Talk:The Descendants

Not a Comedy

This wonderful movie has many humorous moments. However, to call it a comedy is a misnomer, in my opinion. Jrgilb (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- I'm someone else, agreeing with the above. THIS IS NOT A COMEDY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.226.140 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both the above. The only kind of comedy that this movie resembles is that of a Shakespearean comedy, insofar as it has elements of separation and unification of the family, disputes between the characters, and what might be seen in some ways as a happy ending. But I doubt that is what was meant. It has none of the comedic elements common to modern comedy-drama. Sure, "comedy" is one of the Internet Movie Database categories for its entry there. But that doesn't justify it here. Twistlethrop (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is trying to call it a comedy (at least not recently). The film has the consensus seemingly of being a comedy-DRAMA; that is, a drama with sufficient amounts of comedy in it. Just take a look at the list of quotations, they are funny. Alandeus (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- It#s a drama-comedy. A wellknown mixture of realistic elements, which tells hard stuff in a shiny light way, I think.

The structure circles and the snowball rolls... Death isn#t a painfull end; it#s just a final solution and stops hurting between the figures.Family conflicts in such a shema told; make me smile not laugh!--Ai-mu-mu (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

It'd be nice to see a plot summary that doesn't simply detail the events scene by scene. It'd be nice to know what the film is more or less about without reading all the spoilers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.25.37 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and as this seems to be a general problem I'm addressing it to WikiProject Film. __meco (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Wiki is for. Go to a film site if you want a teaser summary. Wiki is an encyclopedia, it doesn't censor material because it might spoil something. There's no way to include a plot summary fit for an encyclopedic entry without including details that would spoil the film for people who haven't seen it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. 207.237.208.153 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section of the original novel The_Descendants (novel), that's a plot summary the on here isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.177.142 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - But the plot isn#t told right. Matt doesn#t met Speer by jogging in the bay. He talked instead of this with Brian#s wife at the beach. A man and a woman are different sexes, marrying each other doesn#t change that fact.

Please; set it right!--Ai-mu-mu (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully suggest that a Wikipedia entry is like a term paper or a book report and that it is appropriate to include the resolution of the story (in basic English, "how it ends."). This is different from a review that is written while a film is in its first run and the purpose of the review is to let the reader/listener/viewer know if they are likely to enjoy it. A good reviewer does not reveal the surprises that the author intends the reader/viewer to experience. Wikipedia entries are not reviews. No offense to anyone intended. 66.162.249.170 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

The filming locations are of great interest. Maybe someone could work these into the article.

I have located a few here:

5160 Old Pali Road, Honolulu, HI This is the address on the living will for Elizabeth King. This address doesn't seem to actually exist.

3849 Old Pali Road, Honolulu, HI 96817 This is the address for the house Matt King is living in, where the pool is in the front, the cement/concrete pots in front, the flagstaff properties in the back (note the 2 extra mailboxes) and its on the corner of Old Pali Road and Gartley Place. http://g.co/maps/y5pw6

155 Dowsett Ave, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 This is the address for the house Matt runs to, the place where Mark and Kai Mitchell are in the movie.

4328 Papu Cir, Honolulu, HI 96816 This doesnt have the turtle on it as it did in the movie. This is the address of Brian Speer where Elizabeth King was caught with Brian Speer by Alexandra King.

55-202 Kamehameha Hwy Laie, HI 96762 This the house across the street from Pounder Beach. Its where Mike King told the family he wasn't signing documents to transfer the estate from the King Family to Don Holitzer. Its owned by a group - Kikila Partners.

3745 Maunaloa Ave Honolulu, HI This is where Lani and Barb Higgins lives and Scottie and Matt go to apologize to Lani.

4420 Aukai Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 This is the house Brian Speer has for sale.

130 Wailupe Cir, Honolulu, HI 96821 I strongly suspect based on the views that this is Scott Thorson's house. The house in front says 130 Hale Aka'ula.

