Talk:Fight Club

Embellishment of Critical Reception?

I detest this film, and was surprised that Roger Ebert's negative review is only mentioned in the briefest of scraps, followed up by an excerpt of his regarding the film taken from an entirely separate review of his. Ebert's stature in the world of film criticism is, ahem, fairly considerable. The opening sentence of his review of this movie is his own personal declaration that it is "frankly and cheerfully fascist" and "a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up." (the full review is contained here: Fight Club :: rogerebert.com.) I find these statements to be quite bold, as well as noteworthy, especially coming from a well-known and highly-acclaimed public figure such as Ebert, and feel that they, as well as other negative views of the film, ought not be given short shrift.

But my own personal opinion of Fight Club as a deplorable, ugly, and cruel assault on, among other things, the filmic senses, ends here.

Because for a "featured article" on Wikipedia, I find that the entire section of "critical reception" devoted to this film severely underwritten. Indeed, I, personally, found those who do support this film, find it entertaining, and advocate its message are not provided their requisite space either. This is especially vital when considering the undeniable impact the movie has left on modern societal culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenKong77 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually read Ebert's description of the film (e.g., "a thrill ride masquerading as philosophy") as negative, but maybe that's because I was familiar with the rest of the review. I can see how it doesn't quite seem negative, especially with "visceral and hard-edged". We can change the summary of the reviews. What kind of wording do you propose? Feel free to change it or add a draft here. As for the follow-up, I thought it was worth noting the contrast of his opinion with others' opinions. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic makes the film seem like a critical darling, but it was a bit more controversial at the time. As for advocating its message, I'm not sure what you mean? There is academic analysis of the film, but what I've seen is either pretty negative or pretty neutral. None of the analysis seems to quite celebrate the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edit to Include Cultural Rankings on Popular Film Sites

I made an edit to include references to its rankings on popular film sites such as IMDB and FilmCrave. Why were these removed? There is no note on the discussion page and nothing in the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I meant to include my signature Heartiscontentious (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is user-edited; that's why it's used exceedingly sparingly as a source, especially when it comes to reviews from IMDB users. FilmCrave has the same flaws. By contrast, Rotten Tomatoes aggregates ratings from established film critics; it is deemed to be a reliable source for rankings and reception. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you look at the edit summary where your edit was reverted, you'll see a link to MOS:FILM#Reception, which spells out in more detail what I just said. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But the section was talking about cultural impact, not critical response. Real people make up the cultural impact. I could understand your argument if you were referring to the critical reception, but this section is not for critical reception - this is cultural impact. I think we need to reinstate the imdb and filmcrave references. Again...forgot to sign Heartiscontentious (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I'm guessing cultural impact refers to how it impacted culture, i.e. references in other films, songs, tv shows, merchandise, popular quotations, effects on future film making. Not how users rated it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Heart. I removed the passage per MOS:FILM#Reception: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." That vulnerability is why Fight Club manages to be the #14 best film of all time at IMDb. Unlike CinemaScore, user ratings are not bona fide polls, meaning that there isn't someone waiting to survey all the moviegoers. The voters are the people who go out of their way to support the film, and there's a particular demographic skew there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, Thanks for the comments. I understand what you are saying, but again you are referencing the critical response section of MOS:FILM#Reception, which is not related to cultural response. Also MetaCritic and RottenTomatoes are both referenced. Seems to be double standards and subjective opinions when it comes to these types of things. I think that IMDB is a much more reputable source than MetaCritic and even FilmCrave has its place, specifically when it comes to cultural impact, not critical consensus. Thanks Heartiscontentious (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Critical response" section is just a place to put the guidelines. They're not important enough to have their own section on that page. The same logic still applies about using them in the first place. As for Rotten Tomatoes, we do not include its user ratings, but we include the score based on the website's collection of non-user reviews. Same with Metacritic. (See WP:RTMC about how their use is permitted.) The "Cultural impact" section already uses several references about the film's legacy that come from publications that have control over ranking films and their characters. IMDb is not controlled; I've seen Transformers end up in the Top 250 films of all time, and many films with fanbases tend to have unrealistically high ratings even before they are released. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For one, IMDB will never have movies that are not released in its top movies of all time. Their algorithm doesn't allow it. And two, the comment about fanbases that tend to have "unrealistically high ratings" is cultural. Critics are not culture, critics are professional movie reviewers. As far as the MOS:FILM#Reception related to cultural and critical uses, you are making assumptions once again. And finally, the page still links to allrovi, imdb, rottentomaotes and BoxOffice mojo in the bottom links section. It would seem logical (using your logic above) that it could be linked to FilmCrave's main movie page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about two separate examples of why IMDb is faulty. As for the guidelines, I am not making assumptions. You are saying that because that passage is in the "Critical response" section means it is okay to use user ratings as long as they are not in that section in the article. It is fine to present a film as popular among a particular demographic, but that cannot be done with user ratings. It's not a "fair" poll of everyone who saw the film. It is a purportedly universal poll that is skewed by a particular demographic. These guidelines are driven by editorial consensus; we do not include user ratings from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, FilmCrave, or anywhere else. You can start a discussion to change the guidelines, but in my experience, many editors are fine with excluding user ratings. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But you are making assumptions that guidelines (keep in mind that these are guidelines and as the article states, there can be exceptions) apply to ALL sections of a film page. No where in the guide does it state that "if a guideline appears in a section, it applies through out the guide." In addition - if you say you can't use IMDB.com for ratings, why is it linked as an external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not making assumptions because I worked with other editors of film articles to shape these very guidelines. User ratings are intended to be excluded fully. User ratings are subject to the same difficulties wherever they are placed. As for the external links, there is a different criteria for inclusion. IMDb is not solely about user ratings; if it was, it certainly would not be an external link. Coming back to the film's cultural impact, how about we find other references to use? I've been doing new research on the film recently, and I've seen in a couple of academic journals that it is popular for college students to study. That's a hint of the demographic that the film appeals to. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your work with other editors is not included in the film guide and is not denoted as such. Again, you are being subjective. You say that IMDB.com as an external link is allowable for other reasons, but it is not cited in the guide? It is subjective that an IMDB, AllRovi and others are allowed. Did they pay to be included? If not, why are they allowed and others aren't?Heartiscontentious (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Because IMDb is user edited. This for example (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1083271/) says Megan Fox is "rumoured" to be in a film called Luna while this interview with Megan Fox (http://collider.com/megan-fox-friends-with-kids-dictator-transformers-3-interview/114856/) says that is a lie. I myself have added trivia to IMDb and thus it is not trustworthy to a fault and that makes it pretty much entirely untrustworthy. Even so, this has little to do with user ratings. For instance here at A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, the user ratings for the page offer up FIFTY reviews and a near perfect score. This despite the fact the article is barely more than a cast list and a brief synopsis. It's being skewed by people who like the film rather than the article. Again, I Have voted for things on IMDb that I sometimes haven't even seen just because I think it looks good. That is not a trustworthy system. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So why is the film page linking to IMDB and other sources if it is not reliable to reference? Heartiscontentious (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In what? The external links? That is not a reference, its just an external link concerning the film. External links are not for reference, they're there so people would stop adding trivia sections to wikipedia articles and can go do it at IMDb instead Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the criteria for including a website as an external link is different from the criteria for including it as a reference. See Wikipedia:External links. In particular, one reason IMDb is normally linked is because of the amount of detail in the movie or television credits that it has. In film articles on Wikipedia, we do not list every person that appears in the film, nor every person who worked on the film, so that is one particular reason why IMDb is included, for that kind of access. It is a multi-faceted website, so there are some elements like user ratings (and trivia, as Blake explained above) that we do not trust, but we cannot control that. We're not going to let these bad apples of user ratings and trivia spoil what is an otherwise acceptable external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So why can't we add an external link to FilmCrave?Heartiscontentious (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no objection to add a link to the FilmCrave fight club page so I will proceed in adding it. Thank you Heartiscontentious (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FilmCrave is not acceptable as an external link. See WP:ELNO #10 and #11. If you are affiliated with the website, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

