Talk:The Fly (1986 film)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 References to use
- 2 Pop culture
- 3 references to 1958 version in Trivia
- 4 Photo request
- 5 Popular culture references
- 6 Image copyright problem with Image:FusionSequence.JPG
- 7 Dog?
- 8 Plot and AIDS
- 9 Request for Semi-Protection
- 10 "violent love triangle"
- 11 Resolution for proposed edit war
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- Telotte, J. P. (2001). "Crossing Genre Boundaries/Bound by Fantasy: The Fly (1986)". Science Fiction Film. Genres in American Cinema. Cambridge University Press. pp. 179–196. ISBN 0521596475.
There's another pop culture reference: in a The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror-episode, bart becomes a fly with a humans head, and a fly becomes bart with a fly head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 15:43, October 1, 2006
references to 1958 version in Trivia
I distinctly remember Vincent Price a). seeing and reacting to the "help me help me!" scene in the 1958 version, and b). having a long speech at the end comparing his dead friend to an explorer in a strange land who made "one fatal mistake" that killed him but whose work was valuable and important. Price is also sympathetic to the son's desire to follow in his father's footsteps. This seems a long way from the wiki page's identification of the original Fly as a movie about "things man was not meant to know." If someone's seen the 1958 movie recently and can contradict me on this, feel free to change it back, but by definition most people working on this page are Cronenberg fans who aren't necessarily that familiar with the older movie, and I'm unwilling to trust their knowledge (or some snobby film critics' or even Cronenberg's, directors helming remakes being frequently rather hazy on the details of the previous version) of the 1958 version over my own memories. Derringdo 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
For the metamorphosis (makeup/creature effects) section, would an image be suitable? I haven't seen the film but while the description is very good, an image would probably improve this section? --Firien § 18:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- But are those pictures necessary, pretty gross actually. _Kirekinkon:_KIK_:noknikeriK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's truly amazing how such a mediocre film has reaped so long and so meticulous an article, which it does not deserve. And still, requests for more materials are being issued "to improve the quality" (of the article). Too bad the film itself cannot be improved. It's a hopeless, lost cause. --AVM (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Who do you think you are, to judge wether this film "deserves" a substantial article or not? And besides, may I remind you that the talk pages of Wikipedia articles are not a forum? This is not the place to voice your personal opinion about the movie. If you don't have anything constructive to say, forego posting. Saxbryn (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Popular culture references
While wikipedia discourages popular culture references anyway, mention of "The Simpsons" and "The Family Guy" are even irrelevant for "popular culture." These television shows are themselves works of fiction, not gauges of popular sentiment, nor benchmarks of "the popular." (Indeed, if they are gauges of the popular, then any creative work is likewise, and therefore the references should include all creative works, which is absurd). They do not even dominate their timeslots anywhere that they are broadcast, so a sociological argument as to their audience reach would also fail even if a coherent argument could be put as to their place in "the popular." Just because film savvy writers work in plots from films in an animated TV show does not make a statement about popular culture. I see references to these programs throughout wikipedia, and I cannot see their relevance except within their own fictional universe. Same goes for the references here and on other pages to the plotlines of manga - irrelevant. And below this posting is yet another example of the ridiculousness of it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:FusionSequence.JPG
The image Image:FusionSequence.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
- That's actually in The Fly II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Plot and AIDS
This is ridiculous. Someone keeps revising the plot summary to include nonsensical gibberish that doesn't actually describe the plot, gibberish which is full of spelling and grammatical errors.
Is this really how the movie ends?
Thus begins a sexually violent triangle between the humans Boran and Veronica and the Brudlefly: all three struggle for power over each others mates, the rights over each others reproduction/offspring, and animal dominance over each others' respective though radically different habitats.
Talk about original research!
Also, this person seems to be fixated on saying that the film became a tentpole for the AIDS epidemic of the 80s. This was not the filmmakers' intent, nor is the AIDS thing particularly commonplace among today's reviews of the film. The AIDS issue has already been addressed more appropriately in the Critical Response section--it's merely one reading of the film, and is certainly not the only reading, nor was it back in 1986. This is like someone firmly stating that Alien is about the fear of male oral rape at the head of that film's article--it's not appropriate to start the article off that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, this is just the sorta thing I don't like about users on wikipedia. I'm not going to get into a war about who shot first, Hans or Greedo, or what Captain Kirk's locker combination was.
