Talk:Birdman (film)

Alejandro González Iñárritu's Name

The full name of the movie's director is Alejandro González Iñárritu. González is his father's last name and the family name. Iñárritu is his mother's name. González is not his middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.189.185 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Birdman (Hanna-Barbera)

Nothing said about "Birdman," the cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoon superhero (besides a "See Also" link -- Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio). Cartoon Network made a big deal about Birdman in the late 1990s, as they did "Space Ghost" and other dated, generic heroes of that same television era. If there's a connection between Keaton's character and the original Birdman it would be nice to know. Also, if there's a trademark dispute or out-of-court settlement regarding the character(s), we should know about it. If not, this otherwise fine film is insulting to those of us who actually care about the superhero genre -- especially "forgotten" ones from the past. 74.192.165.180 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no connection and nothing to report in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

About Michael Keaton

Shouldn't there be a mention of the obvious connection that Keaton played Batman 25 years ago wearing a mask that is almost identical to the one birdman wears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.252.205 (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's obvious, then it shouldn't need mentioning. And let's not forget that stating the obvious (such as "water is wet") is considered original research, and promptly deleted. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reception

We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.11 Arlington (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back to "universal acclaim" because that is the standard statement on Wikipedia for a film that has received the same level of reception. Yes, of course it has received a couple of bad reviews. Every film in history has. But as you said yourself, those reviews are in the minority and the precedent in this case is to say "universal acclaim". I won't object to you changing it to "near universal acclaim", but personally I don't think that is necessary. However, if you want to take out "universal" all together, you would have to go to WP:FILM because you're talking about something that goes beyond just this article. JDDJS (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see it, but I will when the chance comes, and make my own mind up. However, what I'm picking up on social media, if that's anything to go by, is extreme polarisation of the audience. Really extreme. At one end are huge numbers of comments such as "the worst movie ever made", "I walked out half way through", "completely incomprehensible and boring", "utter trash", and so on. At the other end are things like "brilliant", "loved it", "fantastic", and so on. The negative comments are easily outweighing the positive ones, at least in my own personal overview. I'm suspecting it will be a critical success but a commercial flop. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Should there be something added for the 2 notable negative reviews? I'm thinking especially of Scott Tobias' review for The Dissolve, where he called Iñaritú a "pretentious fraud". CVance1 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement that Rotten Tomatoes gives a rating of 93% appears to be incorrect and also confusing, given that another statement gives an average rating from them of 8.5/10. The 93% is actually the TOMATOMETER ( the percent of critics who have given a positive review), which is clearly not a rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.126.255 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Birdman actor.

How come the portrayal of "Birdman" is not credited on the page? Actor Benjamin Kanes physically portrayed Birdman on set and has some heavy scenes with Michael Keaton. I believe he should at least be added to the wikipedia page as "Young Birdman (uncredited)" at the bottom. Doesn't seem right to not credit the guy at least on here for the hard work he put in. 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If the role is uncredited, we'll need a source. If the role is significant, it's rather surprising that it is uncredited and pretty much beyond belief that it would be uncredited and not discussed in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this Slate review and this Hitfix article, the IP editor's facts check out. I'm inclined to support the addition of this. Sock (tock talk) 13:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Page splited

Guys, as you can see that I splited the Page and created new page for the list of accolades. It would be very nice of you, if you update the list when it is needed. 05:23, 18 December 2014‎ 2601:c:780:234:adda:7b97:6c75:f022

Are Riggan's powers imaginary?

I believe Riggan's superpowers are just in his head. Here's the evidence as I recall it:

• When Riggan is smashing his room up with telekinesis, he is discovered by Jake, who sees it just as a guy smashing his room up the old-fashioned way.
• You'd think Riggan flying through NYC with fireballs crashing around him would be noticed by someone.
• When Riggan arrives at the theatre after flying through NYC, the taxi driver complains that he hasn't paid his fare, implying that he was in the taxi the whole time.

However, I respect that this is all subject to interpretation, and I appreciate constructions like "we see Riggan apparently using telekinesis" or "we are shown Riggan using telekinesis" try to keep interpretation out of it. The problem with those constructions is they involve or imply an audience - "we are shown", "we see", "Riggan is shown (to the audience)" etc - and to my mind this is not a proper description of the plot; the audience is being shown things is not part of the plot. Is there a better way to do this? Popcornduff (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the page be changed to Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)?

