE. The "primary genre or sub-genre" should be in the lead. It is not uncommon for other films to be classified as mystery comedy when it is their primary sub-genre. The primary sub-genre of the film is mystery comedy. While it was not as heavily weighted upon release, it's clear from critical consensus and accolades that there is significant weight to its identity as a mystery comedy.

As an example, Tick, Tick... Boom! (film) is a biographical comedy drama. Doobledoop (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:FILMGENRE. "Biographical" and "musical" are not genres, only "comedy drama" is. So the TTB article is correct. "Mystery comedy" is not a genre, "mystery" is a genre and "comedy" is another genre. And "comedy", again is not a MAIN genre of this film. Are comedic elements prevalent? Yes. Is it the most dominant genre? No. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Per critical consensus, the film's dominant genre has been recognized as a comedy.

I am following the consensus on Mystery comedy regarding two points. The first is Williams' taxonomy:

"According to Williams' taxonomy, all film descriptions should contain their type (comedy or drama) combined with one (or more) subgenres. This combination does not create a separate genre, but rather, provides a better understanding of the film."

The second is that Knives Out is listed within the same section as a mystery comedy. The other films listed are all identified in their respective lead sections as mystery comedy.

There are a number of similar film articles (eg, Nancy Drew (2007 film), The Pink Panther (2006 film)) not listed there where mystery comedy is used as the primary genre. The consensus given these pages would seem to suggest it is a specific sub-genre suitable for a lead section. I don't think the Knives Out page should run contrary to consensus among articles on similar topics. Do you have any references that the film is not a mystery comedy? Doobledoop (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Mystery comedy" is not a subgenre. It's two genres. The consensus on the film project, as delineated at WP:FILMGENRE, is that only ONE genre — the primary, main, predominant one — should be listed in the lead. The two articles that you listed, one of which is rated start-class and the other C-class, are not following the consensus correctly. We often bring up Deadpool (film), a GA, as an example of what to do. There's no question that Deadpool is a comedy, but the primary genre isn't "comedy" or "superhero comedy", it's "superhero". We can't just cheat by combining two genres together and calling it a single genre. Knives Out is a comedy, but it's primarily a mystery. Can't do both at the same time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree on two points.

I cannot find any consensus on Wikipedia that comedy mystery is two genres. I can find consensus on two comedy mystery pages identify it as a "a film genre combining elements of comedy and mystery fiction." Wikipedia:FILMGENRE specifies that a subgenre may be the primary genre in a lead section.

There are a number of GA film articles that differ from Deadpool. I noted Blue Velvet (film) as an example of a film where the genre is not solely mystery. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a GA article containing "comedy mystery" in the first sentence of the lead section. Doobledoop (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have done some reading of FA-comedy articles on films with hybrid genres similar to the GA Roger Rabbit article, in order to gain an idea of the consensus when there is weight to both elements. I've linked a few below.

But I'm a Cheerleader

Total Recall (1990 film)

Tropic Thunder

American Beauty (1999 film)

Ghostbusters Doobledoop (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So I see there are quite a few articles that do not comply with WP:FILMGENRE, even GAs and FAs ... but that still doesn't justify us not complying with the guideline just because "other articles do it". InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we may be at an impasse and require dispute resolution options, since we are both referencing Wikipedia:FILMGENRE and providing articles that interpret it differently. I understand you disagree on the style and whether comedy mystery is a sub-genre, but I don't read anything in the style guide that would suggest these articles do not comply. Comedy mystery is a genre referenced by multiple pages rather than two separate genres.

1. "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Given what we define as weight (professional and critical consensus

2. "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified."

Comedy mystery would, in this case, be the primary sub-genre given the weight of professional association nominations for Best Comedy and marketing materials from Lionsgate. I also read in the style guide that the opening sentence should contain a primary genre at minimum. It does not mention the limits--those are defined by clarity and consensus. Doobledoop (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You're free to open an RfC, but I believe that would be a waste of time since several experienced editors have explained the guidelines. WP:FILMLEAD is pretty clear to us.

The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of its most important aspects from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified.

