Talk:Fight Club

---

What exploded, the plane?

Plot

The plot section should be completely rewritten. Not only is it missing a lot of details, but the writing and grammar are quite poor. I suggest using the novel's article as a guideline for what to add in to it (though keep in mind the differences between the novel and film when doing so). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 20:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Narrator's name

I think it is important to note where the name "Jack" from the credites originated. Now for some reason, LGagnon editted out this part: "The name of the Edward Norton's character is never mentioned in the film, but he is usually referred to as "Jack" in reference to the series of Reader's Digest articles he reads throughout the film."

Shouldn't it stay?

-- [[User:Spikeballs|Spikeballs]]

The narrator is never referred to as Jack; he says "I am Jack's (organ/feeling)", but never says "I am Jack." That is why I removed it; there is no name given for the character, period. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

On the official website he was referred to as Jack. Mmmmya, he was. Period 165.146.94.72 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added back in, but with the modifier "fans refer to the narrator as", not "he is referred to as". The latter implies that he might be referred to that by the movie or maybe the author of the book, actors in the film. "Jack" is only used by the fans. I don't remember hearing anything on the commentaries about the name. --Queson 16:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, how about "The name of Edward Norton's character is never mentioned in the film, but fans of the film often refer to him as "Jack," in reference to the series of Reader's Digest articles he reads throughout the film."? Surely everybody will agree this is accurate and informative enough to go into the article?

-- Spikeballs 17:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Reads and paraphrases" would be more accurate, but otherwise that's ok. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

referred to as "Jack" by many of the film's fans reads wrong to me. Fans are more likely to be picky and bring up the fact he's never named :-) However, in the screenplay he's labelled as Jack, and the VHS video's blurb reads "Norton stars as Jack, a chronic insomniac...". I'm thinking about how to best phrase this. -- Jon Dowland 15:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gothic 2

Could someone point out some proof for the Gothic 2 information? I've looked around the web and I've seen nothing so far. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Because nobody has resonded, I'm removing the part about Gothic 2. -- LGagnon 00:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a GOTHIC NOVELS semester course, so from what I've studied, Fight Club is very gothic in a post-modern context.

My argument is that Fight Club manifests "the gothic" from a Freudian, psychological perspective in respect to the consumerist time setting.

(If you are unfamiliar with "the gothic" in terms of what constitutes a "gothic hero" from a psychological perspective, I suggest you read Freud's "Mourning versus Melancholia." My definition of "the gothic" is very psychologically based. Continue if interested!)

I've been contemplating Freud's concepts of mourning and melancholia in the context of a post-modern consumerist world. I have a theory that a melancholic (in this context) may direct his cathexis not exclusively in himself but rather in material objects. In the setting of a capitalist society, one could argue that a modern-day melancholic's love object may be material, but the psychological implications of the love object suggest that the love object actually represents his perception of a love object desired by someone else. That is, the melancholic directs his cathexis according to his materialistic desires and in an object that is essentially an object desired by society.

Thus, in the context of a post-modern consumerist world, when the melancholic loses his love object, his cathexis has no object to fulfil his desire for plaisir. In other words, by losing the love object, the melancholic has essentially lost the basis for his cultural identity.

Thus, a melancholic directs his cathexis away from plaisir (such would be the case for a person in mourning) but rather towards jouissance. To compensant for his lost, the melancholic invests his emotional and psychological energy (cathexis) in a particular excess that goes beyond his desire for conformity. By chosing jouissance rather than plaisir, the melancholic destroys his cultural identity by moving away from his normative subjectivity towards nihilism.

When I researched the term "jouissance," I learned that it was considered to be "self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent self," and suicidal. These tendencies apply to melancholics, which is the definition I learned in class.

Oftentimes, a "gothic hero" is melancholic. There is an actual "loss" (person, ideal,..) but also an ambiguous loss that can't be described (or acknowledged). This discrepancy causes the gothic hero to deal with his loss in an unhealthy manner; rather than redirect his cathexis towards something else (move on) he directs it towards himself. He subconsciously must feed his ego. Depression is often a result, in which the melancholic's behavior of self-deprecation lowers his self-esteem. Melancholics oftentimes become increasingly narcissitic as they continue to feed their ego until the "love/lost object" becomes the ego.

The protagonist's (Edward Norton) love object is his material possessions. His alter ego (Brad Pitt) destroys his love object, thus destroying his cultural connection to society (castration). Norton externalizes his repressed emotions (a very gothic tendency) in Brad Pitt. Note, however, that what is repressed is not always negative.

Norton and Pitt inhabit an abandoned, dark, cramped, decaying house on the margins of society (a very gothic setting).

If you have any questions, or wish for me to continue my analysis, don't hesitate to contact me at tommygirlnyc@aol.com.