I'm not sure if it should be; after all that is its full title. The Academy Awards are calling it by its full title as are many other ceremonies. Should it be changed? Skm989898 11:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is practically identical to Dr. Strangelove, which has maintaned the shortened title due to WP:SUBTITLE. Though technically under the naming conventions for books, we use this to apply to other mediums such as films as well. You can open a requested move if you like, but I suspect others will present the same argument. Sock (tock talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot section (open ending)

An user revert my edit, saying that what I wrote was not important; actually, I think is important to fully understand the movie ending or at least to try to explain it, because before in the movie Birdman talk about "screeching", saying to Riggan: "And the next time you screech...it'll explode into millions of eardrums". So, when i wrote "She looks down at the street, then, hearing a bird of prey screeching, up at the sky, and smiles", my purpose was to point out that "sounding hint" and support who think daughter sees her father flying in the sky, for real or in a symbolic way doesn't matter. Sorry about my english, thanks. --95.236.18.49 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Post-production / Special Effects

I noticed this page has no section on post-production or special effects. Here's a good article to use to start this section. - Richiekim (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What???

"After Sam visits Riggan, he dismisses Birdman and sees birds then climbs onto the window ledge."

Sam "dismisses" Birdman? What does that mean?

Sam sees birds? What? Pigeons on the windowsill?

Sam climbs out onto the window ledge? Doesn't seem likely, especially since he comes back in in the next sentence.

Does Sam flip off Riggan AKA Birdman? Does Riggan/Birdman see things? Does he hallucinate birds?

Context indicates that Riggan probably is the one who climbs onto the window ledge and it sounds like he turns into Birdman and flies away.

Not havng seen the movie I can't even begin to guess how to straighten this would-be sentence out.P0M (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam is a she. It's Riggan who dismisses Birdman by saying "Fuck you" to him. After that Riggan sees birds flying close by. He opens the window and climbs onto the windowsill. --URunICon (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Conception and writing

I saw User:Neuroxic reverted my copy edit of the Production section, saying I had "butchered" it. I beg to differ - I only removed stuff that didn't need to be there. The standing version is overwritten.

Case in point - there is no advantage to using this paragraph:

"The film's ending was also changed halfway through filming. González Iñárritu strongly disliked the original ending, and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after it came to him in a dream. When questioned about the original ending however, he explained he would never describe it because it was "so embarrassing." Dinelaris later leaked the ending though, noting it was set in the theatre instead of the hospital, and involved Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room. They would not have been able to shoot this version anyway, since Depp wasn't available."

When this paragraph covers all the relevant points in fewer words:

"The film's ending was changed halfway through filming; the original ending would have involved actor Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room. González Iñárritu found this ending "embarrassing" and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after a new ending came to him in a dream."

(If you think some of the details I removed here are necessary, they can be easily re-added without bloating it.)

There are other weird points in the standing text. Three examples grabbed at random:

• "he did not want to approach a subject tragically again". This means Iñárritu was tragic, not that he approached the film as a tragedy.
• "González Iñárritu strongly disliked the original ending, and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after 'it' came to him in a dream." - the second "it" in this sentence refers to "the original ending", which obviously isn't the intention.
• missing citations - eg the quote '"What this film talks about, I have been through. I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."'

Yes, I saw the peer review of this section before I edited it, but a positive peer review doesn't mean an article can't still be improved. The research and organisation of the information is fantastic, but the copy can be better. Popcornduff (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and no one replied to this, so I've restored my edit. Popcornduff (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Yeah my bad, although I'm busy now I should have at least checked it since then. I still think that as removing a topic sentence from a paragraph in the name of redundancy is laughable, and asking for citations even though all the relevant citations are there (perhaps you didn't read through the interviews yourself but if you did, you'd see that after any quote, the subsequent citation cites the quote) is silly, but there's also a bunch of subtle points that you've edited out completely. This said, the fact that you misinterpreted some of the lines indicates that it's not as precise as it could be. When a have a couple of free days I'll rewrite the section (factoring in you're edits), so hopefully we can come to an agreement. But seriously, there's no need to delete topic sentences. Please don't. Neuroxic (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO it isn't obvious where certain claims come from; the reader shouldn't have to check through sources to find them. The section would benefit from more explicit citations, because there are bits where it's like "I don't see what source this particular claim is from".