Here is the deal. I GET what you are saying. But the truth is that wikipedia is NOT intended to be some megaphone or advertising agency for Cronenberg or any celebrity. That's why he has a PR firm that markets his film for him. This is also not your personal fanpage.
I understand what Cronenberg intended for his movie. But don't be so arrogant to assume that any one artist can have that much control over culture. The way an audience embraces a film can also change a movie. Some movies that are intended to be larger metaphors for things don't resonate as intended (I agree that all the meaning in the Alien film did NOT make that movie popular since people liked that movie for being just a good old fashioned yarn). Other movies, though, do benefit from serendipity. Look at "Wall Street". The film was made before the stock market crash of the 80s but because it came out AFTER the crash the movie was a wild success. The point is that an artist can make a movie and then the audience embraces it and together they can create a "third" original thing out of it. It's all relative and it really doesn't matter what the artist intended if the culture interprets it differently. So when the culture embraces a film and makes it it's own it can really change the film. And had it not been for AIDS then it is likely that Cronenberg's movie could've just been another creature of the week film. But that coincidence and the death of the anything-goes-disco-culture (picking people up from the bar and getting an STD, etc.) allowed this film to become a metaphor about the fear of "the flesh." Hence why "Afraid, be very Afraid" is still a popular saying even today in news circles and every time it is used it has to do with an epidemic on the rise (bird flu, etc.)
That said, you are not being very honest about things here. Cronenberg NEVER disowned the fact that his movie was a wild success beceause it became a comment on the rise of the AIDS culture. The very coincidence that he had a scene in his movie where Brundle goes to a bar and takes home a sleazy girl, and then him and his girlfriend both begin to suffer from that point moving forward with diseases, only serves to underscore how amazing it is when syncronicity makes for a better movie than the filmmaker ever intended. And Cronenberg didn't really care that this was the case.
In fact, one Cronenberg theme is when people (audiences or artists alike) can collaborate artistically to create a new "third" original thing. Cronenberg is so delighted, in fact, about this that you would be surprised at how this whole thing about the audience taking his film and changing into something that fits their needs doesn't bother him at all. In an interview he even says: "I realized that you could make a very good movie that felt very satisfying to you even though it was not your original concept: that the mixing of blood with someone else was a good way to produce something that neither one of you might have done on your own, but rather you produce a third, original thing. I don't want to overplay the sex and progeny metaphor, but it feels like that... As long as you pick the right partner to fuse with! (laughs)"
So your suggestion that this somehow offends the guy is just plain wrong.
Specifically, here is what he REALLY says in an interview about the AIDS theme: "This is not to say that AIDS didn't have an incredible impact on everyone and of course after a certain point people were seeing AIDS stories everywhere so I don't take any offense that people see that in my movie."
So yes, while he didn't intend this he certainly wasn't bothered by it. At most, Cronenberg is just saying he wants his movie to be open with interpretation... but he is certainly NOT telling others how they must view his film, read on: "If you, or your lover, has AIDS, you watch that film and of course you'll see AIDS in it, but you don't have to have that experience to respond emotionally to the movie and I think that's really its power."
This is a far cry from the denouement you are suggesting.
The problem is that the intent of Wikipedia is that we are supposed to be more like journalists here, and less like big movie fans. I'm just reporting on this. I was alive when this movie came out and trust me when I say that this horror movie caught on because it was mirroring the very scary real-life horror film of AIDS playing itself out in our culture at the time. Your suggestion about HOW the film is received now is silly because it doesn't change the historical impact it had back in 1986, that's all I'm reporting here. How the film has evolved over time is a different subject matter all-together and deserves a place on this page for sure. But I'm more concerned on the reasons WHY the film was popularly introduced into our cultural lexicon and the historical significance of it.
As far as the plot summary goes, I'm not as concerned about this. I'm just writing on the subtext instead of trying to use wikipedia to re-tell the story. But if you really don't like it, then we should do exactly as wikipedia suggests. Wikipedia frowns on long plot summaries and the original plot summary is just as long-winded and grammatically deficient as mine. So maybe we should pick a much smaller summary that is more in-line with other approved wikipedia pages if that is how you truly feel.188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not a geek war.