Kipu Kai Beach The Descendants - Kauai Property - Kipu Kai Beach. This is the location of the bay view from the movie. This is the plot of land that the King family and cousins collectively own in trust and have the issue with trust in perpetuity. 21.9117222222222, -159.389930555556 21°54'42.20"N, 159°23'23.75"W

Tahiti Nui 5-5134 Kuhio Hwy Hanalei, HI 96714 The bar in Hanalei.

mickrussom (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"cousins"

The inner circle of the family is constructed in a middleclass normal way. So the relation to the "cousins" appear a little exaggerated to me. Partners on immos; with common interest are a super flow shape of family business. The gay community of Honolulu can#t be meant. Or?! what#s up?!--Ai-mu-mu (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starring roles in infobox

Regarding the recent edit war about who does and does not belong in the infobox: only starring roles, indicated by who is listed in the film poster and who is credited in the film itself, should be listed in the infobox. Editor's personal opinions as to which roles are "significant" are irrelevant. This is longstanding policy in the Filmproject, as can be attested by numerous editors. This matter should be discussed here, not on editor's talk pages, and it should not be edit-warred over. Bring the matter here and talk about it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite, you're here I was so worried. Thank you for discussing here. By the way I did not edit war to tell you the truth. We can talk about it's actor Nick Krause. I made a small edit by removing Nick Krause on the starring infobox. Nick Krause is a minor actor and he's not on the main cast. And I written down on the edit summary "Remove minor actor. He's not on the main cast." Jacobite, did you look at the history page, recently? Also, I'm very scared at User:Tomer T has begin arguing to me and the user is angry at me. Steam5 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus (non-admin closure) sami ^talk 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Descendants → The Descendants (2011 film) – Even with the word "The" in the title, there is too much potential confusion in the title between this article's current title, film subjects listed at Descendant#Film and television, and the band The Descendents. ("...dents" instead of "...dants".) After the move, the leftover redirect, The Descendants, should be retargeted to the disambiguation page Descendant. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems like overdisambiguation to me. The only other topic on the DAB page that's specifically called "The Descendants" is the book the movie's based on (the band doesn't use a The like the OP suggests, and even then it's an alternate spelling). The film is easily primary topic for "The Descendants", as it's basically the only topic. And even if it was moved, it wouldn't need the date, as no other film is called "The Descendants". Nohomersryan (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the comments by Nohomersryan. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The naturally disambiguates the film from other films titled Descendants. CookieMonster755 ✉ 01:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. If there is any potential confusion, it's handled better by the hatnote than by overdisambiguating the title. Station1 (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the ideal situation for readers here would be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT which served both those using the upper right hand box and those who find by Google. But as it stands the George Clooney movie is clearly the Primary Topic, just as clearly as the non-charting punk band is no way on earth the primary topic for the alternative spelling of the word "Talk:Descendents". That is really user-unfriendly even by en.Wikipedia standards, it's almost into the zone of being WP:POINTY anti-user. But here, this article, as long as (2011 film) exists as a redirect, it isn't doing much harm where it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Nohomersryan, TheOldJacobite, CookieMonster755, Station1, and In ictu oculi: An article titled The Descendants (2015 film) was created a few hours ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Still oppose. Almost none of the awards listed on that page have Wiki articles (compared to this film winning an Oscar), and it almost certainly won't stack up in pageviews. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also still oppose. However, the new article could be added to the hatnote, and no objection to reproposing this move in 90 days if the pageviews during that period warrant it (although I doubt they will). Station1 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This film is the presumable primary topic for "The Descendants". Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In conjunction with this RM, concurrent RMs have been initiated at Talk:Descendents#Requested move 26 December 2017, proposing to move Descendents → Descendents (band) as well as at Talk:Descendant (2003 film)#Requested move 27 December 2017, proposing to move Descendant (2003 film) → Descendant (film) and Descendents (2008 film) → Descendents (film). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.