Which topic sentences are you talking about? Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, yes, there details I edited out completely. For example, I removed the information in the example paragraph about how Depp wouldn't have been able to film the scene anyway as he wasn't available. This information is irrelevant, because once they've scrapped the ending conceptually, it doesn't matter that Depp wasn't available. (Edit: that's not to say some details can't be re-added, of course; I could have made the wrong call on some of them.) Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Birdman (film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Birdman (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 3 February 2009.
• From Crash (2004 film): "Crash (2005)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
• From 21 Grams: "21 Grams (2003)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved December 17, 2010.
• From The Deer Hunter: "The Deer Hunter, Box Office Information". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved May 26, 2014.
• From Shakespeare in Love: "Shakespeare in Love (1998)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 2012-02-19.
• From The Grand Budapest Hotel: "mojo". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 15 January 2015.
• From Traffic (2000 film): "Traffic (2000)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 2012-03-03.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rope

Much comment has been made of the illusion that the film was made in a single shot. Yet no one has remarked that Alfred Hitchcock did this more than 65 years ago. And let's not forget the opening of Touch of Evil. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you find sources comparing the two, feel free to add them. Plenty of people have noted the similarity to Rope, it just isn't especially relevant to this film. Sock (tock talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Conception and writing 2

@Popcornduff: Finally finding myself with some free time, I looked at your edits.

Let me just say, thank you very much. My first reply went too far, focusing on details you cut out instead of phrases you tidied.

Looking back on my original edits, I'm embarrassed to have written content with phrases such as "starts throwing and breaking everything" when, as you put it, the single word "destroys" describes the situation.

Similarly with "work on the script was done" being replaced with "the script was written", and essentially the same for the majority of edits you made. Like Riggan himself, I can be a prick when it comes to other people and something I'm involved in. I've learnt my lesson. Apologies!

This said, I think I understand why I used the b-word when I first undid your edits. Using the paragraph in the article about the writing process as an example, examine the following forms of information:

• With Iñárritu in Los Angeles, Giacobone and Bo in Buenos Aires, and Dinelaris in New York, the script was written mainly through emails and Skype calls.
• Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were "cracking each other up."
• Incorporating the one-shot feature into the script made the writing process more involved than usual.

AND

With Iñárritu in Los Angeles, Giacobone and Bo in Buenos Aires, and Dinelaris in New York, the script was written mainly through emails and Skype calls. Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were "cracking each other up." Incorporating the one-shot feature into the script made the writing process more involved than usual.

The only difference between these are the dot points, and in my view, I don't distinguish a paragraph and list of dot points by the dot points alone. This is why I originally included (now adjusted) phrases such as "This wasn't necessarily bad however" in the paragraph, to try and give the reader, amongst other things, a smoother experience. Countless times I look at an article and I feel all I'm reading is a list of facts without the dot points, instead of paragraphs, and I think the fear that what I had written was going to become a list of dot points made be give such a vitriolic reply.

Anyway, I hope my latest version of the section is fine with you. If it isn't please let me know! I agree with the majority of phrasing changes you made, but conjecture that the largest point of contention you may have with my latest edit is the amount of detail on the film's ending.

Honestly, I laughed out loud (and I still burst into chuckles to this day) when I found out about the film's original ending, (btw, in that moment the film also instantly became even more awesome in my books) and I certainly feel that others who didn't know about it would have a similar reaction. And if this isn't a way to engage a reader then I don't know what is. Also, the meaning behind the film's ending was heavily discussed, which I think increases it's importance.

Neuroxic (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked at your talk page. I think the reason I really identified with Riggan is because I'm a prick. You know what you're doing with regards to editing, don't be discouraged by my previous comments: ignore them. It was just a case of someone making a bunch of assumptions and not taking the proper amount of time to consider feedback. Neuroxic (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about my user page, I didn't write that because of our disagreement, so don't feel bad. Believe me, you're not the first person to revert my copy edits, and you're not even the first person to use the word "butcher". I thought that if I wrote that, it might encourage embittered Wikipedia editors to take a deep breath before blindly reverting.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to consider my version properly! I really do appreciate it, and I wish more editors took your coolheaded approach. No one likes being edited.