OTHER GOTHIC REFERENCES: Melancholia (Freud) Frankenstein (Mary Shelly) The Yellow Wallpaper (Charlotte Perkins Gilman) the uncanny doubles/twins repressed emotions externalized dark, abandoned spaces death of a beautiful woman sublime eroticism/fetishes female sexuality (threatening) phallic simbolism / castration revenge .....

Edgar Allen Poe -- 24.193.95.48

First of all, do not delete my comments when you write your own; it is not proper wiki ettiquette. Second of all, your comment is totally unrelated to the subject of this section. We were talking about the game Gothic 2, not gothicness in general. As for your interpretations, it will not help this article for you to impose your POV onto it. Unless you can cite a source that backs your opinion (and one that is specifically about Fight Club), you have no reason to add your opinion as fact. -- LGagnon 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LGagnon- sorry! That was my first wikipedia entry. I should have established the fact that I was posting my POV. I thought "Gothic 2" just meant gothic as a theme in the movie. If what I posted is inappropriate, you may delete it. I just wanted to help....if someone studying gothic literature or pyschology came across my article they might find it useful.

On another note, my Gothic teacher read the entry I posted above and agreed with my theory. It shouldn't be construed as a fact. It is my personal opinion and I posted it so you can do whatever you want with it (agree, disagree, whatever).

You don't have to note that you are giving POV on the talk page; that's understood on talk pages. My point was that you were not providing anything that helps to further the article. Talk pages are here for commentary on how to improve the article, not commentary on the subject matter alone. It's no big deal though; as long as you understand how the talk pages work now I'm not bothered by it. -- LGagnon 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Major philosophical difference in Project Mayhem between book and movie

In the film, Tyler is careful to plan the demolition of the credit card company buildings to occur when they are unoccupied, to avoid direct loss of life. His "in the future I see" speech and other statements suggest that he is aiming for no less than the total destruction of civilization as we know it, which would of course indirectly lead to tens of millions of casualties.

In the novel, Tyler seems unconcerned about killing people directly.

I'm guessing that the change was made in the screenplay in order to make slightly less politically incorrect. This seems like a pretty significant difference to me; should something about this be added to the list of differences?

-- Brouhaha 06:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not capitalize fight club

For those who haven't read the book, Palahniuk never once capitalizes the club's name. The only time it is ever capitalized is in the book's title. To keep this article consistent with the book's presentation, I believe we should keep all instances of "fight club" in lower case unless referring to the title of the book and/or film. -- LGagnon 19:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Similarities to other films

Let's try not to fill this section up too much. Tons of films are compared to one another over and over again, and eventually this section could become nothing more than a nit-picking trivia section. The article should try not to stray its focus into other films unless they are really notable for the purpose of this article. In my opinion, Collateral isn't really notable enough to have added a large paragraph about it. -- LGagnon 17:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I think the Collateral connection is bigger than the 12 Monkeys ones, but I guess you're right that that's beyond the scope of the article. Maybe the entire section could be reduced to a paragraph in the trivia section. It could state that the motives of Fight Club are repeated in a few other films, sometimes incidentally, sometimes as direct homage. Then a couple of names can be mentioned, namely Collateral and 12 Monkeys. What do you think? Spikeballs 20:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an improvement. Go ahead and try your idea and we'll see how it works out. -- LGagnon 02:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why Collateral is an homage to Fight Club? There's no explanation in this article nor mention of Fight Club in the Collateral article. -- Jon Dowland 15:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Look at an older version of the page (somewhere around July 16-18). There's an elaborate explanation. Spikeballs 09:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hitting Tyler not requirement for staying with him.

From my DVD, after Tyler asks Jack to ask him if he wants to stay at his place. 0:30:44:

Jack: Can I stay at your place?
Tyler: Yeah.
Jack: Thanks.
They walk a bit, Tyler turns and comes back.
Tyler: I want you to do me a favor.
Jack: Yeah, sure.
Tyler: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Jack: What?
Tyler: I want you to hit me, as hard as you can.
Flash forward in the flashback to splicing frames and seasoning the hotel food.

0:32:45:

Jack: What do you want me to do you just want me to hit you?
Tyler: Come on, do me this one favor.
Jack: Why?
Tyler: Why I don't know why. I don't know. Never been in a fight, you?
Jack: No, but that that's a good thing.
Tyler: No it is not, how much can you know about yourself you never been in a fight. I don't wanna die without any scars. So come on, hit me before I loose my nerve.

Emphasis mine. — Jeandré, 2005-09-17t20:05z

I remember Tyler saying "But I want you to do me a favor." That would suggest it being a condition for staying. -- LGagnon 03:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree.

"Jack: Can I stay at your place?

Tyler: Yeah."

Arrangement made. Concluded. A done deal.