Knives Out and the sequel are a mystery films first and a comedy films second. The opening sentence should include the primary genre. "Comedy mystery" isn't sub-genre on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen a reference from a verifiable source supporting the statement that comedy mystery is not a subgenre. I have provided FA articles using this as the primary sub-genre as well as the article for comedy mystery. If you have anything to the contrary, I think that would be beneficial other than what other editors have written. Consensus is not static. Doobledoop (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia articles as a source, WP:WINRS. The WP article for comedy film, for one, is poorly sourced. This, which is the source being used to support the "comedy mystery" section, probably isn't reliable, and the page doesn't even mention the words "comedy mystery"! If you really, really, really feel this is necessary, I can start a post at WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Protected edit request on 28 November 2019

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Background:

Initially I was confused by the sentence ("Filming locations included Marlborough, Natick, Wellesley, Maynard, Waltham, and Canton.[26][27][28]") in the "Filming" [sub-] section, because it contains a list of towns that sounded like they -- (some ... or all? ... of them?) -- might be in Mass., ... but I was not sure.

Then I saw that the previous sentence ("Principal photography began on October 30, 2018, in Boston, Massachusetts and wrapped on December 20, 2018.[23][24][25]") does tell me what state the movie was filmed in, and does mention "Boston".

(Note that, at https://www.thecinemaholic.com/where-was-knives-out-filmed/ it says [in part] that Boston is "where most of the movie was shot", and ... IMHO it might be advisable to include that info -- including the phrase "where most of the movie was shot" -- in the "Filming" [sub-] section. YMMV...) (... with or without including [a "ref" tag, for] a footnote containing that URL.)

As a minimum, it seems to me that Medfield -- which is also mentioned prominently [right after Boston] in that https://www.thecinemaholic.com/where-was-knives-out-filmed/ source -- should also be included in the list of towns in the second sentence.

actual suggested changes: ("see above" for rationale etc.)

These changes are based upon (and hence relative to) the currently latest ["11:06, "24 November 2019"‎] version of the ("Knives Out (film)") article.

I suggest to change [the second sentence in the "Filming" [sub-] section] ... FROM [1]

• "Filming locations included Marlborough, Natick, Wellesley, Maynard, Waltham, and Canton.

TO [2]

• "Filming locations included Boston [mostly], as well as Medfield, Marlborough, [...]."

or at least TO [2a]

• "Other filming locations included Medfield, Marlborough, [...]."

...Where no changes after the word "Marlborough" are being suggested.
(unless you count the stuff under "Background:" ... but I don't think you do. [right?] )
(Well, maybe you count the comment about << "(... with or without including [a "ref" tag, for] a footnote containing that URL.)" >> ... [do you?] )

first timer jitters ... and gratitude

I hope this suggestion is UNAMBIGUOUS enough.
Thanks for listening. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

PS:

PS: There are at least 2 places (in the last sentence of the lede, -- right before the "Knives_Out_(film)#Plot" section -- and in the second sentence of the "Knives_Out_(film)#Release" section of the article) [see the "version" info above... if nec.] where it still refers to the release date ("November 27, 2019") using the present tense.

(Actually. saying "is scheduled to be theatrically released on" is a way of wording it, that is kinda like a "future" tense in some ways; ... but I think technically [grammar wise] it's the present tense.)

Since it is now "November 28, 2019" in some time zones (e.g., EST) (equals UTC minus 0500), maybe the "is scheduled to be" there, should be changed to "was scheduled to be" ... OR maybe even, to [just] "was".

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Request seems clear enough, but the wording of "Filming locations included Boston mostly..." does not seem right to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Forcing / causing

In the first sentence of the final paragraph of the plot section, where it says "forcing Ransom to admit his crimes," the word choice is incorrect. It should be "causing" rather than "forcing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.124.50 (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

production

As of right now, the 'production' section finishes with the sentence...