I understand your desire to connect up individual facts into nice readable prose. That's definitely a good thing, and I might have damaged that in my edit, because I wasn't the guy trying to stitch them into a narrative in the first place. (It's the kind of thing that gets lost in translation.)

... but I still see a lot of things in your new version that I don't think are necessary. Sorry. :(

"The screenwriters were concerned about the one-shot nature of the film however, and their first reaction was to tell him the movie couldn't work."

Most of the first part of the sentence is implied by the second part. You could simplify this just as "The screenwriters' first reaction was to tell him the continuous-shot premise could not work." that way we know they're concerned about the premise.

"Other people objected too; according to Dinelaris and Giacobone "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,"

Again, the first part is implied by the second. Maybe these are what you meant by "topic sentences" before, but really the topic is introduced elegantly enough just by removing everything before the semicolon.

"The screenwriters didn't regard this style of groupwork as bad however:"

There is nothing here to suggest that the screenwriters might have disliked this writing style, or to suggest it would be bad. You certainly don't need to say it when you follow it with "Dinelaris said he believed the best ideas in Birdman came from Skype sessions at two in the morning where he and Giacobone were 'cracking each other up'" which shows that the writing process was obviously productive and enjoyable.

"As a result, it took about a year and a half to complete the final draft"

No information is added by "as a result" - it follows from the previous information.

About the original ending idea: it's not important that the director said he'd never reveal the ending when it was then almost immediately revealed by his cowriter - what's important is that he found it embarrassing and didn't like it. Likewise, when we describe the ending itself, we don't need to say it was set in the theatre and not the hospital when we also say it was set in Riggan's dressing room, which is obviously in the theatre and not the hospital.

Anyway, I'll leave you to take what you want from my suggestions, and maybe one day I'll come back to it again, who knows. Remember, Wikipedia makes dicks of us all. Popcornduff (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems we disagree on a few things. This is good!

I've tried to incorporate what you said into the section, but there are some bits I don't want to budge on. This said, you're more experienced in this area, so even after this rationale if you think you're in the right, go ahead and make the changes.

You'll notice for several edits (especially your first suggestion) I essentially turned the sentence around. I strangely feel it's less repetitive this way. But maybe I'm just in that middle stage of that fabulous passage from Roth's The Ghost Writer where the writer Lonoff describes his job:

"I turn sentences around. That's my life. I write a sentence and then I turn it around. I look at it and then I turn it around again. Then I have lunch. Then I come back in and write another sentence. Then I have tea and turn the new sentence around. Then I read the two sentences over and turn them both around. Then I lie down on my sofa and think. Then I get up and throw them out and start from the beginning."

As for the phrase "As a result" I feel it should be kept in. Without it, to me the line just feels like an appended fact. I think it's smoother with a few words before it, but as I said, if you think the writing is better without it, please edit it out.

I included the "theatre instead of the hospital" line because I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the setting had changed, and make sure the reader understood the original ending didn't include the theater and the hospital too. Again, if you think this is going to be obvious to most people, please change it.

Neuroxic (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Classical music in score

This seems to be the details. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing classical music pieces

Hi Metalsand. As noted on the page history, I reverted your edit.

It's a tough one though. Your point is good, in that the actual pieces are not mentioned anywhere on the page. The page did include them previously: before I wrote the music section, the page was essentially just a list of them. Clearly, this was in violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but more than that, the old version of the music section was ignoring the largest part of the score, Sánchez's drumming.

The reason I reverted your edit was because the name of a piece looks out of place. When I was wrote the section, I continuously debated with myself whether I should include the names of the pieces or not. In the end, I came to the conclusion that if I was to name one piece, I would have to name them all, and there were simply too many classical music pieces to do this for. There certainly isn't information on the web as to why each was chosen - indeed, as G. Iñárritu said, the particular choice of them wasn't important. (But personally I'm sceptial on this point. For example, surely the fact that music featuring pizzicato was used in the scene where Sam and Mike make out to directly coinside with the imagery of ropes in the background, but I digress.)

This isn't to say that the list of the pieces shouldn't be found on Wikipedia at all, I just feel it isn't suitable to list them here.

The place to put them would be a separate article of the soundtrack of the film. Many FA articles on films have them, see for instance Prometheus and Sense and Sensibility. (The classical music pieces would be included, by default, under the Track listing section.)