List of actors

shouldn't there be a list of actors who appeared in this film along with their roles? i saw it on here briefly but now it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.217.41 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a table in Fight Club (film)#Casting. I'm not sure if there is anyone else worth noting besides these five. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, I think good cases could be made for including Zach Grenier (Norton's boss, Richard Chesler) and Holt McCallany (The Mechanic). Both are veteran character actors relatively recognizable to the general viewer.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Fight Club (film) → Fight Club – WP:COMMONNAME. It seems like there are several articles related to media where the far more likely topic has a disambiguation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is completely irrelevant to this move, as that policy does not prohibit the use of disambiguators where the common name is ambiguous (as it is here). Assuming, then, that you actually mean WP:PRIMARY... Considering that the film was based on a novel by the same name, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence to support that contention. Powers ^T 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And you actually mean WP:PRIMARYTOPIC :) Jenks24 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

point. Powers ^T 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fight Club (film) is based on Fight Club (novel), not the other way around. It therefore would not make sense to make the film the primary topic using the importance criteria: "one has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  The importance criterion is certainly about more than what is based on what. Why would you weigh it so heavily here? The only relevance I can even see is to educate the user of the fact that the film is based on the book. That fact alone doesn't lend much to making the novel "important". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film had 129,000 pageviews last month compared to only 35,000 for the novel and 45,000 for the dab page (which is very high for a dab page). Clearly a lot of readers looking for the film are winding up on a dab page where they don't wish to be. The film should add a hatnote pointing to the novel, so as not to inconvenience those readers, as well as to the dab page for the few other minor usages. Station1 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Station1's comments. Regarding the "importance criteria", I think a good argument could be made that the film is a more significant work than--or is at least as significant as--the source novel. This is not unusual (see, e.g., The Godfather).--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support—The experiment seems to support a move. I am sympathetic to Zzyzx11's argument that "first usage" should factor in to determining primacy, although the guideline doesn't endorse this idea at all. But even if we do consider "first usage", when we consider the other factors—usage (how likely is it to be sought by this term?) and importance (enduring educational value, recentism, etc)—which are in the guideline, the film seems to be the overwhelming primary topic. As far as I know, nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary either here or in the other move discussion demonstrating why the novel is a contender based on usage and importance. "First usage" is an interesting idea, but even if we should consider it, it obviously isn't the only consideration in these discussions. I would encourage anyone who thinks it should be weighed more heavily to start a discussion here: WT:D. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Visual effects video?

In the visual effects section there is an image from the opening sequence of the film referencing the neural pathway stylizing, but to me at least it isn't very clear, most of it is black. WOuld there be any interest in my supplying a few-second long clip of that sequence instead for better illustration? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)