Jacob Thrombey, who tweets alt-right hate speech online was inspired by angry Star Wars fans on Twitter that Johnson encountered following the release of The Last Jedi.[8]

What does this sentence have to do with Knives Out? I'm deleting it. If someone else can show relevance, they can put it right on backRobbmonster (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here you go.[1] PizzaTime04 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Walt's leg

Is there any information as to why Walt has a (presumably) broken leg and hobbles round in a surgical boot with a stick, which he sometimes bangs on the ground with anger? It's not explained in the film. Did they decide on it to show the character's ineffectual personality? Had Michael Shannon broken his leg in real life?Paulturtle (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Found an interview online in which Shannon talks about Walt being "not fully formed" as he has always been under his father's shadow, but nothing about the surgical boot.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This suggests that it's to symbolise that Walt is "not fully functional" (and there was nothing wrong with Shannon's leg in real life) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/conversations-consequence-knives-rian-johnson-050047532.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI8yEcCU6-zlCZU4CNwQfKEJO3LeSmxLoYS7EyA8O55PxA03NdWUJAiG7lp4jDOIiCdRb8LQAJaBzVn7X2BJyXYsCfD_HQ4YuLb951sNu_rMkGW6D3mrxDn6s_rkv-2YBkADMnn2o2rQlvJrO2ONH7xWODt_D-qGwb82f7udstiY

Paulturtle (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Plot points

@Ajd: it looks like we disagree on whether a few small elements are necessary. Here's my take:

• Harlan gives Marta instructions to create a false alibi to avoid suspicion for causing his death. This is obvious - people only use false alibis to avoid suspicion. We don't need to explain this.

• As they search the property, Marta attempts to conceal evidence. Marta conceals evidence. How successful she is doesn't matter here.

• In the present, Blanc questions Marta. Marta cannot lie without vomiting, and so she gives true but incomplete answers. This is clear without the "true" part - the clear implication is that she avoids lying by not telling the whole story.

Popcornduff (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I think since it's well under 700 words we have some extra space to work with, so we may as well allow it to be clearer rather than just maximally terse.

The one I feel most strongly about is "attempts to conceal evidence". If it's true that "how successful she is doesn't matter here," then we should say "attempts", since omitting it is asserting that she succeeds. And she doesn't really succeed, since Blanc does find the broken trellis, and knows she's up to something with the muddy footprints. Saying just "she conceals evidence" seems to communicate that Blanc doesn't discover anything on that search, and he does.

"Marta can't lie without vomiting, and so she gives incomplete answers" doesn't really sound coherent to me actually! "So" implies that the former is the cause or reason for the latter, but "Marta can't lie without vomiting" isn't the cause for "she gives incomplete answers"; it's the cause for "she gives true answers". ("Marta doesn't want to get caught" is the cause for "she gives incomplete answers.") This may seem like splitting hairs, but I just think the sentence seems more sensible with "true but" in there.

As for "to avoid suspicion for causing his death"—well, since we say in the same sentence that Harlan actually killed himself, it's clearer to point out that Marta is at risk of blame to avoid confusion. And overall, like I said, since we're well under 700 words we can afford to allow the extra verbiage for clarity's sake. AJD (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The changes I'm proposing aren't an attempt to be "maximally terse" - I would advocate for them whether we had 700 words to spend or 2000. I think they either add unnecessary words, or create some clunky sentences. For example, - Harlan gave Marta instructions to create a false alibi to avoid suspicion for causing his death and then slit his own throat. We have two infinitive "to"s and a "for" here in sequence, which is kinda clunky, and then the "slit his own throat" is hard to pick up with. I still think writing this flashback in the present tense (introducing it with "the night before") is the simplest solution.

Regarding the concealing evidence: Marta does succeed in concealing evidence, just not all of it. OK, I get that you think it's important that she's not 100% successful - but if you think the fact that Blanc discovers stuff in the search is important, why aren't you proposing we include that in the plot? The "attempt to conceal" doesn't facilitate that. Popcornduff (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to include the fact that Blanc finds evidence in the search, since it allows the reader to follow more of the logic of the investigation: "Marta attempts to conceal evidence, but Blanc finds the broken trellis she climbed to re-enter the house, and mud on the carpet outside Harlan's room." In fact, we can also give a bit more detail about Harlan's instructions: "In order to help Marta avoid blame for his death, Harlan instructed Marta to re-enter the house later that night and create the illusion that he was still alive; he then slits his throat." I think that flows a bit better and has fewer of the stacked embedded phrases you're concerned about. I've tested it out and we'll still be under 700 words if we add those. What do you think? AJD (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

FlaJunkie (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw the movie in the local theater when it was released. I just watched it on Amazon. The ending is different!