Of course, it will take more than a few hours to flesh out the page (I'd estimate ~ 15h including research for the production and reception sections, but you could easily make a minimial page in ~5 h.), but if you really feel our article needs it, I say go and make Birdman (soundtrack)

Neuroxic (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Micro peer review

Good job on the article, particularly the critical reception section, however, the plot is poorly written. Could someone step up and rewrite it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Popcornduff (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with it. Let me reiterate: I like this article, and I respect the work people have put into it. But the plot section really fails the reader. To start with, it avoids and glosses over the central conflict between Riggan, his ex-wife, his daughter, and his girlfriend, or in other words, his failure as a husband, a father, and a lover, and how this connects with the plot. That's just to start. I haven't even addressed the repetitive prose style in the first paragraph which makes me want to stop reading. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Hello. I know it's been a while since you posted this, but I tend to agree. It's not great prose by any means; we've seen better (for instance see the plot sections of Ruby2010's articles (eg Pride & Prejudice), I consider these to be quite good), but note even in these there is no discussion of themes.

The plot section isn't really the place for the discussion of these kinds of things: most well-written articles discuss such aspects in a separate themes and analysis section. I do plan to write one, but only after I've improved existing aspects of the article, with the exception of the plot. (I've found for film articles the section that gets the most attention is precisely the plot, (see for instance The Grand Budapest Hotel) so am happy to let other people fuss over it while I write sections that wouldn't otherwise get attention.) Regardless, keep in mind that the scope of such a themes section won't be on the scale of, say, the Romeo and Juliet article, simply because it hasn't been studied as much. This said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least something written or discussed about Riggan's flaws. It's just a matter of digging it up.

So, while the plot discussion does not discuss a character's traits and the connection with the plot, it doesn't mean it won't be included: it'll just appear in a different place. As regards to the repetitiveness, well, I've already said the plot is the last section of the article I'll work on, (only when the rest of the article is up to FA standard will I take a look) but if you think you can rewrite it in an interesting and informative manner, (while of course adhering to MOS:FILM) I say go ahead. Neuroxic (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birdman (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've spent the past few days observing this article and can't really find anything wrong with it without nitpicking (only major one being seeing visual effects is only one sentence, may as well merge it with another section).

Final verdict: pass. Rusted AutoParts 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Rusted AutoParts: If you think the article passed the GAN, you need to finalized the decision and close it according to the GA review criteria. If the article has any issues, please let me know and I'll address those. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Pass/Fail: Rusted AutoParts 12:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Keaton

There's the obvious connection between the main character and the actor cast for the role that many reviews mention. Both once have played a superhero in films and have ever since tried to get away from it, with little success (to a point that many say their career has died). Hence, it would certainly add to the article if more of Keaton's own opinions regarding his role and that of all people he has been cast in it could be sourced and added, maybe even what he thinks on whether the role is a good or accurate reflection of his own career, how he perceives it and how he feels about it (i. e., does he feel about it in a similar way as does the character). Only a short blurb on behalf of the director that Keaton was a late choice but once he was considered was the obvious choice, and that Keaton asked him whether he was "making fun of him", just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

Also, now that a single-shot film has won the Academy Award for Best Picture, I think it's about time for a Wikipedia list (maybe also a WP category) of feature films that are or appear to be made in a single shot. So far, all we have is single shot cinematography, which is but a re-direct to long take, where single-shot films are only mentioned in passing. --80.187.106.216 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The ending writing process

Comments on an old revision:

Additional text:

Following the Academy Award win for the film, the director and writers presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release.[12] The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting Johnny Depp as filming yet another installment of the Pirates of the Carribean franchise. Iñárritu grew to strongly dislike the original ending, calling it "so embarrassing", and rewrote it with Dinelaris and Giacobone after a new ending came to him in a dream.[13][14] Iñárritu was reluctant to describe the original ending but it was leaked by Dinelaris. He said the original ending was set in the theatre instead of the hospital, and involved Johnny Depp sitting in Riggan's dressing room.[15]

As stated by co-author Dinelaris, the old ending was to "... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that.”[16] The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film.[13][17][18]

My comments:

"Following the Academy Award win for the film," - the film won multiple Academy Awards, not one. Are you referring to a specific one?

"...presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release." - some repetition: if an ending was replaced, then by definition the new one will be included in the film. Also "...ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed" is incorrect; the ending didn't change from the film's premier in Venice to release in the US.