The film has a complex plot, which should be described in a way that actually makes sense. If this requires a lot of detail, so be it. Better that, say, a high schooler read a detailed plot summary than a shortened one that doesn't actually describe the plot. Stating that the film was received only as an AIDS metaphor at the head of the article will continue to spread the misconception that this was Cronenberg's intent. Covering it in the Critical Response section is far more appropriate--that section is ABOUT how the film was received, whereas the head of the article is just a snippet overview of a few significant facts about the movie. How and why the film became popular and important should be covered in the Critical Response section. The bits about the tagline and the Goldblum/Davis romance are far more solid facts to be placed at the head of the article than the controversial AIDS reading of the movie, which essentially has its own section where it is covered in detail.
Further, most reviews of the film today don't reference the AIDS concept. That was an early part of the film's critical life, yes, but since the AIDS panic has diminished, and Cronenberg's intent has been affirmed on numerous occasions, there's no reason to even begin the article by saying that the movie was perceived to be about AIDS (and, by implication, still is, which simply isn't the case). The AIDS reading may have been prevalent in 1986, but not so much today. Few modern reviews and retropsectives mention AIDS when discussing this film--most of them mention the more universal concepts of aging and disease, as Cronenberg intended.
No, this is not a fanpage. But it should have accurate and detailed information for ease of reference, rather than promoting misconceptions and providing a plot summary that doesn't actually tell one what happens in the story. The original plot summary (before it was vandalized) provided an objective, thorough description of the movie, not bizzare vagarites about struggles for habitat control. The original article header provided objective facts about the movie, and the subjective and controversial AIDS reading was brought up in the appropriate section--Critical Reception.
Look, I already compromised here enough. I included a much simpler plot summary that is closer to wikipedia standards than either synopsis we provided. The justification you use about 'high school' students reading the summary and blah, blah, blah is laughably absurd. Our job isn't to re-tell the story of the movie. It's to SUMMARIZE it. I honed in on the basic plot points which is what the point of the summary is about. It wouldn't be a summary if you go into great detail and tell the story all over again.lol
What you are missing here is that the movie's significance now has nothing to do with its historical significance then. The movie isn't very popular now and it has mostly faded into obscurity. They are even planning to remake it (which shows how non-popular it really is). This movie wasn't Star Wars. It didn't change the face of moviemaking as we know it. It's relevance now is more of a footnote of what was going on during the 1980s. All this talk about "The Fly" being a metaphor about "compressed aging" and "life being the true STD" and all the other nonsense YOU are speaking about is great for a bunch of critics or nerdy fans to debate about on a college campus or comic book convention. But this is no longer a dialogue that is continuing within our society today. The movie is not still influencing our culture on the level you are suggesting. The movie has not proven so popular that its meaning has changed for audiences. The reason for this is that audience has changed into something different now. People aren't rediscovering this movie on a mass level. So whatever cultural impact you are implying now is simply (a) unsourced and (b) untrue. What you are doing is talking a few critics opinions in the present and some reflections from Cronenberg and use those POVs to speak on behalf of an entire culture and millions of people who already said otherwise. When the movie was released, its success was that it became a greater sum of its greater parts, this is because the AIDS epidemic was freaking the crap out of people and so they clung to this film as a way to express the horror of the public was feeling about sex, the flesh, and disease at the time.... WHICH WAS BECAUSE OF AIDS! I'm not sure why this offends you so but that's just how it is. Geeking out and trying to make this movie into something more than it is really is just silly. I like "The Fly" as well but it ain't "The Godfather". It was just a very good movie that became a great metaphor for a troublesome time, I should know, I was there. It WAS a scary time. Where I do agree, though, about the film's continuing cultural significance is that once in awhile there is a scare of some epidemic (like SARS or bird flu) and like clockwork the news agencies will say in some news feed "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid." That still impresses me that some elites in our culture still want to evoke the memory of that movie when their is an epidemic because they realize that enough of us are young enough to equate that film with an epidemic (again, because of AIDS). But I never see "The Fly" come up in circles or in our culture at all about aging or documentaries about "the brundlefly". That only seems to happen ocassionally in the rare Cronenberg interview or on some random forum. That fringe is certainly NOT the cultural significance you are referring to. So grow up in your view a little.