In the theatre, when Marta came out onto the balcony, she said words to the family allowing them to stay. She held up the cup where you could fully read the "My house, my rules" printing. It was partially obscured in the Amazon ending.

I cannot find support for this ending online. Does anyone else remember it? FlaJunkie (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the film multiple times. In the theater and at home. The ending was the same. I haven't read or heard anything about a different ending. - Nemov (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I know I saw a different ending. At the time we watched this in Viera, Florida, the image was really crappy. It was almost like a copy. But in any event, I remember what I previously stated. Is it possible that different endings were distributed to parts of the country? FlaJunkie (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Very unlikely. The filmed debuted at festivals weeks before the main release. I saw it at a special showing a week before wide release. There's been nothing reported about a different cut of the film and the film was finished long before it was released. - Nemov (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I sent a Tweet to Rian Johnson with a question but no response yet. I'm still very puzzled and I am not demented. There has to be a logical explanation.FlaJunkie (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Knives Out which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The record of that discussion is now at Talk:Knives Out (disambiguation). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration

I'll move this here since @Wallyfromdilbert: would rather keep reverting my edits. "Illegal immigration" is the most widely used term. It's also the accepted term on Wikipedia. Not all undocumented immigration is illegal, and not all illegal immigration is undocumented. Before making this change I researched the Illegal immigration article and users have attempted to change the page to "Undocumented Immigration." Those attempts have failed to gain consensus. "Undocumented Immigrant" is neither precise or the most widely used term. In order to maintain consistency my edit should stand. If a user wants to call "Illegal Immigration" something else please find consensus to change the Illegal immigration article title. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Not all undocumented immigration is illegal, and not all illegal immigration is undocumented." Three sources in this article use the term "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented mother" [2] [3] [4], and one of those sources also discusses "illegal immigration". No sources use the term "illegal immigrant", which is the term you are putting in the article (despite you only using the term "illegal immigration" in your post above). We go with what the sources say, not your original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources are about the film. They're not about what illegal immigration is called on Wikipeda. So what the sources called it is irrelevant. If those article authors wanted to call the Earth Jupiter it wouldn't change the fact that the Earth is widely called the Earth. If you think those article sources are strong enough to change the consensus please go to Illegal Immigration and make your case there. It doesn't appear that your argument is neutral and based on the controversy surrounding this issue it appears politically motivated. As I mentioned before I don't really care what it's called, but it should be consistent on Wikipedia. Your edit is not consistent. Nemov (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the film, not whatever issues you are talking about. If you are interested in this article, then please present sources relating to this article. Also, please read WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS regarding your unsupported claims about my editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If you need sources using "illegal immigrant" in regards to this film you can find them all over the place [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. There's tons of them because it's the most widely accepted term. I'll leave it at that. - Nemov (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet none of those sources are in the article, and Google actually shows twice the amount of results for "undocumented immigrant" with the title than "illegal immigrant". Probably better to just avoid either term altogether if the sources dispute each other. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Only one of the five sources Nemov provided (i.e., The Telegraph) is considered generally reliable per WP:RSP, while another one of the five (i.e., National Review) is considered a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. In addition, an abundance of reliable sources (i.e., The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Hollywood Reporter, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair) refer to the character as undocumented, so due weight should be given to the term. KyleJoan^talk 05:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan:If you're looking for more reliable sources they're available. I just grabbed the first set of links, but there's tons of them. [10], [11], [12]. My argument wasn't that "Undocumented Immigrant" isn't used, but "Illegal Immigration" is also widely used and it's the accepted term on Wikipedia. What is the reasoning for reverting my edit if both are widely used and "Illegal Immigration" is the accepted terminology on Wikipedia? - Nemov (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The reasoning is that more reliable sources describe the character as undocumented. It would be inappropriate and undue for the plot section to reference her backstory involving illegal immigration. KyleJoan^talk 06:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the Vanity Fair article in Nemov's post uses the term "undocumented immigrant" not "illegal immigrant", while the LA Times source also never uses the term "illegal immigrant" (only "illegal immigration"), and the Time source uses "illegal immigrant" once but also uses "undocumented immigrant" and "undocumented mother". I think KyleJoan's reasoning makes sense that we use the term used by more reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

 Declined Too many editors involved; not stale Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Nemov)

On the topic of illegal immigration the widely accepted term for person who violates the immigration law is "illegal immigrant." [13].