"The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting..." - this is too long. A shorter statement like "The original ending intended to parody Riggan's Birdman films by depicting..." would be better, but what follows is incorrect anyway. In the original ending Depp wasn't actually filming A Pirates of the Carribean film, but rather finding himself at the same position in life that Riggan was.

"As stated by co-author Dinelaris" - anyone whose read through the section this far knows Dinelaris is a co-author. The phrase "As stated by Dinelaris" is fine.

"... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that." - this is quite long. Are you sure it's essential to include this quote, and not simply explain it in words?

"The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film." - this seems to suggest that the main reason they changed the ending was to leave it highly ambiguous, but this was not true. The writers came up with another ending, and realized the original they had was silly.

Just remember, writing is hard work! When I was writing the post-production section I spent on average two days writing each paragraph, research time included. Writing's something you get better at it with time though, so don't let my comments dissuade you from contributing. MusicAngels (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Neuroxic (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article you have written was delisted because of defects enumerated at the last review of your article and your issues with poor research WP:OR. But don't worry as other editors at Wikipedia might be able collectively to repair the WP:OR issues in your writing which have been enumerated by the previous reviewing editor concerning these identified issues in your writing. MusicAngels (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:Please note: I was one of the people who requested it to be delisted! As far as I'm concerned, it should have never been nominated for GA status, since as I mentioned there's still several sections of the article that are underdeveloped.

As regard to the WP:OR, I take offense that you claim that my research was poor. As I wrote in the GA reassessment,

"I think it fair to say that anyone who is researching a topic will have come across conflicting sources at some stage, and Birdman is no different."

The reason people were having trouble with the reliability of the sources is that several said different things about some facts, mainly because the authors of some of the sources weren't precise about the details. Just because a source isn't precise about a single claim doesn't mean it should be discounted altogether, just that it should only be cited for claims that it is precise and reliable about.

People (just looking at a few sources that were imprecise about filming dates) were then confused as to why the article said something different. (Although, notice that the citation I used for the claim "St. James Theatre was used for two weeks; it was the location for the stage scenes" says that they filmed at St. James Theatre on 44th Street for two weeks! Bizarrely, some of the other people commenting in the reassessment didn't seem to realize this, but just assumed overall the article was poorly cited.)

If you're still concerned about the accuracy of my citations, the easiest way to verify this would be to read, in full, the twenty or so sources dealing with the writing AND rehearsal and filming; you'll note that whenever there's an interview with the director or someone closely involved the details are sometimes different to the general claims made by other publications.

But please, don't jump to conclusions before you've read the article and verify the citations, otherwise you're wasting your time and mine. Neuroxic (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Preparations for GA renomination

The current version of the article has been delisted at the last GA review due to issues with the writing and issues with WP:OR which have been listed in the review. There are also several sections and oversights which appear to be missing in the current delisted article which should be addressed by editors prior to renomination of the page for peer review.

(1) A separate section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending is strongly indicated based on the sheer number of articles written in the press covering themes related to the highly ambiguous ending of the film. The previous author of this article has apparently negative feelings about this important issue. First the author suggested integrating the material into the Writing section, then the author seemed to want to delete it for personal reasons. Which one is it? The material as covered in the press is both interesting and informative to read. It should be included in the article if the article is to be renominated for peer review.

(2) The discussion in the press of the Resolution of the ambiguous ending has gone into dozens of articles in the press and is not covered at all in the current delisted version of the article. There are at least 10-12 different theories which have been discussed in press articles and press reviews of the film, including comments from the director and the writers, which are not covered at all in the current article. To name just two or three of these theories, there is the debate as to whether Riggan dies at the end or survives; another theory suggests that he turns into Birdman; yet another theory suggests that the final scene is set in a dreamscape and has no tangible reality outside of imagination. The author of the delisted version of this article has not included a section covering any of these theories. The author of the delisted article has apparently selected only one of the plot lines for personal reasons and incorporated only this one plot line into the Plot summary contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is WP:OR and the article was delisted because of this. The ambiguities in the plot were intentionally written into the plot by the director and the writers of the film as they have maintained over and over again.

(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.

(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.

(5) The current ending of the Plot makes a WP:OR assertion that there is some relationship with the birds outside of the hospital room. This is not the ending of the film and it is really a push to present this as important enough to claim as the conclusion. The conclusion involves Samantha looking out the window at the horizon. No embellishement is needed here. The original research in the delisted version should be removed.