Note that Tyler doesn't say "But only if you do me a favour", or anything remotely similar. He simply readily agrees that Jack can stay at his place, without imposing conditions. Well, he would, wouldn't he.... who's place is it, anyway? TheMadBaron 05:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

LG, I again checked, and I still don't hear a "But". The subtitles' (which is however quite sloppy) also without it. I have the R2 special edition DVDs. — Jeandré, 2005-09-18t20:23z

Here's an excerpt from the screenplay:

JACK: Can I stay at your place?
TYLER: Yes, you can.
JACK: Thank you.
TYLER: Your welcome. But, I wan't you to do me one favor.

I don't read the 'But, ' as implying it's a condition of staying at his place. More, He would like him to do this favor, as he owes one, as a result of Tyler putting him up. -- Jon Dowland 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the screenplay: Right... which the film is based on. Just as the screenplay is based on the book. If you check back just a bit in it you'll find "Why don't you cut the shit and ask if you can stay at my place?" where the film has the "So just ask. Cut the foreplay and just ask, man"

So, the "interpretation" I did just now:

J: Aww, it's late. Hey, thanks for the beer.
T: Yeah, man.
J: I should find a hotel.
T: What?
J: What?!
T: A hotel?
J: Yeah.
T: Just ask, man.
J: What are you talking about?
T: Oh god... 3 pitchers of beer and you still can't ask.
J: What?
T: You called me because you needed a place to stay.
J: Oh hey. No no no.
T: Yes you did. So just ask. Cut the foreplay and just ask, man.
J: Would that be a problem?
T: A problem for you to ask?
J: Can I stay at your place?
T: Yeah.

T: I want you to do me a favour.
J: Yeah sure.
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
J: What?
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
(End of scene)

And here's from the screenplay: (which never mentions going outside even)

J: (looks at watch) God, it's late. I should find a hotel...
T: A hotel?
J: Yeah.
T: So, you called me up, because you just wanted to have a drink before you... go find a hotel?
J: I don't follow...
T: We're on our third pitcher of beer. Just ask me.
J: Huh?
T: You called me so you could have a place to stay.
J: No, I...
T: Why don't you cut the shit and ask if you can stay at my place?
J: Would that be a problem?
T: Is it a problem for you to ask?
J: Can I stay at your place?
T: Yes, you can.
J: Thank you.
T: You're welcome. But, I want you to do me one favor.
J: What's that?
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
J: What?
T: I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Freeze picture.

{sjöar 213.67.90.98 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)}

Cast section size

Do we really need to include every minor role in the Cast section? I'm going to remove some of the minor characters for now, as many aren't improtant and won't likely have articles for their actors. -- LGagnon 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

brazilian shooting

a 24 years old medicine student in brazil after shooting the bathroom's mirror invaded the movie theater of a shopping center with a SMG and shot the public until the last bullet killing and injuring people. the film got blamed and bacame infamous in brazil. wouldn't be intersting to put something about it in the article? - 201.14.240.226, 2005-11-12t09:28:32z

Main Theme

The way I have interpreted this film is that of the consequences of living in modern society. The biggest point, in my opinion is how our androcentric and "macho" society has actually robbed males of their masculinity. Furthermore, about how it has served to alienate modern man from everyone around him, hence the sensibility in the idea of a "single serving friend". I think the film is a great critique of consumerism and capitalism, and reinforces anarchist ideals instead

No Logo

While I can understand the anti-consumerism comparison, No Logo couldn't have been echoed by the film, as the book was published the year after the film's theatrical release. I suggest either removing that or editing it to be more accurate. -- LGagnon 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Columbine's effect on the movie's Box Office

The Columbine High School massacre was still in the minds of Americans (and film critics) when Fight Club premiered. At the time I was taking a course with film critic Leonard Maltin and the subject came up. Fight Club had the unfortunate timing of being the first, seemingly overly violent (albeit, to those who were not looking very hard), film that got the brunt of critical reaction to violence in film --critics were looking for a film to lash out at and a big name commercial film with strong elements of anarchy was the perfect target. Interestingly, as time passed, and the emotions of Columbine cooled, the critical praise of the film grew to what it is today. Bobak 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's probably best to include more info on that than just a sentence, though; a whole paragraph would be nice. -- LGagnon 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Breasts

Havent seen the film but can someone explain to me if this guy has image:Robert_Pulson_with_Jack.jpg.jpg female breasts and why? Tutmosis 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Go read the novel's article. -- LGagnon 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Homoeroticism

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include the homoerotic themes of the film in the Reactions and Themes section? It's mentioned briefly in the novel's article, but a paragraph here could take note of the various images; the phallic gun in Edward Norton's mouth, the hyper-masculinization, the near-sexual fervor of the violence, and various dialogue referring to the main characters' relationship ("ozzie and harriet", "breaking up", etc.). -- Mrcool1122 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Find some outside sources for criticism first. It's best to prove that someone is criticizing the film that way first before adding in details that may back that claim. -- LGagnon 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

His name is Robert Paulson

Can someone explain what the chanting of "His name is Robert Paulson" was all about?