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Galendalia

Since this is based on a film I am of the opinion that what they are referred to in the film should stand regardless of whether it is politically correct (or otherwise) as this is a work of fiction and is not a news article, to help out further, I would recommend putting those words in quotation marks to help clarify that is what they used in the film. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

::Galendalia, third opinions are for disputes between two editors and are only supposed to be once a discussion has reached a standstill after thorough discussion, which is not usually possible less than a day after a discussion was even started. I also find it strange that you did not respond to KyleJoan's comment about the third opinion, when a major point of requesting a third opinion is to have all involved editors agree that it would be useful. You may want to review the guidelines and FAQ for third opinions. If you want to contribute to this discussion, I would suggest leaving your comment in the same fashion as the other editors. As to your statement about the article content, reliable sources are a better guide for content than primary source quotes from films. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert - You are correct and I am handling that now. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Galendalia. Nemov (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Why was a third opinion requested when the discussion has already obtained three users' opinions? KyleJoan^talk 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It was requested before you joined the conversation. Do you object to a neutral third party? If Galendalia (talk · contribs) agrees that an "illegal immigrant" is no longer a widely accepted term for someone immigrating illegally we'll go with that. Then we can attempt to change the article title for Illegal immigration - Nemov (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a separate article than illegal immigration. See WP:OSE. Also, the term "illegal immigration" is not used in this article, and so this dispute has nothing to do with that article title (and I don't think repeating that disingenuous argument is helping your case). Finally, Wikipedia does not have "accepted terms", and your suggestion for this article is not supported by the sources, including the sources you yourself cited. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Apparently accidentally"

"Marta, seemingly by accident, administered him an overdose of morphine" means 'Marta administered an overdose, and it seems like it was an accident.' That's not what happened; as it turns out, she didn't administer an overdose. "Marta apparently accidentally administered him an overdose of morphine" means 'it seems like Marta administered an overdose,' which is true, and compatible with the fact that she actually didn't. AJD (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we can reach a compromise with "Marta apparently administered him an overdose of morphine by accident". The phrase "apparently accidentally" not only is a cacophony, but also makes the sentence ambiguous. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 16:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! AJD (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

i did not like the wording of this summary regarding the "overdose" so i adjusted it. i literally just watched the movie, then read the wiki and felt that line was off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.253.130 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

apparently sounds stupid. whoever undid my changes that maybe added 15 characters or so is either some edit nazi or is so someone who is mad their poor sentence in that summary was changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.254.210 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

See Also

Added film, Woman of Straw, with young character who murders his wealthy uncle at his mansion for his money. He manipulates the immigrant nurse who becomes the suspect. Detective is brought in to solve it. See also is a template for readers to connect them to similar pages. This helps the reader. It's not a big addition. Literally what See Also is intended for. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There are so many ensemble murder mystery films that could be justified to be similar to Knives Out the See Also section could drag on forever. This comparison is simply a matter of opinion by the user making the addition. If there's been notable coverage connecting the two films I'd understand, but this addition seems completely unnecessary. - Nemov (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

According to MOS:SEEALSO, the See also section should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. So, you should present reliable sources here that cover the similarities between these two films, in order for it to be included in a See also section and be properly integrated into the article body sometime in the future. —El Millo (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Nemov I'm not arguing that you can't add other films here if you wish. My point is this one should be added. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

El Millo Cool. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Knives Out Dogs that barked in the night or did not: Sherlock Holmes?