(6) The prologue to the film is completely missing. There is a very clear and prominent prologue to the film which has been completely ignored by the previous author of this section. It starts with a quotation of Carver which sets the mood of the film, and then cuts to a dramatic shot apparently in the upper atmosphere of an atmospheric disturbance. Some reviewers have commented prominently about this prologue, though the current Plot section ignores it fully.

(7) Virtually everyone associated with the film from the director, to the writers, to the main cast, and to the supporting cast, seem to have given interviews on Talk shows and multiple video link interviews on the internet stating that the film is about the downward spiral of the emotional and mental health of Riggan leading to his end. Neither the emotional decline nor the mental health decline of Riggan is covered in this Wikipedia article with the degree of coverage which has been given to this topic in the press and in Talk show interviews. The material should be covered in the current article with more importance, with more promienence.

(8) A complete rewrite of the plot section should be undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the GAR review which delisted this article in its current form. Several sections appear to be missing such as a section concerning the Deletion and replacement of the ending, as well as a section covering extensive discussion in the press and criticism of the Interpretations of the ambiguous ending.

Addressing these issues should help to start preparing the article for renomination to GA peer review status. MusicAngels (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels: First, note that I have nothing to do with the plot section: I've only written the production section. I really don't care about what the plot says at this stage (except if some part of it stands out for the wrong reasons, as your addition did); only when it's time for FA assessment will I rewrite it myself. I don't actually think the plot section is engaging at all, as I've said before on this page.

As regard to your point (3) above, the plot section would not be an appropriate place to do this. If you haven't already read WP:FILMPLOT, please do. Similarly, it would be grossly inappropriate to carry out your point (4). Instead, create a new section entitled 'Themes and Analysis' to include your discussion of the father and daughter relationship, the unresolved plot lines, the ending, the significance of the prologue, etc.

At the end of the day, if you do decide to add extra content:

• just make sure you're adding it to the appropriate sections (that means reading the MOS descriptions for each section, and checking out other FAs on film) if you're unsure,
• and when you do add content write it to the best of your ability. Neuroxic (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Neuroxic: You appear to not be following the Wikipedia process for Talk page discussion and refraining from editing the article page until you have established consensus for your position on the Talk page. You appear to be serially reverting text which is in agreement with the delisting editor who identified issues with your writing and issues with your research WP:OR. If you have miscounted, then note that you have been informed that you have serially reverted text three times at this point, and that you do not appear to be making any constructive refinements to the text. You ought to be following BRD guidelines the same as all other editors at Wikipedia and not be making serial reverts. MusicAngels (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The article still reads "Following the Academy Award win for the film". Since Birdman won multiple awards, this is incorrect, as I outlined in my comments above. I say again, please read them. If you don't agree with a suggested change please discuss it with me. Neuroxic (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixing typo to plural "wins". MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

After adding the section break in Plot it again occurred to me that the prologue to the film is still entirely missing. My first thought was to include the full Carver quote and make very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance shot before Riggan's levitation scene, both of which were important to the director. My second thought was that maybe a short summary of the Carver quote would be enough with a very short mention of the atmospheric disturbance. If you have strong feelings for the one option or the other then you might try to place your version of the prologue to the film in the Plot section. I do not think that it should be ignored in the Plot section which currently excludes it since it was important to the director. MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Items three and four

(3) The unresolved plot lines of the film need to be preserved in a rewrite of the Plot section in accordance with the choices made by the director and writers, and which they have defended in public interviews. Unresolved plot lines is well known as a technique and approach favored by the director in his other films from Amour perros onward. The ambiguities of the ending along with the unresolved plot lines need to be included in an upgraded version of the Plot section which was delisted bcause of WP:OR as covered above.

(4) The writer and directors have spoken about the central significance of the father and daughter relationship in the film, which is currently only glancingly covered in the current version of the article. Samantha's role, the daughter, needs to be substantially strengthened in the Plot section to reflect the importance the directors and writers have associated with her role.

As regard to your point (3) above, the plot section would not be an appropriate place to do this. If you haven't already read WP:FILMPLOT, please do. Similarly, it would be grossly inappropriate to carry out your point (4). Instead, create a new section entitled 'Themes and Analysis' to include your discussion of the father and daughter relationship, the unresolved plot lines, the ending, the significance of the prologue, etc. (Reposting reply by Neuro).