If the movie is so obscure and its only importance is as an AIDS touchtone of the 80s, then why do you care so much as to keep vandalizing the article? Your arguments amount to putting words in my mouth, talking down to "geeks" and "nerds", and one strawman argument after another. The point of the article is to provide information. A plot summary that actually describes the plot is useful in that regard. Heck, providing such detail may help encourage people unfamiliar with the film to seek it out, or inversely, provide adequate information to people who want to know about the movie without having to check it out. Other films, big and small, have detailed plot summaries. For example, Carpenter's The Thing has an equally detailed plot summary, and that film failed miserably when it was released (but found cult appeal), whereas The Fly was a huge mainstream success, and has since become more of a cult film. Both films are not really "mainstream" or uber-popular today, but they've both received detailed wiki coverage, for the sake of being informative about "obscure" films. And writing the movie off as a forgotten AIDS touchtone is very arrogant.
The film, while not as popular as, say, The Terminator or Aliens, still has devoted fans--many of whom are intelligistia, and the overall Fly series is still loved by genre fans, 50 years on. Cutting the article down and claiming that it is only significant because of the AIDS connection and because you perceive the film as "obscure" smacks of arrogance. Explaining the film's goal as intended by the filmmakers, and then supplementing that with the critical reception and the AIDS reading is the most informative and objective way of providing information about the subject. And the fact that there are plans to remake the film shows how popular the core concept is, and why the series has lasted 50 years--not that Cronenberg's film is somehow unpopular and needs to be improved upon. And, to raise the comparison again, Carpenter's The Thing is also being remade (sort of)--does that prove how bad and/or unpopular his film is?
I imply nothing about The Fly's cultural impact or popularity--that's all you. It's just about the FACTS. You're going way, way off the rails, here, with this ranting about nerds and how unpopular the film is. That's suspiciously passionate talk for someone who supposedly just wants the article to feature objective facts. Drop the agenda, and the attitude, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, I really don't want a fight here. And I'm not knocking your love for the film. Yes, it's a great movie, one of the best of its kind. My only point is that some movies continue to define and change culture (like a great Hitchcock movie) while others represent a slice of the times (like a George Romero flick). I actually agree with everything you are saying about aging. It might not bother me as much if you move all that stuff to the cultural impact section. It certainly has no place in the opening header. I will research this more deeper before I let go of the AIDS argument since I still have not found compelling evidence against it. Part of what pushed this film into obscurity and out of social relevance was the god awful sequel which Cronenberg disowned. My only point is that when they get ready to remake a film, that says a lot about a particular movie's social relevance. You will never see a remake of "Raiders of The Lost Ark" or a remake of "The Godfather." And that is because their historical and social significance is still there. In fact, I bet Cronenberg wants to remake "The Fly" because he wants to jump start that movie's cultural significance again. He came so close to immortality with that movie and it was a shame the film couldn't have transcended the mere social implications of the times. I lay blame with his ego and his aloofness in not overseeing (and directing) the next film about "The Fly." He should have and I bet he would've made another great movie. So maybe his desire to remake his own movie could be his apology of sorts. It would be funny to see what this new "The Fly" would do for our culture. I'm sure it would be unique, harrowing and different that anything anyone could imagine. And I hope he succeeds at whatever he is doing. I will get back with you about what I find. Thanks.220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea what you're talking about. Cronenberg has legitimate claim to being a genuine auteur filmmaker--he makes films because he want to explore certain ideas. It's not about achieving "immortality". His films are done-in-one affairs--he doesn't do sequels because he tells a particular story from beginning to end in a single film then moves on. He has not disowned the sequel to The Fly--he's never even seen it. He had no interest in doing a sequel to The Fly, nor did he get offended by the sequel that was made. And this remake rumor (which is really still just a rumor, since there's been no news in almost a year) does not at all mean that Cronenberg is trying to "apologize" for the sequel. He did the opera version (because it was a new challenge for him, and because the material was a good fit), and perhaps that inspired him to try some new avenues with a remake of his film. Or not. We'll see, won't we?
And after the great success of The Fly, he could have done anything he wanted. But he chose instead to do Dead Ringers, a project which was personally important to him. He was offered (or was temporarily slated to direct) such films as Return of the Jedi, Robocop, Total Recall, and Basic Instinct 2, among others, but declined or dropped out for various reasons. If he wanted the money or the fame, he'd have hammered out mass-market pap. But Cronenberg has gone his own route, doing the films he's had a passion for doing. He--and his cast--even deferred their salaries in order to complete Spider (2002), a very low-budget project that had almost no financial backing.