Whether this was intended or not, the movie seemed to incorporate a clever two-way homage to Sherlock Holmes The Adventure of Silver Blaze, in which the crucial clue was dog NOT barking in the night as it knew the person. Knives Out starts with the dogs. They bark at Ransom, but not at Marta, both ways important to the story, unlike the Holmes story, where only one way mattered. JohnMashey (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be WP:OR and verging on WP:NOTFORUM. Are there reliable sources that point this out? Are there enough of them to justify including this in the article? —El Millo (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no question here. As the other user mentioned this isn't a fan theory forum. This should be closed since there's nothing left to discuss. I attempted to close and was reverted by editors who found some merit in discussing theories about dogs barking on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I should've removed this thread initially, instead of replying to it. This is clearly WP:NOTFORUM, it doesn't even merit being closed. —El Millo (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have agreed with removing the discussion, but since that didn't happen, it'd be unfair not to let the OP (and other users) answer the questions. No one is forcing anyone to discuss theories about dogs barking. We're all free not to comment. KyleJoan^talk 01:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

MRC is NOT a distributor

Please can the MRC credit be moved from the distributed by category to the production company category. MRC is not a distributor. They only fund and produce movies. That's like saying New Regency or Village Roadshow are distributors because the credits say from 20th Century and New Regency or from Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow. They are just studios that co-produced the movies and not actual distributors. 105.112.58.9 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have blatantly ignored the hidden note in the article, which states, Per BILLING BLOCK: "Lionsgate and MRC present..." For reference, the billing block can be found at the bottom of this poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sequel

At least according to imdb, Glass Onion will be in (limited??) distribution in theaters as of tomorrow a month before going on Netflix. Hope to verify this in person. ELSchissel (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is covered here: Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery#Release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Knives Out (film series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knives Out (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knives Out (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Still in Category:Upcoming films!

The film was released in 2019, but why is it still in Category:Upcoming films?! ⇒ AramTalk 16:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knives Out/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DAP389 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

I realised I should probably say something before I dive right into all the bullet points! Overall this looks like a very thorough and polished article that I expect will very soon make for an excellent Good Article. I typically prefer to make very minor prose edits and simple fixes myself, rather than bother you with the rigamarole of writing a whole bullet point to the effect of "in such-and-such paragraph, the year should be 2019 instead of 2018", so you'll likely see me puttering on the article a bit as I work my way through the review. Naturally, feel free to continue editing yourself, and to discuss any of the suggestions I make below, at any point in the review. I look forward to working together!

General suggestions

• Since the article has a section on themes it would be nice to reflect that in the lead with a single sentence, to the tune of "Knives Out has been read as work that investigates class warfare, wealth inequality, immigration, and race in contemporary American society."

Revised.

• In "Filming," it opens with Bergman was already conducting the location scouting while Rian prepared the script. -- this would be clearer if it mentioned a date to ground it in time (e.g., in 2018...?) but also, the cited source doesn't say anything that about location scouting so I tagged this as "failed verification."

Idk how I missed this. Revised still though because The Hollywood Reporter source says Bergman was assembling the filmmaking crew while Johnson was making changes in the script, not scouting.

• In "Development", my source spot-check turned up a problem with this sentence: One report circulated by Deadline claimed that Creative Artists Agency and FilmNation hosted an auction of the script at the 43rd Toronto International Film Festival to various investors, including MRC, which it secured by outbidding all offers with a hefty proposal. The cited Deadline report says that the film's distribution was made available to bids from distributors in various countries, and makes no mention whatosever of MRC. If Johnson has felt the need to dispute this account, I'm sure there's somebody out there who claimed there was an auction, but this section needs to be revisited for accuracy.

I replaced that source with another Deadline report used in this article. Let me know what you think.

Great, this is much better, thanks -- definitely supports what is in the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Another verifiability problem is in "Box Office," the claim By January 2020, the film's domestic gross topped $130 million. The cited source is from February 2020 and simply doesn't say that.

Revised.

Prose edits

• A quibble on prose in the lead: the words "dubious", "gleaned," and "transpired" all sound a little "off"; they don't quite mean what they're being used to mean. I'd suggest rephrasing with clarity and simplicity in mind.

Rephrased.

• In the plot summary, I am confused by the phrase She confesses to Blanc, though Ransom has already implicated her. I can't remember if Marta is aware that Ransom has implicated her or not, e.g., does she think she's deciding or is she just giving up? This sentence suggest the second, but the next sentence really emphasizes the "decided to". Something shorter and simpler might be clearer here.

The latter. Rephrased.