My comment was to encourage the inclusion of some descriptive narrative of the father-daughter relationship as it appears and is shown in the film. The previous version of the Plot did not mention the encounter with the cell phone video replay at all. If you have a new version of the Plot section, this might be a good time to bring it forward. The discussion of the meaning or interpretation of the father-daughter relationship as discussed in the press would appear in the type of section which you titled 'Themes and Analysis' above. MusicAngels (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally, you're saying something that's making sense! I totally agree. Unfortuately, as I have said previously, I won't concern myself with the quality of the plot section until it's time for FA assessment time, (which is quite a while away) but please note that your paragraph is about 2.5 times as large as the others in the plot section, so it looks out of place. I'd suggest breaking it up.

Adding paragraph break. MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the other edits made to the Conception and writing section, I still stand by my view that your additions are poorly written, BUT (as I hoped you noticed when I first started reverting your edits) I have suggested changes to make them better. Please, please, please look at these. If I spent time writing them for you, I'd appreciate it if you looked at them.

If you have a tweak then suggest it here. The quote from the writer is important though, since he broke with the director about releasing this information to the public. Keep in mind that the current article is "B"-class and still needs basic road work to be done. Revising editors generally know that eventually going for GA renom can be a heavy revision editing process. For the moment, the attention being devoted is doing the preliminary road work on the "B"-class article which usually pays off in the long run when the GA renom edits will then start to take place. MusicAngels (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:Grrrrr, I prefer it if you knew how to scroll up or use a search function on your browser, but for your benefit I'll repeat my comments here anyway. I've crossed out and ticked the fixes so far.

• "Following the Academy Award win for the film," - the film won multiple Academy Awards, not one. Are you referring to a specific one? Y

• "...presented several interviews concerning the original ending being dropped and replaced by the highly ambiguous ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed upon release." - some repetition: if an ending was replaced, then by definition the new one will be included in the film. Also "...ending which was finally included in the film as it was distributed" is incorrect; the ending didn't change from the film's premier in Venice to release in the US. Y

Text shortened. MusicAngels (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Further shortened. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The original ending was intended to include a dark humor parody of the Riggan's Birdman Trilogy by cutting to a closing scene depicting..." - this is too long. A shorter statement like "The original ending intended to parody Riggan's Birdman films by depicting..." would be better, but what follows is incorrect anyway. In the original ending Depp wasn't actually filming A Pirates of the Carribean film, but rather finding himself at the same position in life that Riggan was. Y

Text shortened. MusicAngels (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Further shortened, and corrected details according the source cited for the sentence. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "As stated by co-author Dinelaris" - anyone whose read through the section this far knows Dinelaris is a co-author. The phrase "As stated by Dinelaris" is fine. Y

Your wording now. MusicAngels (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• "... get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting, looking in the mirror, putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of Pirates of the Caribbean 5 would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice, the poster asks Depp, ‘What the f— are we doing here, mate?’ and it was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that." - this is quite long. Are you sure it's essential to include this quote, and not simply explain it in words?

Its kind of important that the director and writer differed on making this story of the ending go public. If there was no difference between them then maybe your thought would work. The quote itself is actually not that bad. MusicAngels (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I thought the first part of the quote didn't need to be in quote form, so I put this in words. I left the main part quoted though. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The director and co-authors came to favor the approach of not resolving all the plot points of the film in the closing scene and leaving them in the intentionally highly ambiguous ending as depicted in the distributed version of the film." - this seems to suggest that the main reason they changed the ending was to leave it highly ambiguous, but this was not true. The writers came up with another ending, and realized the original they had was silly.

One of the ambiguities which the director wanted to preserve was did Riggan live or die. Another ambiguity was whether his daughter had any affection left for him at the end. The director said he disliked the original ending and it makes sense to take him at his word. A comedic ending was completely ruled out. MusicAngels (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote what you said in my own words; obviously if you think it's missing something add as necessary. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope these comments help in improving the additions. Neuroxic (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your comments make sense, and discussion is a plus. MusicAngels (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read them! I've gone through and edited them some more, but overall I'm happy with them now. Note that because of the repetition in two of the paragraphs, it made sense to take out the repetitious details and combine them. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)