Again, writing off The Fly as a tentpole AIDS movie that is now irrelevant is both arrogant and plain wrong. While there was a strong AIDS reading at the time from some critics, it was really a vocal minority. Most of the available vintage reviews mention nothing about the AIDS connection, nor do most modern reviews. The film was successful because of the strength of the perfomances, story, and effects. While the AIDS craze was a factor in making the film "socially conscious" at the time, it was not the end-all, be-all reason you're making it out to be. The film has since mostly shaken off that reading--free of the time and place of the film's release, most modern reviews correctly identify the film's more universal intent--a parallel for disease and aging.
Heck, many of the vintage (and modern) interviews describe the movie as more of a metaphor for CANCER, not AIDS. The film itself even mentions this, as well as making constant (albeit subtle) references to old age. To again bring up Carpenter's The Thing--that film has similarly extensive wiki coverage, and it is by no means "relevant" today, nor was it the same kind of smash-hit that The Fly was upon release. It is a film of the 80s that has similarly been taken as an AIDS metaphor--perhaps even moreso than The Fly, although this was not Carpenter's intent (but he has acknowledged the reading). Yet, there's no mention of AIDS in the film's article. Do you intend to "fix" that article too?
And, let's not forget the bizarre plot summary--apparently, The Fly is about a sexually violent struggle for control of reproductive rights and habitats. Can someone explain to me how that describes the plot? There's no mention of the pregnancy, the telepod-fusion, or the mercy killing. And how is there sexual violence in the film? All of the sex in the film is consentual and non-violent. Do you see Brundle's attempted fusion with Veronica as an attempted rape? Do you see Brundle spewing a semen-like fluid on Stathis as some kind of homoerotic/sexual assault/AIDS metaphor? Wouldn't this be original research, rather than an objective summary of the film's plot beats?
As far as I'm concerned, your persistent changes to this article (which stood fine as-is for quite a while) are the result of ignorant vandalism, trolling, or some kind of AIDS-themed agenda. Try doing some reading (and THINKING) before you start making assumptions and talking down to people. As a longtime fan of this movie, I've read countless reviews and interviews, and know the movie--and its production history--inside and out. And that's why I feel you're wrong. The original article began by stating the intent of the filmmakers (for the reader to take or leave as they pleased), then discussed the film's reception and the controversial AIDS reading in the Critical Response section, which I feel is entirely appropriate for an objective history of the film and its reception. And the film's "cultural impact" or level of "social relevance" are not the end-all, be-all aspects of its appeal, either. Just because the article as it stood doesn't fit with your perception of the film and its impact doesn't mean it needs to be truncated and vandalized to fit your way of thinking.18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, I was trying to be nice here. But instead you are turning this into one of those funny nerd wars that Kevin Smith would make fun of in one of his Clerks film. You are like one of these Lord Of The Rings freaks trying to argue that Return of the King is better than Return of the Jedi. I love movies, not the guys who make them. And though Cronenberg is a very good filmmaker I don't feel like it is my job to refurbish his legacy in the way you do. The Fly is a very good movie, no more, no less. It didn't change culture. It didn't become American mythology in the way that, say, "Star Wars" or "The Godfather" did. But it is still a good movie that helped America along during a dialogue about an epidemic. So I'm not going to placate your ego simply because you worship at the shrine of this stuff, I don't. As an UPM for film productions, I actually had the pleasure of speaking to Cronenberg in Canada (since it is cheaper to shoot films there than in the states). So everything I have written here was actually based on 'that' conversation when I asked him about "The Fly." The plot summary is a very close paraphrasing to how Cronenberg described his movie to me and a few film fans. I still have it on DV and I was tempted to post it on youtube (which I still might do, I will keep you posted). So it's funny to hear you pretend you know what you speaking about when I have it straight from the horse's mouth. Don't believe everything you read. In my conversation with the guy he was proud that his film could play a role in helping Americans cope with a disease like AIDS. He never seemed to object to it either when I and others pointed this out, he was actually kind of proud of it that when people said "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" that they thought of AIDS. He joked that maybe this is the closest to immortality a person could hope for, since he didn't believe in an afterlife. What Cronenberg is saying is that he just hopes that his movie is not limited to this sole reading. He's right, it's not. But there is no doubt that his film was a wild success because of this coincidence, which is part of his theme in body-conscious