• In "Development," I made a small edit myself to try to clarify the mention of Hitchcock's advice, but really I think a lot of this discussion of plot structure belongs in its own section. I'd move the whole paragraph that currently begins The first shift arranges the plot as a thriller... to a new section, called something like "Mystery genre" in the "Themes" section. (Also, the explanation jumps right from the "first" shift to the "final" shift but should there be more shifts in there?) For a GA, I think that one paragraph is enough for a "mystery genre" section, though I'm sure there's lots out there if you wanted to keep expanding with FAC in mind.

Moved and made additional copy edits for clarity. Let me know if you have additional feedback.

It looks good, thanks! The revisions help a lot with understanding the shifts. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• In "Cinematography" section, it says Rian approached the filming with a double-camera setup, appointing two operators to complete the task. While the camera interactions in this setup were known to yield frustrating results on other shoots, the setup proved reliable for the producers because they had the freedom to experiment with their filmmaking methods. To be very nitpicky: per the source, Johnson didn't appoint the operators, the DP did, and the film producers had nothing to do with any of it. The source itself quotes the DP as saying "On some projects, the interaction between A- and B-cameras can be a frustration," he says. "But, with Rian's approach, it's nothing but a joy. We found some really cool shots, and did fun stuff". That's a comment on interpersonal relationships: sometimes it's annoying to manage multiple operators, but Johnson is fun to work for. No mention of reliable results for the producers. I'd suggest stripping this way down to something like "Filming used a double-camera setup, with two operators, one a longstanding collaborator of Yevin's. Yevin described the environment on set as experimental and visually creative." (Or something along those lines!)

Done.

@LEvalyn:; Should be good so far. Please let me know what you think! DAP 💅 14:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Great improvements. I've had a chance now to do the copyvio review (no issues) and finish my prose read-through. Based on that read-through I just have a few more notes:

• In "Class Warfare" I'm getting a little lost in the sentence Much emphasis is placed on the alternating points of view of Marta's ordeal to reinforce antagonism, a device that Fast Company's Joe Berkowitz argues forms the film's class consciousness.. Maybe split into two, use the first sentence to explain the thing the film does and the second sentence is "Joe Berkowitz argues that this device forms..." ?

Done.

• No action item here, but I want to say that I'm impressed with how effectively the 'themes' section summarizes relevant interpretations of the film. It's nice to see the meaty, scholarly stuff so well represented!

Thank you!

• The accolade for the Writers Guild of America's "101 Greatest Screenplays of the 21st Century (So Far)" fees weirdly out of place as a single-sentence paragraph. I don't see a better place for this sentence to go... what do you think about cutting this detail? Is this an important accolade? Could it be folded into the "Reception" section somewhere?

Reception section is fine by me. Revised.

If you can take a look at those last two sentences, that will conclude my prose review and this article will be ready to go! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, should be be rectified now. Appreciate the review! DAP 💅 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I took a look and it's looking great! Excellent work, and I am happy to promote this article to GA status! If you like, you can nominate your new GA for WP:DYK -- you probably have some great options for the "hook". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2024 (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.

Rian vs Johnson

I changed most of the instances of "Rian" back to "Johnson". There is little real possibility of confusion between the director and the composer outside of the section on the music, where I have retained the first names. -170.213.22.118 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviations - CPR

@151.71.237.22 (pretty sure you won't get a ping, but oh well). Your revert to put the full expansion of CPR in the article on first use is not such a bad edit in my view, but the case has been well made by another editor that CPR is commonly know by its abbreviation and not in full. The advice in MOS:ACRO1STUSE says exemptions apply to expansion on first use for something most commonly known by its acronym I self reverted the change myself because that clearly applies for CPR. I am not sure it accords with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, but the editors putting it back are clearly following Wikipedia's guidance. I don't think this is a hill to die on. Plenty of other sloppy use of abbreviations to consider elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

CPR is the common name. Very few people actually knows what it stands for and this would be a good example of something most commonly known by its acronym. Nemov (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Harlan vs Thrombey

Why do we refer to Harlan Thrombey as Harlan and not Thrombey? In comparison, we refer to Benoit Blanc as Blanc so something seems off? OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)