art of taking his work, mixing it with others (the audience in this case) to create a third original thing. It was the audience that embraced it in this way, so that doesn't sound like a 'minority' to me.lol I'm not going to argue with you further. I'm sure you will continue this edit war. That's sad. Life's too short for that. Do yourself a favor and take a walk, get a good cup of tea, find a girlfriend to have sex with, get a life outside of this stuff.lol You'll end up like Brundle otherwise.lol.22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This is amazing. You're still putting words in my mouth, mindreading my intentions, and ignoring my points. You belittle my valid, citable arguments by bringing up this absurd notion of a "nerd war" yet again. You think I want to "refurbish his legacy"? What does that even mean? And now you claim to have had a conversation with Cronenberg himself. How very convenient. Even if that is actually true (which I doubt), that's not something you can cite, and therefore is not valid information. Or perhaps you misinterpreted what he said. It's also at odds with what Cronenberg has stated his intent for the film to be on numerous occasions--during the original release, in books and interviews, and on the DVD commentary. He may not mind the AIDS reading, and may be happy that people embraced the film because of it, but that was not his intent. He's stated several times that he feels that the AIDS reading is too limited/specific and doesn't make sense in context (if Brundle gets "AIDS" from Ronnie, then why is she still healthy?) And I cannot believe that your summary of the film is how he sees it--maybe in jest, maybe as a reading--but it sure as heck does not actually describe the plot, which is what this wiki is supposed to do. As I've already said, it makes perfect sense to me to mention the intent of the film at the head of the article and then the reception in the Critical Response area. But you don't seem to care one whit about making sense, here. This all screams "troll" or "stubborn ignorance".
- This a big brawl over nonsense, mates! I think you both make good points. I noticed the bloke under anon user 126.96.36.199 has a history of doing pages on all things related to "The Fly" and nuthin much else. I don't think anyone is being a wanker here. A lot of those pages by 188.8.131.52 are overstuffed and unencyclopedic. I am a horror fan in my 50s, mates. I remember when the movie came out too when I was living in the states. There was a lot of talk about HIV when I saw the movie with an audience. Everyone was talking about it. The disco tech I used to hang out with even dried up in business around the time the movie came out. It was the end of the disco era for sure. I think the movie was commenting on that, perhaps unintentionally. Still it was there blokes. The other themes about aging and deeper meaning I think was too deep for audience members at the time. I agree with the other bloke anon editor 184.108.40.206 about this. The page looks good now the way it reads. Cheers
- My vote: disagree
Responding to the comment on AIDS below: If you read certain critical analyses, such as Adam Knee's the Metamorphosis of the Fly, AIDS can be viewed as an undercurrent theme; it may be stretching it, but it is not totally questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Plot section too short
I don't really have any desire to read the TL;DR above, but I do want to point out that the Plot section in the current version of the article is inadequate; it doesn't recount the plot, it just gives the premise of the movie. A plot summary should describe the plot from beginning to end (see WP:PLOTSUM). Granted, the previous version is also no good, as it's a point-by-point, storyboard-like account of every minor detail. There needs to be a happy medium. I'm not really interested enough in this film to rewrite the plot summary myself anytime soon, but someone who has editing experience and isn't obsessed with this film ought to take a stab at it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for Semi-Protection
I've reverted the changes and requested semi-protection on this page until further notice. Wikipedia is not a place for flame wars or promoting some critical view of a movie. It's to document provable facts about the movie with sources. Nolte (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Declined. I notice that this request was declined. I shall refrain from engaging in any more arguments on the talk page with the other anon editor. My only interest is in maintaining my meager edits reached by consensus with other editors on the article itself, which were originally a compromise with the anon editor who then changed his mind and keeps reverting the page back. Lets all try to get along here. This will be my last post on this talk page. Thanks for your help. Good day.18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reapplied it for semi-protection because I believe that the anonymous editor should at least register if they want to be engaged in this ongoing discussion.
Further, I've made some edits and removed a non-notable reference in the primary paragraph, which is meant to be an overview of the movie--not a brief regurgitation of the article that follows. I'm trying to make the sentence in the first paragraph that the AIDS phenomenon is mentioned in sound less, well--ridiculous.
- WP:HUMAN. Airplaneman ✈ 02:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"violent love triangle"
copied from User talk:Dreaded hall monitor:
Regarding this edit: thanks for calling me a "pov vandal", it sure is appreciated. But would you care to explain how this material is not OR? It's not a description of the actual plot, it's an analysis of it, and as far as I can tell it's not even correct (when does Geena Davis' character ever "struggle for power" over the mens' other mates? Getz's character doesn't even have any other "mate" during the film, and Goldblum only has a one-night-stand with some girl, there's no "struggling for power" over her). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of whether there was "consensus" for the inclusion of this material, I see no discussion of it at the talkpage. There is a long discussion of AIDS symbolism, but nothing about this particular bit (which is not about AIDS). So there's no support for your claims  that this is the consensus version. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- i put together a condensed edit addressing all concerns. 2 answer the whiny editor's concerns, i 'liked' the original edit b/c it's almost word 4 word what the director sez on his commentary. i've simplified it further. can i have my life back now, please? thanks.Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolution for proposed edit war
This is a silly edit war. Look, there is an editor who has attempted to make several fan pages for various characters from "The Fly" on wikipedia. All these pages have been deleted and turned into redirects to this page by other editors/admins. This same editor has also attempted to claim ownership to this page by turning this page into his own personal fanpage for the film by including a ridiculously long overly detailed synopsis that is a retelling of the story rather than a plot summary. In the process of reintroducing this plot summary he has also tried to sneak in POV revisions for an earlier discussion about the AIDS theme of the film. Now an angry editor RJANAG is using this page as a venue for a personal attack against me. This admin is being inconsistent in many ways:
- He attacks me and ONLY me for what he considers to be insincere gestures on my part. Yet at the same time he is not ONCE going after the other editor for deleting other contributions on this article that have nothing to do with the plot. If RJANAG is sincere that things are not to be deleted WITHOUT first discussing these things on the talk page first then he should have a problem with the other anon editor doing this.
- If RJANAG truly believes that we should discuss this issue on the talkpage FIRST before making unilateral editors, then this standard should be applied to ALL editors... not just me. The current shorter synopsis represents the works of several people. The other anon editor is not making ANY effort to work with this synopsis. He simply unilaterally deletes and then put in place his own FAN PAGE version of synopsis that reads terribly, is overly long, and is more designed to retell the story rather than concisely sum this up.
- Another admin tried to protect this page TWICE only to be finally told that the best way for fixing this conflict was with dispute resolution... I agree as do the other admins.
My proposed resolution: I'm all for compromise here. So why not work on a fusion of the plot summaries. His original plot summary was rejected by other editors for a reason. Even RJANAG noted that it was not appropriate. So it makes sense to work something out here FIRST rather than letting the bloated rejected plot summary stand. There is more of a consensus for the prior summary that I helped construct. I invited the other anon editor to write something here and that we can hammer out together. Then we should put it to a vote and through consenus finally end this stupid edit war. I look forward to working with others.22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are three plot summaries that have been used here:
- A short one which, as far as I can tell, is the work of User:Dreaded hall monitor/126.96.36.199. It does not actually summarize the plot, it reads like the teaser on the back of a DVD box.
- A medium-ish one, which is the one I reverted to. Its length is comparable to plot summaries for shorter films, including FAs like Not One Less.
- A long and crufty one, which was removed a long time ago because it's just as inappropriate as the short one. I never said this one should be restored, and I never did restore it (you did to prove a point disruptively); I agree that it's inappropriate.
- Any outside editor who chooses to look at this will surely agree that the medium plot summary is the most appropriate one; the long one is full of cruft and the short one is not helpful for readers.
- As for your other complaints, no, I am not showing favoritism towards the other IP (Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52) here (who, for what it's worth, is probably the same person as User:Brundlegreg, an overzealous fan who is responsible for most of the cruft in this page and related articles). If you took the time to look, you will see that I have removed several of his crufty articles  and deleted almost all of his uploads . Do you still think you're being singled out. The fact of the matter is, both sides in this dispute have been editing inappropriately for a long time.
- As for the AIDS thing, I really don't care about that (notice that I never participated in the TLDR AIDS discussion above), and any AIDS-related material that appeared in one of my reverts was unintentional; I reverted you procedurally because your undiscussed edit warring was inappropriate, not because I "endorse" every single word of anyone's version. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are three plot summaries that have been used here: